Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97

Thread: Vincent Untz Goes Over The Direction Of GNOME

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    104

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    LOL

    wtf is that shit? WOOD?


    r u fucking kidding me? GTFO
    It's touch screen and it shows gnome 3. U asked for that. Here u go. Now u can stop posting retarded bullshit.

  2. #82

    Default

    @Pallidus : what's wrong with you ? Shouting and insulting won't make your posts more relevant. It's actually the other way around, it automatically discredits your speech.


    Anyway. I'm also very saddened by the current state of the Linux desktop. As an "advanced & long time user" I will manage and find something that is OK for me. (I'm switching all the time, which is a source of strain and frustration.)

    What annoys me the most is what we offer to the "average Joe user" and the general public. At the moment, I'm quite sad to say there is nothing really ready, reliable, easy to use, properly supported (...) for him/her. I used to convert people to Linux, who were charmed by the straighforwardness of Gnome 2, simplicity, speed and configurability. Now some of them are leaving the boat and I don't even know anymore what to advise them to use, alhtough there are more choices than ever !


    Anyway, I think the GNOME 3 team did a LOT of great work. As far as stability is concerned, this is my best pick. BUT I cannot stand the way we are supposed to use the shell which makes me lose *a lot* of time. I cannot think of any serious use case, actually. I do work around it thanks to extensions, but it doesn't feel right and it seems I fight against the DNA of Gnome 3. [I used it quite a lot, with a lot of extensions, but it seems further G3 versions took things further from my vision of the OS ; also my essential extensions were not updated and it was not acceptable for me to spend hours trying the good combination of extensions... More complicated than justing setting up KDE once and for all !]

    I think the KDE team did an AMAZING LOT of great work. But years after the 4.0 release, there are still some essential parts which are not ready and still regressions in basic features. Also, there is no more Canonical support, which is a huge "OUCH" for me. [this is what I'm using ATM]

    I think the UNITY team did some PRETTY GOOD work. But (along with Cinnamon & other forks) it looks like a lot of duplicate work and a lot of efforts wasted in things that I completely dislike (the Dash) + overall, it also makes me lose time doing simple tasks. [this is what I was using just before, but I encountered some "showstopper" bugs and was annoyed by the new features like webintegration]

    I think the XFCE / other teams did some NICE work but they lack the man-power to turn into something innovative with tons of great features.


    So overall : it's amazing how many great things were done. But I am very embarrassed to advise any of those to anyone (in the general public). At the time Lucid was releases, I was enthusiastic and converted quite a few persons.
    Last edited by torturedutopian; 02-15-2013 at 11:00 AM.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torturedutopian View Post
    ... also my essential extensions were not updated and it was not acceptable for me to spend hours trying the good combination of extensions...
    Yeah it is tough for extension writers to keep up with the development of gnome-shell. To me that is clear evidence that gnome devs are very productive. However extensions mostly do catch up rather quickly. Which essential extensions didnt make it to 3.6?

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Yeah it is tough for extension writers to keep up with the development of gnome-shell. To me that is clear evidence that gnome devs are very productive.
    It may also be clear evidence that Gnome developers don't care about compatibility and break their APIs regularly.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1

    Thumbs down Victor knows how to ignore everyone

    This guy is an example of someone who should shut up, listen to his users, and never ever try championing his cause until he decides to get off his ego. There are a myriad of user comments ever since Gnome 3 came out, and even during its alpha/beta phases. Hell, I myself also had concerns during the beta, but I liked the original ideas. But then Gnome developers started removing feature after feature.

    Instead, he dismisses all the comments/feedback by saying that "these people just like to hate the world", and then picks on individuals in the audience very sneakily by trying to guide them to liking Gnome 3 by default, and making them laugh.

    Gnome 3 is not the best desktop, and it is not the worst desktop. What it is, is a desktop and group of people that refuse to see potential improvements to a product that could blow everything else out of the water. Instead, they focused from he start to the tablet fad, and now that the desktop is not dead, they shot themselves in the foot. They constantly remove features and claim that users can add them back by editing files. Had they simply minimalised the initial experience, and enabled/disabled said options via the GUI, no one would have cared much.

    Apparently, as he says, they could not put all the options in the UI, because "it would be impossible". Well, then the KDE developers must be gods; they seem to manage it.

    And then he says that he works at SUSE; the Linux distribution/company that has embraced KDE almost more than any other for a very long time.

    Victor Untz, the man almost as insane as certain kernel developers that force their personal beliefs. You are a bully of the worst kind. You force your opinion on people's daily experiences with their computer, instead of allowing them to choose their way. Gnome 3 was not ready, just like KDE4 was not ready, The difference between them and you: they were upfront about it and users were warned about future wished features.

    For those that brave the video, notice his motions/tone when he talks about the fixes/changes. He is such a condescending ass to his users.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    It may also be clear evidence that Gnome developers don't care about compatibility and break their APIs regularly.
    API on extensions? WTF!? Extensions alter existing gs code, there is no API. If you dont like the code to change, DONT CHANGE YOUR GNOME VERSION. Im sure the gnome devs are truly sorry for doing real work.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    API on extensions? WTF!? Extensions alter existing gs code, there is no API.
    Funny, Gnome developers see that differently:
    but we didnít want to change the extension API
    That was the only API break that I inserted into the extension system for 3.2
    While I hate to break API, Iíd say itís for the better.
    We now have a usable API for settings from extensions.
    http://blog.mecheye.net/2012/02/more...on-api-breaks/

    So this developer is clearly speaking of an API (and breaking it) that you claim doesn't even exist. Maybe you don't know as much about Gnome as you think?

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Funny, Gnome developers see that differently: http://blog.mecheye.net/2012/02/more...on-api-breaks/

    So this developer is clearly speaking of an API (and breaking it) that you claim doesn't even exist. Maybe you don't know as much about Gnome as you think?
    If you actually read more than the title, you would realize that this "API" is the same type of API that you have with Linux kernel modules. It defines extension loading/unloading and preference handling, but not how to access the functionality of the host.
    AFAICT extensions still have unlimited access to the Shell, without any kind of "extension API".

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kigurai View Post
    If you actually read more than the title, you would realize that this "API" is the same type of API that you have with Linux kernel modules. It defines extension loading/unloading and preference handling, but not how to access the functionality of the host.
    AFAICT extensions still have unlimited access to the Shell, without any kind of "extension API".
    True. Unless of course mr vim kan provide us with a link to a well defined and documented API.. Show us your super powers vim.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kigurai View Post
    If you actually read more than the title, you would realize that this "API" is the same type of API that you have with Linux kernel modules. It defines extension loading/unloading and preference handling, but not how to access the functionality of the host.
    So now it is important which functionality is made accessible through an API when we want to determine if it even is an API?

    True. Unless of course mr vim kan provide us with a link to a well defined and documented API.. Show us your super powers vim.
    I have shown you a link to a blog post from a Gnome developer describing that what he calls "the extension API" and where he decribes that they will break it if they want to. No superpowers needed, I have backed up my claims, time for you to do the same.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •