| |||||||||||||
Give GNOME 3 timeGive GNOME 3 timePosted Aug 15, 2012 11:33 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)In reply to: The GNOME project at 15 by hp Parent article: The GNOME project at 15
I've recently had reason to evaluate the current desktop options on Ubuntu, and it makes me feel that the golden age of the Linux desktop is already behind us. I'm tempted to write a long rant about it, although this would involve spending time on something likely to be labelled as "hate" instead of being interpreted as a collection of suggestions for doing things better. So here's just one item...
What frustrates me a lot is the way that the duplication of effort has resulted in deficient solutions that can't always be combined to produce a satisfactory experience. One example of this is the way that the GNOME file explorer tools (Nautilus, I presume) can't access WebDAV shares that the KDE tools are perfectly happy with. A solution might involve mixing the tools: after all, this is open source.
But then, if you want to have a sane file manager, you have to put up with the bizarre "precision clicking to select or open depending on which part of the icon or name you're pointing at" behaviour of Dolphin or instead try and use Nautilus for most file browsing and only use Dolphin for WebDAV, except that you can't drag stuff out of a WebDAV folder in Dolphin into Nautilus.
Oh, and you can't easily change the double-click-to-open behaviour of the GNOME stuff because the developers are presumably obsessed about a specific choice made in the early 1980s by someone at Apple. So, if you mix GNOME and KDE components, they behave in different ways. None of this is easy to explain to anyone.
Had the developers of these desktops collaborated properly (as promised), there would be common services for things like WebDAV - you could have simple scripts that wrap stuff like wget if you didn't have any time to write nice stuff (except that someone would come up with a strawman argument about needing to hammer a server 20000 times a second in order to support the development of a bloated technology-specific framework) - and less stuff would be reinvented in every iteration of every desktop. Maybe there'd also be common ways of configuring user interface behaviour, too.
Instead we have things like Unity with its abominable menu-stealing masquerading as innovation even though it's merely replicating a thirty-year-old user interface limitation in an unreliable fashion.
(Log in to post comments)
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 11:58 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> But then, if you want to have a sane file manager, you have to put up with the bizarre "precision clicking to select or open depending on which part of the icon or name you're pointing at" behaviour of Dolphin or instead try and use Nautilus for most file browsing and only use Dolphin for WebDAV, except that you can't drag stuff out of a WebDAV folder in Dolphin into Nautilus.
I actually like this, but I configure my Dolphin icons to "real big" so it's not a problem. But you configure out the selection marker in the "configure dolphin / general" dialog.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 12:13 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
That's another problem: you have to spend hours playing with the configuration to restore the sane settings of previous releases.
Having tiny icons superimposed over small icons with potentially minimal contrast differences between them in order to indicate some action other than the one you would expect from previous experience is the result of some fairly cursory user interface evaluation activities, I would say.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 12:20 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
Or you press shift-click, or you go to settings/Configure dolphin, select "Navigation" and then select "Double-click to open files/folders". Then single-click selects the item. I noticed you need to restart dolphin for that option to "take" -- so I guess that's a bug. The option itself has been around since KDE 2, at least.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 12:51 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I was referring to the ability to just single-click on icons to open each resource, with clicking on metadata or dragging over icons to select them. Maybe that wasn't the default in KDE 1 or 2 or whenever I started to use it, but the time for RSI-inducing double-clicking should have ended a long time ago.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 23:25 UTC (Wed) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
Aha! So you DO exist! I knew there must have been *someone* out there that liked the KDE default focus-select click-open behavior... it's the first thing that I turn off.
Nice to finally meet you.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:07 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I'm not sure what you mean by "focus-select", since I mentioned that I still click to select, but click-to-open has been around since kfm and KDE 1 if I remember correctly. And I can't believe that a substantial proportion of users switch this off. But at least you can do so: that was part of my point about the double-click insistence in some environments.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 18:45 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Ow, I love it too. Esp on my laptops - with a touch pad, double clicking sucks.
