The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience [LWN.net]

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 16, 2011 17:48 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Oh no, fvwm2 has big problems. I use it mostly out of inertia. (The biggest of its problems are an absence of proper programmability and a deep-seated architectural inability to handle double-buffering, which rules out compositing forever. Compositing bling may be pointless but a little subtle bling -- not giant desktop cubes, just things like subtle glows around active window edges and the like -- *does* make the desktop look prettier and slightly easier to use.)

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 16, 2011 17:49 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

btw, I note that you totally ignored the actual point I was making, which was not 'I am a total stick-in-the-mud' but rather 'constant workspaces wire themselves into your fingers and mind, promote the formation of unconscious habits, and thus improve working speed'.

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 17, 2011 13:10 UTC (Thu) by Tet (guest, #5433) [Link] (2 responses)

I note that you totally ignored the actual point I was making

Welcome to the wonderful world of GNOME. One of the reasons I still use fvwm, despite its faults, is that GNOME and other similar desktop projects have no desire to cater to my needs, and whenever I've asked how to do something I've been told that I'm wrong to want it. By all means provide defaults that you think will work for the majority of users. But it's my computer, and I want it to work the way I want it to work, not the way some desktop developer thinks I should want it to work. Fvwm lets me do that. People are not the same, no matter how much some might wish it so. The GNOME project in particular is unwilling to acknowledge that point. They're wrong. But they've made it clear they have no intention of changing their viewpoint.

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 17, 2011 15:59 UTC (Thu) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link] (1 responses)

You are wrong to demand *your* needs from others. The 'developer' tries to cater to as many as possible, i doubt fvwm does that. Remember, you are not more important than anyone else, and free software is not about solving *your* needs.

But you are free to *create on your own* whatever extension you need.
With metacity there was devilspie, the shell should be much easier to extend.

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 22, 2011 7:55 UTC (Tue) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link]

> You are wrong to demand *your* needs from others. The 'developer' tries to cater to as many as possible, i doubt fvwm does that. Remember, you are not more important than anyone else, and free software is not about solving *your* needs.

You're wrong about GNOME developers: they are not trying to cater to as many as possible--this whole article is about that very point.

You're ignoring the fact that GNOME devs (and "designers") are claiming to be making software for other people to use--people besides said devs and "designers." They *want marketshare*, yet they stubbornly refuse to cater to the voiced needs of the market.

They aren't catering to as many as possible--they are catering to an imagined user, one who's nearly computer-illiterate, and is unable to learn or adapt, too. Self-proclaimed "designers" are "designing" based on "research" and ignoring in-their-face, real-world, practical problems brought to their attention by their *actual* audience.

They are being hypocrites: they claim to be making software for others, yet they're actually just pleasing themselves.

And that's fine: we're not paying them--they should scratch their own itches if that's what they want to do.

The problem is that they are either dishonest or delusional. They should just admit that they are going to do what *they* want to do, so that other people can stop wasting their time trying to convince them that GNOME 3 isn't what anyone besides GNOME devs and "designers" want.

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 17, 2011 10:56 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] (3 responses)

So, have you anything else to say about his *actual* complaint and insight? Which is not fvwm-related whatsoever.

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 17, 2011 16:13 UTC (Thu) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link] (2 responses)

You assume it will never happen, assmuning we are talking about fixed workspace for app X. There is a real usability case for keeping the same workspaces open across sessions.

Also, i'm sure a simple extension/plugin can be made to force certain apps opening on certain workspaces. Just because it won't be enabled or distributed by default, doesn't mean it's not appreciated.

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 17, 2011 16:30 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] (1 responses)

Sorry, but I don't get the gist of your message. Might be because I'm not a native English speaker.

Do you agree with nix that the ability to have fixed static workspace arrangements is important, or do you disagree?
(FTR, I agree. That's exactly my MO, too.)

Or do you agree with the GNOME3 developers that workspaces should be dynamic all the time, only created as needed? (At least that seems to be their assumption that's reported here. That's why I asked Jason if he could please stop with his cheap fvwm shots, actually react to nix's argument, and confirm or deny that this reported viewpoint is true or not.)

Actually, I don't use GNOME. But I try to keep educated in the design decisions of the various Linux desktop environments. And this is an important design decision, IMHO.

The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience

Posted Mar 18, 2011 0:54 UTC (Fri) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link]

I'm no native English speaker either :).

I think i missed what you meant with fixed workspaces. If it's app X in workspace Y at all times, i'm sure an extension is doable.

I was agreeing that the workspace layout should be remembered across sessions (login/logout, boot etc.). That's fixed enough for me..