GNOME 3.34 Should Be Hitting Clear Linux "Soon-ish"

[cynical]

Gnome defaults are pretty good imo. The only issue with them is that you become rather keyboard dependent. That is the trade off you make to have a clean and dock free desktop. I tend to prefer Ubuntu’s approach, since sometimes I get lazy and just want to easily mouse my way through the desktop. That’s not impossible in vanilla Gnome, but it is tedious.

[leipero]

leipero CI is used everywhere to increase code quality and test coverage. So far no one came up with an alternative.

Don’t like regressions? Stay far away from new code. All of it.

I am not really sure what you talking about, Cl? you mean CL refering to the Clear Linux? If so, I wasn't refering to the CL at all, I did refer to GNOME 3.34.0 however and pointed out some things about it while suggesting something as well.

[leipero]

leipero Continuous Integration. Automatic tests and analysis to counter humans being humans.

Ok, got it, wasn't familiar with that concept.

[skeevy420]

skeevy420 Read your first post. Hate, hate, hate. You showed up to hate and implied Clear was agreeing with you. That was wrong.

Then quote the actual hate. I'll help, quote this post and just embolden it.

Maybe, like me, Intel devs don't really like Gnome by default and would rather hold off on updating it until their preferred workflow actually works.

Also, seeing as how random extensions breaking with Gnome updates is one of the biggest complaints I see about Gnome, it makes sense that Clear Devs would want to wait until they could fix the issues causing their used extensions to quit working so people won't equate Gnome being broken and buggy to Clear being broken and buggy.

I don't even like Gnome because I've been burned by updates breaking my extensions so I applaud what Clear is doing. If other distributions did what Clear is doing, hold off until some extension bugs are fixed, there's a half a chance that I wouldn't have been update burned with extensions which means that my biggest negative about Gnome wouldn't have effected me near as much as it did and, because of that, I wouldn't necessarily equate Gnome with Plugin Hell.

To anyone who reads this post: Please point out my hate speech in that quote since 144Hz refuses.

For everyone else annoyed by this back and forth. My apologies. Hate speech has a real and legal definition that's normally reserved for the most vile of things said. To be accused of committing hate speech because of what's in that quote, I'm just flabbergasted. I don't get it. I really don't.

[rbmorse]

[QUOTE=skeevy420;n1127656]
Then quote the actual hate. I'll help, quote this post and just embolden it.

I don't even like Gnome

There. Happy now?

[skeevy420]

skeevy420 your desperate picking for validation won’t change the fact that your motivation and text was hateful and malicious. Clear Linux doesn’t share any of your views. Seriously go away, no one wants to discuss semantics.

Quit moving the goal posts because this is a 100% semantic discussion. You accused me of posting hate speech when all I posted was dislike and the positives that are happening to prevent that dislike from occurring to others. I asked for someone to quote my hate speech and this was the result:

skeevy420
Then quote the actual hate. I'll help, quote this post and just embolden it.

I don't even like Gnome

There. Happy now?

No. That's an out of context dislike/opinion that's then tied to the phrase hate speech to attempt to make me appear to be a bigot and a hater. The following context was left out and that's what states the intent and meaning of the aforementioned dislike.

Having an opinion about not liking something isn't hate speech when that opinion is followed by the why and the positive things happening to prevent the why. That's literally the opposite of hate speech. How is, paraphrased, "I dislike Gnome but I'm glad Clear Linux is doing something about the scenario that caused me to dislike Gnome." actually hate speech?

That's hate speech as much as saying "I don't prefer the color red" when someone else says "I like the color red" is hate speech. It isn't. We just have a disagreement on what color we prefer.

A difference of opinion is not hate speech. Having a dislike is not hate speech.

Now, I'm gonna teach y'all the difference between having a dislike and actual hate speech and why this is a 100% based on semantics argument.

Please note that everything that follows this is not how I feel or to be considered to be directed at anyone and that I'd like to apologize ahead of time to the LBGTQ community for using them as my example. No offense is meant, this is just a current hot-button issue so it's an easy go-to.

"I dislike homosexuality. I just don't get being attracted to another guy, *"

That's not agreeing with something and neither stating hate nor compassion nor any form of intent. The reader has to either imply that hate is meant, which means the reader assumes that the writer hates, or that when the reader sees a dislike they assume it's hate based, which really says more about the readers' subconscious than anything. Psychology 101.

For all we know with that example, the remainder of that sentence could be compassion:

"* but I fully support their rights to do what they do and believe everyone should have equal rights."

or it could be hate:

"* and I think they should GTFO of my country".

The semantics that follow the dislike actually matter if it's hate speech or not. The first one actually describes my thoughts on the matter. That's not what I'm into, but I support your rights and freedoms -- Not hate speech. Not that different than the paraphrased:

"I dislike Gnome and I'm glad Clear Linux is doing all these things to prevent the reasons for those dislikes".

That is clearly not hate speech using any definition of the phrase.

Now, ending it with the second phrase is just trying to justify one's bigotry and is hate speech. "I dislike *not a derogatory term* as well as think they shouldn't be allowed in my country.", OTOH, is just hate speech trying to fly under the radar.

"I hate faggots."

That's hate speech. There's nothing else to imply, no extra context clues to have to consider. "I hate *derogatory term*" and nothing more is just obvious hate speech.

"I dislike Gnome and I think it's a steaming cesspool of crap code written by half-ass developers who should throw themselves off a cliff for releasing such an abomination on the world."

is obviously hate speech. I posted nothing of that nature.

What I find funniest of all is a person who, in the past, had bad experiences and therefore developed a dislike for something, comes into a thread, expresses that dislike, and follows that up with praise because they see that situation going away and that other users may not have my bad experiences in the future and how that's a good thing gets flipped into being hate speech.

I though that the Gnome community would be happy that a former user is happy that a Linux distribution is trying to prevent users from having my bad experiences so that we all have a great Linux experience regardless of what setup we use. That's all I wanted to imply and, gee, I sure was wrong with the message I though y'all would receive.

[sa666666]

Don't waste your time on 144Hz . He's obviously a troll, and it looks like this time he hooked you in.