The reason it is default was due to usability studies all saying single click is far easier for new users... Which is surely true, even after years and years behind both windows and Mac systems, my dad double-clicks menu items and forgets to double-click items in the file manager.
I'm surprised to this day that GNOME didn't pick up on this. The way it is solved in KDE is quite elegant imho - the selection marker is quite big with the large icons that are default.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 20:00 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
There's another thing I discovered with touchpads: the tap-to-click, which I turned off wherever I could in order to avoid confusion about sudden, unanticipated click events. Once again, this had to be done in every desktop environment I evaluated in a range of different dialogues. Fortunately, the GNOME developers hadn't decided that tap-to-click was purely beneficial and not to be removed from the user experience, so for this I give them credit.
As far as selection markers are concerned, they should really appear as a pop-up that is offset (horizontally, most likely) from the icon/name combination in something like Dolphin, so as to avoid trespassing on the icon in a potentially non-obvious fashion for people who have to squint to see such things or who don't have normal colour vision.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 18, 2012 11:09 UTC (Sat) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683) [Link]
"One click to activate action" is also known as "consistent behavior". How many times do you click on a link in an browser-window or a menu-item?
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Sep 1, 2012 16:45 UTC (Sat) by rich0 (guest, #55509) [Link]
How often do you select a menu item or hyperlink without actually opening it?
The only time I use a file manager is to move files around in bulk but with somewhat careful selection. I'd be using the shell if I just wanted to manipulate a single file or something that I could use wildcards for.
So, having to figure out how to select files without opening them is incredibly frustrating in KDE. Fortunately somebody in this thread just referenced the config setting and I changed it. Finally, sanity prevails until somebody decides I don't know what I'm doing and removes the option...
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 15:25 UTC (Wed) by hp (subscriber, #5220) [Link]
> likely to be labelled as "hate"
If you don't want to get labelled as hate, you should take out the phrases that ascribe motivations to others. For example:
> the developers are presumably obsessed about a
Sounds pretty unlikely to be true.
> collaborated properly (as promised)
Sounds like you're saying you know exactly what the issues are here better than the developers and are implying that "the developers" (not a monolith; this is open source) broke a promise to you (I doubt there was some sort of promise to implement webdav to your satisfaction).
> simple scripts that wrap stuff like wget
This makes it clear to developers that you have no idea what's involved.
> menu-stealing masquerading as innovation
You're implying that the developers are trying to impress you with BS "innovation" claims, rather than making what they think is the best decision.
In short you do not know what the issues are here, but you're telling other people they are incompetent jerks with evil motivations. That's why you get labelled as hate.
It would suffice to say "I wish webdav worked in Nautilus and interoperated with KDE, here's what I try to do that doesn't work" (if it isn't there already, saying it in a bug tracker would be ideal).
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:44 UTC (Wed) by dbnichol (subscriber, #39622) [Link]
That was really refreshing to read. You're awesome, Havoc.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 22:15 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] If you don't want to get labelled as hate, you should take out the phrases that ascribe motivations to others. For example:the developers are presumably obsessed about a specific choice made in the early 1980s by someone at AppleSounds pretty unlikely to be true. Well, that's what it seems like because double-click to do the common thing certainly isn't very ergonomic. What's the real reason for doing double-click apart from it having been done on the Mac because the Mac had one mouse button and various platforms copying it? I seem to remember Windows 95 doing away with double-clicking for many operations, but I imagine that the users revolted and this misfeature survived another generation. collaborated properly (as promised)Sounds like you're saying you know exactly what the issues are here better than the developers and are implying that "the developers" (not a monolith; this is open source) broke a promise to you (I doubt there was some sort of promise to implement webdav to your satisfaction). Thanks for using the "entitlement" argument. To take an example, I remember following the discussion about having a cross-desktop standard way for launching applications. Instead of initially doing the simple thing and having a simple well-known named program to do this, discussions about dlopening dynamic libraries were indulged instead and then nothing happened for a few more years until someone eventually wrote xdg-open which did, at least when released, all the hacks that everyone was already having to do themselves. simple scripts that wrap stuff like wgetThis makes it clear to developers that you have no idea what's involved. Let that be your opinion, then. I see that you cut the bit about such things being a quick hack. menu-stealing masquerading as innovationYou're implying that the developers are trying to impress you with BS "innovation" claims, rather than making what they think is the best decision. They're trying to do both, although I would again argue that they're unduly influenced by the Mac: I remember arguing with people about this on the Internet almost twenty years ago, so times don't really change on this front. And they're certainly making claims of innovation in case you