Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What People Are Saying About GNOME [Part 1]

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by numasan View Post
    You sound like a troll. What you say mirrors Phoronix beautifully. Sure The H have short aggregated news items, but generally the quality of their writing and features, even "quoted items", are of a much higher quality than here. Original content on Phoronix are few and far between (forget automated benchmark graphs) and those that are is typically self-serving or sensationalist ("STEAM for Linux!!11").

    nzjrs is right.
    Have you actually read their "features"? They are just as prone as writing negative article as any other site. For example:

    http://www.h-online.com/open/feature...n-1340020.html

    H-online doesn't bother doing any testing of their own and rely heavily on user submitted news tips or scraping off of others. It is really nice when you have writers that have the time to report others findings instead of doing a bit of actual investigation for themselves. Their forum activity (or complete lack of) doesn't show a whole lot. Why? Because most of the stuff H-Online is pulled from other sources that do the actual work and summarizes it. Keep in mind that Michael is a one man show for the most part. Not only is he doing the benching, writing, researching, developing for Phoronix but he also has his other 'lives' of running his company and holy crap maybe he can fit in a bit of a personal life in there as well time permitting. Have you guys ever once noticed that articles (usually multiple in a day) often posted for what would be really early in the morning or really really really late at night for him? Cut the man some slack. Have any of you guys even ever tried submitting an article to Michael? It's real easy to bitch about someone's elses work but offer nothing back in aid to change the situation.

    Comment


    • #32
      Word cloud please!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by cruiseoveride View Post
        Word cloud please!
        Now there is one heck of a suggestion.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          Keep in mind that Michael is a one man show for the most part. Not only is he doing the benching, writing, researching, developing for Phoronix but he also has his other 'lives' of running his company and holy crap maybe he can fit in a bit of a personal life in there as well time permitting. Have you guys ever once noticed that articles (usually multiple in a day) often posted for what would be really early in the morning or really really really late at night for him? Cut the man some slack. Have any of you guys even ever tried submitting an article to Michael? It's real easy to bitch about someone's elses work but offer nothing back in aid to change the situation.
          As a one-man show guy who works in pretty much same conditions to another one-man show guy: as far as excuses go, this one is rather lame.

          Once again, the first article on the subject was a piece of opinionated crap that was clearly designed from ground up to cause a lot of turmoil. It was way below the quality level that I've grown to know Phoronix for.

          After lots of complaints we got article number two which basically boils down to this: "So you didn't like just negative stuff? Fine! Eat this 1K of unmoderated comments to the survey and now you have no right to say I'm biased." This exactly what it reads like, planned or not planned.

          Being neck-deep in work has nothing to do with attitude. And as far as i can tell it really is the attitude that causes all the negative comments here in the forum. I hope you can cope with that.

          Simply put, nobody forces people to read Phoronix, but if you open a forum and allow people to comment on stuff you publish, you will get your bit of negative comments either way. Whether they are constructive and whether you can deal with constructive critisim is an entirely different matter.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
            As a one-man show guy who works in pretty much same conditions to another one-man show guy: as far as excuses go, this one is rather lame.
            So is trying to compare a site with multiple staff to another with a staff of one who actually generates and researches his own content instead of relying on the work of others.

            Once again, the first article on the subject was a piece of opinionated crap that was clearly designed from ground up to cause a lot of turmoil. It was way below the quality level that I've grown to know Phoronix for.

            After lots of complaints we got article number two which basically boils down to this: "So you didn't like just negative stuff? Fine! Eat this 1K of unmoderated comments to the survey and now you have no right to say I'm biased." This exactly what it reads like, planned or not planned.

            Being neck-deep in work has nothing to do with attitude. And as far as i can tell it really is the attitude that causes all the negative comments here in the forum. I hope you can cope with that.

            Simply put, nobody forces people to read Phoronix, but if you open a forum and allow people to comment on stuff you publish, you will get your bit of negative comments either way. Whether they are constructive and whether you can deal with constructive critisim is an entirely different matter.
            Here is the thing, when questionnaire is not presented in a multiple static choice form the only real useful data is from the actual comments as they were worded. The comments cover a broad range of items which there is just one major theme to most of the "need more configuration options" but very few of them are identical as to what those options are. With multiple choice questionnaires you are left with very vague data without any reasoning behind it unless it is extremely lengthy and detailed. As far as the "attitude" goes the articles reflect why there is "attitude" in the respondents own words. You cannot get any clearer of representation from any other source. It really sounds the biggest gripers about the articles are the ones that had their conspiracy theory disillusioned.
            Last edited by deanjo; 10-25-2011, 09:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              Have you actually read their "features"? They are just as prone as writing negative article as any other site. For example:

