Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora Proposal To Use Cinnamon Desktop By Default

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

  • Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
    To answer your stupidity: polls are actually correct, because percentage clearly shows gnome lost compared to other environments. To answer your stupidity more: most KDE, XFCE and Cinnamon users are unaware of pletora of different forums that exist. Now, you've got to show me polls where gnome is more popular. Check gnome numbers in Arch and Mint and tell me what don't you understand?
    Are you sure calling names is a good way of discussing things?
    I don't have to show you anything to prove my point. My point is that polls can show anything depending on what and how you ask.
    If I asked which DE was used at my department GNOME would probably exceed 90%, with Unity coming up second.
    I am not saying that this is because GNOME is in anyway better, but because that is how things just happen to look.
    I don't think those poll numbers would say anything about the popularity of any DE, do you?

    They don't listen to users and this is also a fact that you even confirmed. So, they're some kind of sect with some strange vision? Ignoring smart critique just to follow some idiotic vision is well... idiotic.
    There is a difference between having a vision and not accepting user input.
    You don't like the GNOME vision, and that is unfortunate. Luckily you can just choose to use something else that is in line with your own ideas. That would also save you a few hours of forum-battles

    Like what?
    From the top of my head: "ALSA works fine!", "Static routes are not working".

    Nope and they keep removing features - Nautilus. Current version is just a joke.
    Not sure which functionality you are missing. I use nautilus daily and can't think of anything.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by finalzone View Post
      The word "average user" is overly abused as a cloak for the lack of active participation from those spending their time flaming and whining how their holy functionalities are missing.
      Many developers have priority to work on core functionality and will including extras one coming from the extensions as demonstrated by the incoming Gnome Classic. The key point is look at the reason of the refusal and find a better way to communicate in a respectful manner.
      We wouldn't have this argument in the first place if Gnome developers didn't actively remove functionality!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
        Hobbyist mentality aside, if it doesn't contain the functionality that you need out of the box and requires end-user hacking, then it is not worth using.
        Then don't use it, and let the people whose functionality needs it does fulfil use it. Surely this is just common sense. This is not directed specifically at you, but I am constantly in awe at how much time and energy is wasted in religious wars over personal preferences. Our renewable energy problems could be easily solved if we stick a few hot heads under a boiler and tell them that the other persons' favourite colours are different.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
          And there it is again. I tried Gnome Shell, just to see what all the fuss is about. And I don't like it. Full stop.
          And that now indicates that I have lost the ability to learn something new? Where did you get from? In the last three years I learned many DEs and WMs until I came to the point where I have found the one that fits my needs best. It is i3, not Gnome Shell. Because I can make it behave exactly like I want without any restrictions or the need for externally developed extensions. Because it supports my workflow instead of forcing me to a different one.

          Now, please tell me: How is that even possible, how have I learned to configure and use i3 most efficiently when I have lost the ability to learn new things because I don't like Gnome Shell? How got I used to the shortcomings of old things when I have searched a long time to find something that has no shortcomings for me?

          Clearly, I don't like GS, I must be dumb and unable to learn, not able to use the new shiny thing that has exactly zero advantages for me.
          Hey, I have NEVER said YOU lost the ability to learn.
          Someone likes DE AAA. Someone likes DE BBB. That's all OK. I've tried KDE4 many times but failed in switching to it in the Gnome2 era.

          What I can't understand is: "Do not change ANYTHING because I've used to it."
          Yes! GS has many problems and made many stupid errors (and I've to tweak it after each upgrade). But it's much better than "stop moving! I'm here."
          And most of my problems can be solved by its powerful extensions (I don't know your cases so I can't make suggestions, sorry)

          IMO, the best part of GS is its extension. I can overpass all GS's shortages just because of it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
            How is it a strawman? I keep being told that Shell is a tablet-style OS, designed with touch screens in mind. And yet you acknowledge it has excellent keyboard support, and it's the mouse/touch interaction that's receiving the criticism. And *that* doesn't sound much like a tablet UI to me...
            It's a strawman because the keybindings are not what is being criticized. Further, similar keybindings are available on every desktop environment; Cinnamon's equivalent functionality, gnome do, krunner and dmenu have all been mentioned in this forum multiple times. Working keybindings in no way excuse an inefficient graphical interface. I never said Gnome Shell was only for mobile devices, I said it was inspired by mobile devices and they were a constraint on the design. The entire problem is that Gnome Shell uses small formfactor metaphors inappropriately on the desktop.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
              What I can't understand is: "Do not change ANYTHING because I've used to it."
              Yes! GS has many problems and made many stupid errors (and I've to tweak it after each upgrade). But it's much better than "stop moving! I'm here."
              And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
              The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
              If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

              But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name. That was their main mistake. If you get something with a higher version number you expect an improved version of the old thing, not something totally different. The Porsche 911 was a car that got many different versions with many improvements over the time, but the basic principles are the same. If I buy such a Porsche 911 I expect to get one and not a Porsche Boxster, Cayman or Cayenne.

              The KDE people also made many changes with KDE 4, but the basic principles were the same and the discussions back in the time were mostly about the number of bugs in KDE 4 and not so often about changes in the user interface.