don't read Mark Shuttleworth's blog. In short you do not know what the issues are here, but you're telling other people they are incompetent jerks with evil motivations. That's why you get labelled as hate. Thanks for projecting a bunch of stuff onto what I wrote in order to make me look like the bad guy for complaining. Perhaps you can indicate the precise mix of criticism and unbridled praise with which people can make suggestions to projects in order to be heard and heeded because there are quite a few people who spend their time trying to suggest improvements only to be told that they aren't "designers" or don't understand the issues. It would suffice to say "I wish webdav worked in Nautilus and interoperated with KDE, here's what I try to do that doesn't work" (if it isn't there already, saying it in a bug tracker would be ideal). I think there's an essay that covers spending time writing comprehensive bug reports only to see them closed by people who can't bear to have open bug reports in their tracker.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 15:43 UTC (Thu) by krake (subscriber, #55996) [Link]
"Thanks for using the "entitlement" argument."
You came up with wording that made it sounds like entitlement, which Havoc simply pointed out.
"Instead of initially doing the simple thing and having a simple well-known named program...."
There was just no way to create a simple program for doing that without either replicating the already existing implementations or generalizing one of the existing implementations enough to provide an acceptable dependency for a new stand-alone program.
Which naturally lead to "..discussions about dlopening dynamic libraries..." so programs could use the currently prevalent implementation without tightly depending on it.
A natural compromise in the face of a shared goal and limited resources.
"...then nothing happened for a few more years..."
The unfortunate reality was that there were simply to few resources to implement a medium term solution given that he majority of application developers already had access to a launcher framework (i.e. developers using GNOME or KDE libs).
"...until someone eventually wrote xdg-open which did, at least when released, all the hacks that everyone was already having to do themselves."
Being that someone I'd like to emphasis that this was intended to be a short-term stop gap solution because its behavior cannot be guaranteed to be stable (due to delegating to many different tools) nor does it provide most of the features application developer using launcher APIs grew accustomed to.
I find it pretty ironic that "failure of collaboration" comes up in a reply to a posting by Havoc, a person who has put unparalleled efforts into *the* collaboration enabler: D-Bus
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 16:53 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] You came up with wording that made it sounds like entitlement, which Havoc simply pointed out. I merely stated that the inter-project collaboration hadn't produced as many results as it could have in precisely the areas where such collaboration could have paid off. Lots of people write client and server code to handle Internet protocols that doesn't need to link to a bunch of desktop or GUI libraries, but instead we have the end-user experience equivalent of one plus one not equalling two because people apparently don't want to write some service-level code without sucking in libraries that other people don't want to use. Maybe to use the word "promised" instead of "anticipated" was unwise, but my impression was that people were committed to pooling effort and not reinventing the wheel. Things like the Desktop Summit were held. Instead, we now have more dilution of effort than ever before. For your information, I don't feel entitled to anything from the KDE or GNOME developers. However, I find it very sad that where I could have comfortably recommended something like the KDE version I use every day to a new user a couple of years ago, I can only apologise for the workarounds the current versions of these projects seem to demand of their users in order to perform the same tasks. Now on the subject of opening programs... Being that someone I'd like to emphasis that this was intended to be a short-term stop gap solution because its behavior cannot be guaranteed to be stable (due to delegating to many different tools) nor does it provide most of the features application developer using launcher APIs grew accustomed to. All you need is agreement from everyone that certain tools will be around to do the job. As you already mentioned, getting agreement when no-one can see the point ("developers using GNOME or KDE libs" wondering why you don't just fire up some internal mechanism or other) is pretty tough, but maybe then you have to be the one providing the stability for everyone else. I passively maintain a Python library for launching applications that pre-dates xdg-open and was recently notified that kfmclient has been renamed to kioclient in KDE 4 but takes the same options. All I need to do is to wonder briefly how hard it would be to make a symbolic link for compatibility before just getting on with adding yet another corner case provided by a bunch of people who can't even agree on a name and a bunch of standard options for a program that they and everyone else provide. I find it pretty ironic that "failure of collaboration" comes up in a reply to a posting by Havoc, a person who has put unparalleled efforts into *the* collaboration enabler: D-Bus D-Bus is but one mechanism that should make decoupling of, say, WebDAV access services from graphical clients easier so that the developers of the latter can leave the work of the former to others. In any case, had enabling collaboration led directly to the decline of actual collaboration, you would genuinely have an ironic situation. I didn't link these two things, however.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 18:49 UTC (Thu) by krake (subscriber, #55996) [Link]
"...because people apparently don't want to write some service-level code without sucking in libraries that other people don't want to use."