              http://www.h-online.com/open/feature...n-1340020.html

              H-online doesn't bother doing any testing of their own and rely heavily on user submitted news tips or scraping off of others. It is really nice when you have writers that have the time to report others findings instead of doing a bit of actual investigation for themselves. Their forum activity (or complete lack of) doesn't show a whole lot. Why? Because most of the stuff H-Online is pulled from other sources that do the actual work and summarizes it. Keep in mind that Michael is a one man show for the most part. Not only is he doing the benching, writing, researching, developing for Phoronix but he also has his other 'lives' of running his company and holy crap maybe he can fit in a bit of a personal life in there as well time permitting. Have you guys ever once noticed that articles (usually multiple in a day) often posted for what would be really early in the morning or really really really late at night for him? Cut the man some slack. Have any of you guys even ever tried submitting an article to Michael? It's real easy to bitch about someone's elses work but offer nothing back in aid to change the situation.
              Yes, I usually read most of their features. I don't get your example, what is wrong with a "negative article"? Why should they do testing of their own, it is not a benchmarking site. You seem sure they pull stuff directly from other sources (hey it's the internet..) can you point me to a direct example, and what does it have to do with their own features and writing style? So Michael paraphrasing stuff from mailing lists and press releases are different how?

              Yes Phoronix is a one man show and he posts a lot of "articles", but quantity != quality. What was the point of this info-dump of his? He could have delivered a far more insightful article with this unique opportunity, thinking about what to do/write about this data until the survey is over. I would personally prefer to read only 2-3 decent articles per week on Phoronix, than Michael stressing him self out pumping out irrelevant stuff for page views. We shouldn't cut him some slack, he should cut himself some slack.

              Comment


              • #37
                Time to cook 30 mins

                Distributions are where the main problem exists.

                Mint includes Gnome 3 because they aren't capable of maintaining Gnome 2 with all the changes that have been made to GTK, Pango, etc.
                Debian will include Gnome 3 and remove Gnome 2 same reason as Mint.
                Fedora...

                Fragmentation:
                Too many revisions will fragment your userbase:
                Distrowatch
                1 Ubuntu 2236 2000 Gnome 2.x users, 50 Unity users, the rest unknown.
                2 Mint 2097 All running Gnome 2.x
                3 Fedora 1669 1000 Fedora 4 users running Gnome 2.0, 69 Fedora 7 users Gnome 2.1, 10 Fedora 16 users disgruntled about Gnome 3
                4 Debian 1313 1200 Debian Squeeze users, 13 Sid users running Lxde, and 5 blackbox users.
                5 Arch 1239 1200 KDE 4.7 users, 39 console users still waiting for it to install over 3 MBit connection
                6 openSUSE 1233 1233 Kde 3.5 users.

                Remember back with ubuntu 8. You could change the login screens and themes very easily.
                Now, who knows!!!
                I gave up trying to customize Gnome 2.4,5,6,... Unity will be great... Big icon for Excel. Big icon for Firefox.
                I still think it just sitting on top of Gnome 3 though.

                good night, good fight.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  Have you actually read their "features"? They are just as prone as writing negative article as any other site. For example:

                  http://www.h-online.com/open/feature...n-1340020.html
                  lolwut?

                  Did you read that article. It is a very even handed treatment of a complicated situation.

                  I would love if phoronix kernel articles were similarly written.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by numasan View Post
                    He could have delivered a far more insightful article with this unique opportunity, thinking about what to do/write about this data until the survey is over.
                    It really sounds like you have not actually read the comments. The comments while full of useful comments that while most of them concentrate on usability and configurability vary greatly with ideas of a better implementation. Many (if not most) of the comments offer alternative ways of how these implementations can be done. This data to developers (as well as enthusiasts) offers far more useful information then a brief blurb saying something along the likes.

                    The feedback seems to have a trend that people want more configuration and usability enhancements
                    What is important is finding out what specifically irks people about the product, how they think it should be handled and what would make it more appealing to them. You can have 50 million people think XYZ should be handled like ZYX and then all of a sudden one voice in the crowd makes an alternative suggestion and then everybody starts thinking "Hey that is a better way".

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      So is trying to compare a site with multiple staff to another with a staff of one who actually generates and researches his own content instead of relying on the work of others.
                      Agreed.

                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      Here is the thing, when questionnaire is not presented in a multiple static choice form the only real useful data is from the actual comments as they were worded.
                      Which alone is a reason to ask the question, whether it was so unforgivable from GNOME developers to not run exactly this survey.

