Originally posted by smartysmart34
View Post
Adrinnho, thank you for not taking my post personal and thank you for the reply. It makes your thoughts clearer to me.
Well, yes. My problem is that - based on past experience - I expect a tile based DE (Metro anyone?) in Linux by 2014 the latest. Not because it makes sense. Not because it is good usability. Just because "It's the way one does DEs nowadays". And it makes me angry because I didn't invest in a 27+'' TFT to have office apps in fullscreen. Oh wait, there is an option to have a fixed split by 1/3rd vs. 2/3rds. Hightech. And there is simply NO ONE out there who actually says "Wait guys. Does it make sense? Do we need the same look and feel for Tablets, Smartphones AND Desktops? Or are the usecases and the requirements different?" In the past Linux to me allways meant "the practical alternative which is customizable to my personal need". And Unity just isn't anymore. Gnome - to be honest - never was. And I don't want to change the way I do things just because a developer thinks he knows how i should do stuff. That's why I ended up with KDE.
But I (for example) have different needs depending on what I do. I want a "Mouse only" DE f?r "Onehanded surfing while doing something else besides". And I may even cope with some sort of keyboard involvement when I'm sitting on my workstation doing things "fulltime" and "all hands involved" ;-).
But what is even more important: I do not want to have different DEs just because of these two usecases. And that's a pain in the ass.
And that's the reason why - in the desktop area - the number of Linux users more or less correlates directly to the amount of developers involved. Developers are the users. If you are fine with that and don't have any ambition in bringing Linux to end users PCs. Fine. Go for it. If you want Users to use Linux, change the attitude regarding their needs.
Interesting enough, Linux only really works where there is a customer focused company taking their customers serious. Generally Smartphone manufacturers and producers of other embedded system, that hide the nature of linux and the developer community from their customers. And yes, in these cases it makes perfect sense to cut it down to what the device should do. But that's not necessarily true for a desktop pc.
They're not silly. They are verbal expressions of what users want. One use case can be: I want to be able to navigate on my desktop without having to use a keyboard (searching a program name by typing its name DOES require knowledge as to what is installed and whats the name). When I'm at someone else's machine I just want to navigate the menu and see what's on that machine. Telling me that is silly disqualifies the person taking requirements. I'll invest zero energy in trying to convince. I'll just use something more up my alley and let them play with themselves.
Forking is killing open source. It does not lead to "single mans desktop" meaning one user per desktop, it leads to "single developer projects" and that just doesn't cut it. And to be precise on that one: It is NOT about choice. I'd rather have no choice but ONE application that actually works - instead of 10 choices with 10 different major issues. Just one example out of many: There's KMail. There's Thunderbird. There's Evolution. And there's more. But is there ONE real alternative to Outlook that actually works and is NOT Webbased requiring the setup of a groupware server? No.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to convince you of something. I just realise that many of the Linux-Projects do go down the wrong track - my opinion. Maybe I'll just stop upgrading and keep the old stuff. Vintage is cool anyway.
Regards,
Martin
Well, yes. My problem is that - based on past experience - I expect a tile based DE (Metro anyone?) in Linux by 2014 the latest. Not because it makes sense. Not because it is good usability. Just because "It's the way one does DEs nowadays". And it makes me angry because I didn't invest in a 27+'' TFT to have office apps in fullscreen. Oh wait, there is an option to have a fixed split by 1/3rd vs. 2/3rds. Hightech. And there is simply NO ONE out there who actually says "Wait guys. Does it make sense? Do we need the same look and feel for Tablets, Smartphones AND Desktops? Or are the usecases and the requirements different?" In the past Linux to me allways meant "the practical alternative which is customizable to my personal need". And Unity just isn't anymore. Gnome - to be honest - never was. And I don't want to change the way I do things just because a developer thinks he knows how i should do stuff. That's why I ended up with KDE.
But I (for example) have different needs depending on what I do. I want a "Mouse only" DE f?r "Onehanded surfing while doing something else besides". And I may even cope with some sort of keyboard involvement when I'm sitting on my workstation doing things "fulltime" and "all hands involved" ;-).
But what is even more important: I do not want to have different DEs just because of these two usecases. And that's a pain in the ass.
And that's the reason why - in the desktop area - the number of Linux users more or less correlates directly to the amount of developers involved. Developers are the users. If you are fine with that and don't have any ambition in bringing Linux to end users PCs. Fine. Go for it. If you want Users to use Linux, change the attitude regarding their needs.
Interesting enough, Linux only really works where there is a customer focused company taking their customers serious. Generally Smartphone manufacturers and producers of other embedded system, that hide the nature of linux and the developer community from their customers. And yes, in these cases it makes perfect sense to cut it down to what the device should do. But that's not necessarily true for a desktop pc.
They're not silly. They are verbal expressions of what users want. One use case can be: I want to be able to navigate on my desktop without having to use a keyboard (searching a program name by typing its name DOES require knowledge as to what is installed and whats the name). When I'm at someone else's machine I just want to navigate the menu and see what's on that machine. Telling me that is silly disqualifies the person taking requirements. I'll invest zero energy in trying to convince. I'll just use something more up my alley and let them play with themselves.
Forking is killing open source. It does not lead to "single mans desktop" meaning one user per desktop, it leads to "single developer projects" and that just doesn't cut it. And to be precise on that one: It is NOT about choice. I'd rather have no choice but ONE application that actually works - instead of 10 choices with 10 different major issues. Just one example out of many: There's KMail. There's Thunderbird. There's Evolution. And there's more. But is there ONE real alternative to Outlook that actually works and is NOT Webbased requiring the setup of a groupware server? No.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to convince you of something. I just realise that many of the Linux-Projects do go down the wrong track - my opinion. Maybe I'll just stop upgrading and keep the old stuff. Vintage is cool anyway.
Regards,
Martin
We'll see where this Gnome-Shell thing goes...
Regards.
Comment