Quite the opposite. Prior to having an established and shared service communication framework (D-Bus) the only viable options were collaboration on specifications and low-level libraries.
But it is important to understand that creating such a technology and respective application developer API and raising awareness of the benefits over its drawbacks takes some time and that having the means doesn't automatically imply replacements for existing implementations happening either.
"...but my impression was that people were committed to pooling effort and not reinventing the wheel."
I think your impression is correct and also that this has indeed happend. A lot of shared infrastructure has been created and is being used not only by "the big guys" (GNOME, KDE) but even by individual application developers.
"All you need is agreement from everyone that certain tools will be around to do the job."
I don't think any of the tools got removed or altered in an incompatible fashion, but not all tools necessarily export the same feature set (e.g. Thunderbird initially? did not support attachments in mailto URIs).
Another difficulty was that e.g. xdg-open used the best available tool for a given task, which however might not have been intended to be basically the runtime equivalent of public API (thus not necessarily being governed by the same strict policies).
"As you already mentioned, getting agreement when no-one can see the point [...] is pretty tough"
That's not what I meant. Sure, not being aware of a problem makes it difficult to see the need for a solution, but that never resulting in people blocking a solution. It just shrinks the pool of people available to work on said solution. Surprisingly those in need of the solution (e.g. people working on a technoloy stack without launcher API) are even less likely to contribute, making it even less likely to draw resources from those who are already covered.
"...and was recently notified that kfmclient has been renamed to kioclient in KDE 4 but takes the same options."
Actually kioclient is an additional tool that does have fewer dependencies (and is therefore always available, not just when the KDE workspace is installed).
"All I need to do is to wonder briefly how hard it would be to make a symbolic link for compatibility..."
Which would have made sense if kioclient had replaced kfmclient and I am sure that is what would have been done. Anyway, purely hypothetical due to stories about kfmclient's death being hugely exagerated :)
"D-Bus is but one mechanism that should make decoupling [...] easier"
Sure, but the irony I was referring to was not that D-Bus would have had a negative effect on collaboration (it had a very positive effect), I was referring to the, let say call for collaboration, being posted as a reply to a comment by a person who has figuratively enabled a new universe of collaboration.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Sep 1, 2012 16:48 UTC (Sat) by rich0 (guest, #55509) [Link]
Who uses double-clicking to do the "common thing"?
Why else would I be clicking on something in a file manager? I can see the possible logic in getting rid of double-click in open dialogs and such, since most apps don't support multi-select there anyway.
The only time I use a file manager is to manage my files. I don't use it to open documents or whatever.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:03 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]
The Golden Age of X is always behind us.. otherwise we wouldn't nostagically remember it. For my oldest collegues, the golden age of desktops was before any of these "desktops" came out.. just twm, xaw and do your thing. For others it was the time of the many window managers (e, sawfish, fvwm, etc etc.) Others it is the GNOME 2.0 KDE 3 days. And in 10 years it will be when we had the competition between the full deals: Android, KDE4, GNOME3..
All of that skips over the fact that each of those periods were complete crap at the time and we only think we had it good because we forget all the segfaults.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:18 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> But then, if you want to have a sane file manager, you have to put up with the bizarre "precision clicking to select or open depending on which part of the icon or name you're pointing at" behaviour of Dolphin or instead try and use Nautilus for most file browsing and only use Dolphin for WebDAV, except that you can't drag stuff out of a WebDAV folder in Dolphin into Nautilus.
I just use Nautilus for Webdav.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 16:44 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Perhaps xsettings-spec should grow a new, `Net/SingleClickOpens` setting. Then all programs would be able to find that setting in a single, consistent place.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 16:54 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Oh, and you can run `gsettings set org.gnome.nautilus.preferences click-policy single` (or browse to the right setting in dconf-editor) to get the behaviour you want (which is I assume that of items opening upon a single click).
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 16, 2012 18:50 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
Thank you for the advice! I will endeavour to remember and implement this suggestion when I next get the chance and if Nautilus re-enters the picture as a more satisfactory file explorer than Dolphin.
However, I must note, and I hope that you and/or other readers will take this as a constructive suggestion, that more needs to be done to make the user experience more uniform and/or more obviously configurable so that if people want to evaluate desktop environments and applications without constraining themselves to using the "official" applications for a particular environment, then this can be done without needing to have an intimate knowledge of every environment to hand.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 18, 2012 23:38 UTC (Sat) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] or, you know, open the preferences dialog in nautilus itself. sadly, single-click operations are not yet well designed - there's still lots to do in that area, and the design team and nautilus maintainer are well aware of that.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 18, 2012 22:29 UTC (Sat) by akeane (subscriber, #85436) [Link]
>replicating a thirty-year-old user interface limitation in an unreliable fashion
Brilliant, that should be a GNOME marketing phrase ;-)
Sorry GNOME people, you can grumble and moan and throw words like "hate" about all you want, but people have a right to make comments about your release, whether you like it or not.
Here's mine: In the olden days unix had this idea favoring mechanism over policy, i;e; pushing policy decisions up to the end user.
_My_ workflow is decided by _my_ policy as the end user, not by you GNOME devs attempting to impose one upon me by making configuration difficult or impossible to apply...
Now, if I really wanted to switch between "workspaces" using keystrokes, have to type program names to find/run them, have one thing running at time, I will use this far superior version, try it:
<CTRL>+<ALT>+<F1>
It's great! No more horrible clock bang in the centre of the top of the screen, but I can always find out the time by typing date, or surf the interwebz with telnet www.google.com 80, hell there's even great programming IDE: vi
(BTW: I'm not far off joking, I only really use X for lots of terminal windows and a browser)
Of course, GNOME devs have every right to put whatever they want into their release, that's the point of all this free software stuff.
Just as I and many others have the right to use something else and, god forbid, dare to criticize the Holy GNOME 3 project.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 18, 2012 22:48 UTC (Sat) by hp (subscriber, #5220) [Link]
> Sorry GNOME people
Note that there have been few if any active gnome 3 developers on this thread. (I hedge that because I don't know for sure who everyone is.) I had nothing to do with gnome 3 for example. The current developers aren't getting involved. Probably wise.
> mechanism over policy, i;e; pushing policy decisions up to the end user.
Been meaning for years to write a blog post about the bogosity of that old thing ;-) (I've normally seen it used to explain separation of X11 from toolkit/WM/desktop, not separation of desktop from user, though...)
The problem is that "policy" and "mechanism" are relative rather than absolute terms. Every hunk of code is policy for stuff "below" it in the stack and mechanism for stuff "above" it. So the real question about a piece of code is its role (what is it policy for, and what is it mechanism for). "What does this bit of code define, and what does it leave alone, and what does it have nothing to do with"
Since they are relative terms they don't mean anything without filling in "policy for ____" and "mechanism for ____" and then it isn't a principle that tells you what to do anymore, it's just a judgment about what you want in the "____"
It can be used to justify anything because you can always claim _accurately_ that a given hunk of code is a mechanism AND a policy, you just have to put the right thing in the "for ____" to prove it. X11 is mechanism for the window manager. X11 is policy for the graphics driver.