                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      As far as the "attitude" goes the articles reflect why there is "attitude" in the respondents own words.
                      Surely I wasn't referring to attitude of the people who participated in the survey

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Actually, the writer of that article seems to be Thorsten Leemhuis, who also writes the kernel log for heise.de, which is by the way on a much higher journalistic level than most things posted here (and often contains things not reported here).

                        On a subjective level, when I came to phoronix around three years ago, this site's attitude was completely different. Maybe it's work nagging away at the owner, or too little income, or whatever, but my feeling is that the articles have become a lot more shallow, a lot more sensationalistic, probably in the attempt to generate more revenue, and a lot less professional (seriously, who cares if you like to drink beer? put it on a blog or something or join proud alcoholists).

                        I mean, I actually end up reading (actually reading, not skipping through after realising it's a load of crap written just to attract people) around 10% of the articles here. I don't read the benchmarks as I don't care for them, I don't read the weekly 'the wine team has just had another dump', I don't read the packages version updates which I get from distrowatch and other sources, and there are countless other categories I don't even go into. For me, this site's relevance has dropped to about a tenth of what it was three years ago, and I don't imagine I'm the only one.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          My question is why is it only Michael running the show? If these other websites could get other staff, why can't Larabel? I am speaking from a perspective of complete ignorance of what's going on behind the scenes I know, but I would think just getting one other guy to handle some of the news posts could improve the site and Larabel's life significantly... and if he needs more money for that, well, maybe cut out some of the trips? Do we really need every conference covered personally?

                          As far as attitude goes, it is not my website and I can not really tell him how to write it, but it is true that I started reading Phoronix because it was a lot more positive than some other websites. Now it is mostly force of habit and also for very specialized information (graphics drivers) that is hard to find anywhere else. If there was another website offering similar information in a more productive and up beat manner, I would probably switch to it. As it stands, Phoronix is still the best source for what I want, and Micheal should get credit for that. But that does not mean it could not be made better or even easier for Michael himself.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by liam View Post
                            I really don't know why some people are so angry about Gnome that they felt compelled to answer the survey even though: 1)they clearly aren't users (and haven't been for a long time) and 2)have fundamental problems with gnome, yet ask that gnome change its core identity (something that is unreasonable to expect).
                            I don't like some of the choices (or rather non-choices) KDE has made but I don't spam every KDE thread just b/c it doesn't suit my taste. Their, and to be fair, it's not just them and it isn't all KDE users obviously, comments are simply noise and make this sort of survey less useful. The reason I say this is b/c their were far too many instances of toolkit fanboys asking the unreasonable and that just isn't useful.
                            For those who complain about GS being too heavy on reasources, how much ram/cpu is it using on your pc? On mine, GS uses around 115MB, and that doesn't seem bad considering what is included in that space. Hell, synapse (the launcher) uses more memory. If you compare it to XFCE/LXDE you aren't comparing comparable DEs b/c the later simply don't offer as much by default (or even with heavy configuration, since THAT developer is as bad as some of the gnome devs).
                            There were some good criticisms, I thought. Documentation was one I completely forgot about mentioning. The addition of more online accounts (I've read the mailing lists so I know why they went with only Google, but that doesn't mean that it SHOULDN'T be the central place for applications to register their online activities). Mutter needs to remember where windows were placed and their size. Really, mutter needs more "intelligence". You can remove options and make things stark IF the DE adapts to you. Right now you have to adapt to it and the flow, for me, isn't ideal, and I've been using it for nearly 2 years. I would like to see some learning algorithms put into place (using HASKELL!!!!--sure it needn't be haskell, but that including a FPL would be a nice thing for a desktop).
                            I would second this. I'm not clear as to why GS should be something other than GS. Gnome 2's workflow can be found in well Gnome 2 and then there's the fall back mode in GS. You also have XFCE and KDE.

                            GS is application centric. Meaning that whatever application you are running is often times more important than what's happening in the panel or on the desktop (you can't see it anyway). Even in G2, once the novelty wore off of playing with various applets on the panel I really didn't find much use for them. If I need detailed information I'm going to use terminal anyway. Plus their integration was not always of the same quality as the rest of the DE. I'm not so sure why so much time is spent harping on this when it's the application that I need. I could care less about the panel. The more I use GS the more it makes sense. When I'm in firefox or chrome that's what I'm in. If I'm playing a game then that's what I'm doing. Typically even in G2 the first thing I would do was remove the bottom panel and replace it with AWN. I still install AWN for GS and eventually I might even remove it as getting to overlay and looking at a larger visual representation of what window I need is actually quicker than sorting through small icons. This especially becomes evident when I spawn more of something with the same name.