              And most of my problems can be solved by its powerful extensions (I don't know your cases so I can't make suggestions, sorry)

              IMO, the best part of GS is its extension. I can overpass all GS's shortages just because of it.
              In my most important desktop software, the WM (or DE, if you use one), I personally don't want to rely on extensions made by third parties, especially not in cases like Gnome were extensions are known to break with upgrades (and were the developers don't care about such breakages).
              I prefer to have the functionality I need in-built to my WM, with sane developers that don't remove functionality without asking the users and then point to third parties to get the functionality back. I could without any problems (and with increase and not removal of functionality) upgrade from i3 4.2 to 4.3 to 4.4, which is the current version. Nothing broke, all works as intended and I got new features and replacements for old features, without having the old ones removed.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
                The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
                If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

                But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name. That was their main mistake. If you get something with a higher version number you expect an improved version of the old thing, not something totally different. The Porsche 911 was a car that got many different versions with many improvements over the time, but the basic principles are the same. If I buy such a Porsche 911 I expect to get one and not a Porsche Boxster, Cayman or Cayenne.

                The KDE people also made many changes with KDE 4, but the basic principles were the same and the discussions back in the time were mostly about the number of bugs in KDE 4 and not so often about changes in the user interface.
                Agree. Maybe they should use "Goblin" instead of "Gnome 3" from the beginning
                Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                In my most important desktop software, the WM (or DE, if you use one), I personally don't want to rely on extensions made by third parties, especially not in cases like Gnome were extensions are known to break with upgrades (and were the developers don't care about such breakages).
                I prefer to have the functionality I need in-built to my WM, with sane developers that don't remove functionality without asking the users and then point to third parties to get the functionality back. I could without any problems (and with increase and not removal of functionality) upgrade from i3 4.2 to 4.3 to 4.4, which is the current version. Nothing broke, all works as intended and I got new features and replacements for old features, without having the old ones removed.
                My experience with Firefox made me falling love with extensions.
                Firefox once made me very uncomfortable because they change its default UI to a Chrome-like one.
                I don't like this and I can configure the UI back with customization and several extensions.
                Customizations and Extensions make me feeling I can hold the control of my UI.

                On the other side, sane developers may but won't always help because I am sure I can't always be the majority

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                  And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
                  The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
                  If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

                  But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name.
                  I can see why some people got annoyed when things change. I think everyone can think of some example of this in their lives.
                  The thing is though: GNOME3 has been out for about two years. And before that it was developed in the open.
                  So, why people are still upset now, two-three years after work on GNOME3 began I can't really understand. You've all had plenty of time to either suck it up and stick with the program, or find something else.
                  I am not sure who thought the third option "Exclaim surprise and hostility towards the developers" would be constructive.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                    And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
                    The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
                    If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

                    But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name.
                    ....
                    I can't understand this reasoning. At all.
                    Replacing implies taking something away, i.e. that the old item is no longer available and forcibly so.

                    That's not what happened though: what happened is that most Gnome and GTK developers discussed and designed - in public and for years, I may add - and chose to change what they are offering for free to the public. All of Gnome 2 and GTK2 code is still available, they just chose to move on and not work on that any more.
                    What is different in your hypothetical case? Who exactly would have taken over Gnome 2 for maintenance and development, in face of all the changes going on in the Linux infrastructure and needed hardware support? Who would have ported it all to gsettings and GTK3? Because I certainly don't see all that overflowing interest right now, and nobody kept anyone from doing so: Mate might have stricken the hearts of several Gnome 2 users, but is clearly a niche project and I have doubts on its sustainability.

                    If most of the knowledgeable people stopped maintaining Gnome 2 and moved en masse to Sparklynewname DE and GTK3+, with only a handful of new maintainers to keep the old code base in shape, I very much doubt that any distro worth its salt would have chosen - after an initial transition - to keep distributing a barely maintained Gnome over the much more actively developed Sparklynewname. Same situation as today, different names: it's not about the containers, it's about the content and the real people working on it.

                    All that said ( a rose by any other name ... ) I actually think that the Gnome devs had all the rights in the world to call their new project Gnome 3. Their work, their prerogative.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by kigurai View Post
                      I can see why some people got annoyed when things change. I think everyone can think of some example of this in their lives.
                      The thing is though: GNOME3 has been out for about two years. And before that it was developed in the open.
                      So, why people are still upset now, two-three years after work on GNOME3 began I can't really understand. You've all had plenty of time to either suck it up and stick with the program, or find something else.
                      I am not sure who thought the third option "Exclaim surprise and hostility towards the developers" would be constructive.
                      You forget that these are people who would have been against such changes from the start and that people having used and preferred gnome for years are allowed to express concern about the continued decline of gnome.
                      Usage has halved, people are not happy with the change. People want to be able to use the DE they used and loved for years, I dont see how you cannot grasp this?
                      It shows a level of selfishness.
                      I think very few people would argue that GS MUST BE REMOVED COMPLETELY, but then again for the same people the dropping of fallback mode was the last straw.

                      Why not give people the empowerment of choice? I Really cannot grasp why anyone such as yourself would argue so passionately against this idea.

                      But the crux of the matter is people have had plenty of time to find something else, gnome usage having halved I think many of them have done if you hadnt noticed

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X