If you take "mechanism not policy" more abstractly you could say it just means "everything should be as flexible as possible to allow the policy above it to do what it wants" and to that I'd say YAGNI. Bloat bloat bloat.
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 18, 2012 23:46 UTC (Sat) by akeane (subscriber, #85436) [Link]
>The problem is that "policy" and "mechanism" are relative
<cheeky banter>
What a fool they would be because they have failed to appreciate your assertion that policy and mechanism are relative and can not be neatly
However, your innovative "relative mechanism", could at least foster a spirit of compromise between the hard pressed developer and the unreasonable end user: The developer gets to pick R and G values and the end user is allowed to set the B value and finally there is peace to one and all...
>X11 is policy for the graphics driver.
Yes, thats true, I could use framebuffers if I wished instead of the X protocol, that's not "for" the graphics driver however, the graphics driver doesn't care either way what comes above it. In the same way X doesn't care what widget libary or window manager I use.
See how much choice that gives me, the end user, so far, it's _my_ policy to pick whether to use X or something else. I can choose the mechanisms I use according to my policy.
That's good, it means freedom of choice, if I want I can code something directly with X if I wanted and have it display on my desktop regardless of GNOME/KDE, etc, etc or on another destop on my desktop running either, the thing that lets me have that freedom is the clear distinction between mechanism and policy, and whilst I have sympathy with the viewpoint that finding that distinction is _sometimes_ not that obvious but most experienced unix devs can make that call pretty well.
If you use gitub do you honestly think that Linus has some hardcoded values for github's html layout in the git backend, no, that would be mad!
>If you take "mechanism not policy" more abstractly you could say it just means "everything should be as flexible as possible to allow the policy above it to do what it wants" and to that I'd say YAGNI. Bloat bloat bloat.
<more cheek>
Seriously, I do take your point that defining the boundary in some cases is not obvious, and in some cases you see that boundary only after having written a lot of code, and it can be a bit dispiriting having to rewite a lot of code (trust me I've done it more than once ;-) especially if you have external pressures like deadlines, politics etc. etc. that would be involved in having to make that decision.
Have a nice weekend!
P.S. Someone mentioned flamewars, I see nothing but a set of intelligent people arguing a conflict of interest in a calm, rational way, at least we can all agree that GNOME 3 is the emacs of desktops (ducks for cover ;-)
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 19, 2012 11:35 UTC (Sun) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683) [Link]
> at least we can all agree that GNOME 3 is the emacs of desktops (ducks for cover ;-)
*throwing a brick*
Emacs I can configure to what *I* want, so there is no similarity. Vi on the other hand ... ;-)
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 19, 2012 0:17 UTC (Sun) by akeane (subscriber, #85436) [Link]
Sorry for another reply hp, but couldn't resist...
>Note that there have been few if any active gnome 3 developers on this thread.
I think both of them are busy...
>bogosity of that old thing ;-)
"old thing", how dare you!?!! Get off my lawn ;-)
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 19, 2012 0:18 UTC (Sun) by sramkrishna (guest, #72628) [Link]
Can't wait to see your reaction after wayland replaces X. :-)
Give GNOME 3 time Posted Aug 19, 2012 0:53 UTC (Sun) by akeane (subscriber, #85436) [Link]
>Can't wait to see your reaction after wayland replaces X. :-)
I hope to be pleasantly surprised :-)
Alas, it has been scientifically proven that:
W < X even for very large values of W
So I'll probably just wait until 'Y' comes out!
They should have called it 'Wasteland' really, it helps conjure up images of the bleak dystopian world where all of our vital freedoms to decide where the clock goes and what font size I want are controlled by an evil and shadowy organization that evolved from the sinister GNOME clan called LORD (Lack Of Reasonable Developers)
Haha, 'Wasteland', me so funny ;-)
|
|||||||||||||