                            Under this workflow even panel placement is well .... not a concern. Am I more interested in the panel or the application? For me it's the application. So if anything more real estate for the application is a good thing. Hence why I might uninstall AWN. The longer I use GS the more I realize it stays the hell out of my way. The only time I even know the DE is there is when I'm working in an application and I get a message from Empathy, or a mail client coming through libnotify. Other than that I'm in the app or apps and that's it.

                            In terms of the minimize button, which came up on the survey results, I too installed G-tweak and immediately brought back the minimize button because it's what I expected. However, again what I've slowly realized is that minimizing the application made it harder to find it again later when the application was of the same name (usually nautilus or terminals). The visual representation of the application in overlay was bigger which made the application easier to find then waiting for a small window/title to spawn of the application in AWN or secondary panel. It was also quicker than Alt-tabbing (way quicker). Come to find out I didn't want to really minimize the application I wanted to change the focus.

                            In addition when I need to spawn an application, I can do it far far quicker in overlay (I type pretty fast) then I ever could parsing the menu hierarchy in G2 (was that app in Preferences or Administration? And what menu did Virtualbox decide it was going to place itself this time?).

                            I really like the new workflow of GS and I would hope that it stays that way. If I really want to go back to the older workflows I have options to do so. However, I like having the option of using something like GS as well.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The Real Problem = users NOT FREE

                              Originally posted by squirrl View Post
                              Distributions are where the main problem exists.

                              Mint includes Gnome 3 because they aren't capable of maintaining Gnome 2 with all the changes that have been made to GTK, Pango, etc.
                              Debian will include Gnome 3 and remove Gnome 2 same reason as Mint.
                              Fedora...

                              Fragmentation:
                              Too many revisions will fragment your userbase:
                              Distrowatch
                              1 Ubuntu 2236 2000 Gnome 2.x users, 50 Unity users, the rest unknown.
                              2 Mint 2097 All running Gnome 2.x
                              3 Fedora 1669 1000 Fedora 4 users running Gnome 2.0, 69 Fedora 7 users Gnome 2.1, 10 Fedora 16 users disgruntled about Gnome 3
                              4 Debian 1313 1200 Debian Squeeze users, 13 Sid users running Lxde, and 5 blackbox users.
                              5 Arch 1239 1200 KDE 4.7 users, 39 console users still waiting for it to install over 3 MBit connection
                              6 openSUSE 1233 1233 Kde 3.5 users.
                              Agreed, and before someone starts the "no you got it wrong, it's about user choice and freedom" the example stated here is that distros are making choices FOR you that many users might not want just because a distro decreed it so. Now, who has been saying this entire time that putting the ball in distro's court is a BAD idea for freedom, and that true freedom should place emphasis on individual software projects and not on distros? I have, along with several other Linux users who are tired of it. If you think placing your freedom in the hands of corporations is always going to be a good thing, you need to wake up. That's the entire reason the software freedom movement started. Of course in the areas where wants are aligned, that's great.

                              Let's look past that and focus on why did these distros make the decision to drop Gnome 2. I'd appreciate feedback on this, too. What I believe is the cause of all this mayhem and Linux users being very angry and rightfully so is all due to this simple fact: NO FREAKING PACKAGING STANDARDS. In the Windows world, because there is a really stable ABI for program *installation*, you can install old program packages and have them still work fine. Don't like the ribbon in Microsoft Office 2007? Install MO2003. Linux users though? You're largely stuck with whatever your distro happened to bundle in for you. Want to try out a new version of KDE or a new version of Firefox, or in this case go BACK to Gnome 2? At least with Firefox you can download an run the binary directly because Linux DOES have a stable ABI. What it lacks, unlike with Windows, is a stable installation system. In the case of Gnome 2 vs. Gnome 3, as well as with KDE, they don't even bother creating binaries, all you can download from their website are source packages. Why is that? Why can't I easily download and install a new version and have a new entry in my login manager for the new DE I installed so I can play with it? It's Linux, it's supposed to be about freedom, yet no one can do this. I think the reason why is because all those packages are left to the distro builders to compile because there is no package standard for Linux. They would have to build a package for each software project that is "part of" the DE project for all the most popular distros and distro versions, and why would they bother when the users can just get it themselves from the distros repo? That is the thinking, and because of that thinking, no one packages it. So the problem is that no one packages it and no archives are maintained for previous versions, so no one can easily download older versions. Get it from an older distro version repository you say? Have FUN with that! You will be battling your package manager all day and night forcing it to accept older versions of libraries.

                              The real solution is to have a universal, standardized package format that can allow any versions to be installed along side each other and installed on any distro. If that existed, KDE and Gnome would have archives of complete Gnome 2 and KDE 3 functioning binaries available for easy download and installation, and ditto for new versions of both environments right when they are released. No more being tied down to old software, or to newer software, just because the distro project's (or company's) leader said so. Take back your freedom. It's supposed to be free software in every sense. Oh lookit! There IS a package manager like I just described! Sure wish more people who cared about freedom would support that project, which spans from Linux users to Mac, Windows, BSD, and Solaris users, because it's supported on all those platforms.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                                Now, who has been saying this entire time that putting the ball in distro's court is a BAD idea for freedom, and that true freedom should place emphasis on individual software projects and not on distros? I have, along with several other Linux users who are tired of it. If you think placing your freedom in the hands of corporations is always going to be a good thing, you need to wake up.
                                While I agree that it is the individual software projects and not the distros that deserve the most credit, you seem to misunderstand what a distro is. A distro is simply a collection of software and components bundled together for the convenience of its creators or a specific target group. Nothing is stopping you from making your own except the knowledge how to do so (which is fully available) or the will to put in the effort. If you do not like how your distro is going, you can just roll your own. It is not a loss of freedom to not have these things pre-built for you, it is not a freedom to force other people to make things easy for you.

                                Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                                In the Windows world, because there is a really stable ABI for program *installation*, you can install old program packages and have them still work fine. Don't like the ribbon in Microsoft Office 2007? Install MO2003. Linux users though? You're largely stuck with whatever your distro happened to bundle in for you.
                                I have used plenty of older software on Linux, and have even built some from really ancient code. There is nothing stopping anyone with some technical knowledge from doing this (and being ignorant of the process does not mean your freedoms are abused) with older code or indeed any third-pary code the distro does not ship. Most users are "stuck" with their distro versions mostly because they have not put the effort in to roll their own (such as Slackware users have been doing for twenty years) or are simply willing choose the distro maintained versions out of convenience.

                                Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                                In the case of Gnome 2 vs. Gnome 3, as well as with KDE, they don't even bother creating binaries, all you can download from their website are source packages. Why is that? Why can't I easily download and install a new version and have a new entry in my login manager for the new DE I installed so I can play with it? It's Linux, it's supposed to be about freedom, yet no one can do this.
                                Because they give you the freedom of doing that for yourself? Again, freedom does not mean the right to have other people do your work for you. If you want a complied binary for your platform, it is generally expected that you put the effort in. And in some cases, people have actually done it for you, such as in the case of the Trinity KDE desktop. And if you utilize these services (either distros or some other form of binary maintenance), you should be thankful to the people behind them doing this effort to make your lives easier, especially in the case of community volunteer projects. It is not your right to have the computer made easy for you.

                                Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                                The real solution is to have a universal, standardized package format that can allow any versions to be installed along side each other and installed on any distro. Oh lookit! There IS a package manager like I just described! Sure wish more people who cared about freedom would support that project, which spans from Linux users to Mac, Windows, BSD, and Solaris users, because it's supported on all those platforms.
                                While I agree in principle that such a solution would be of benefit, and indeed there should be more standards in this regard, unless you go for the universal binary approach like Ryan Gordon suggested and bundle every single library needed with the application, I think you fail to realize just how complicated this would be. Programs with any sort of library dependence are complicated things, which is the main reason why we just let distributions handle all of this for us. It would be very difficult to get one install method for all distros, let alone for all desktop operating systems. The only way would be making the system so rigid that you could barley operate in it, and then were would our freedom be?

                                Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                                If that existed, KDE and Gnome would have archives of complete Gnome 2 and KDE 3 functioning binaries available for easy download and installation, and ditto for new versions of both environments right when they are released. No more being tied down to old software, or to newer software, just because the distro project's (or company's) leader said so. Take back your freedom. It's supposed to be free software in every sense.
                                As long as a program is fully free software, there is no way they can take away this freedom from you anyway. It may require some effort from you, because no one is volunteering to maintain it, but as long as the complete source code is always available, you can always build it for yourself and indeed maintain that code yourself. But convenience is a privilege, not a right, and indeed can never be a right as the term itself is variable and a right must be applicable to everyone. So what you want is a system that is more convenient. But do not fool yourself into thinking you have the right to tell other people to make that happen for you. That is not a freedom.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X