Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users [LWN.net]

Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users

Posted Nov 10, 2012 21:02 UTC (Sat) by JMB (guest, #74439)
Parent article: Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users

I think Federico Mena-Quintero has something in his post.
But surely not in the way he intended (I guess :):
a cat running around a toilet to get the end of its leash which
it never can reach - a fat cat trying to jump and failes miserably.
Well, those cats perfectly stands for the GNOME developers aiming
at GNOME 3.0 as something users in huge amount love and happily use
on a daily basis (I assume this was their goal - and not to annoy
them).

One problem lies in the philosophy of many free and open source software
advocates - which got its way to the mere usere.
Freedom as GNU/GPL stands for is the freedom of the user.
The user base is bigger in number and more important for any real
software project like a compiler, a kernel, an office application etc.
This is the big achievement on which Linux grounded.
The kernel has to work - if it makes problems you see complaints - big
ones - especially from other kernel developers.
The same is true for the desktop - it has to work, it should get out
of the way and be as invisible or as shiny as the user wants.

What's wrong with the GNOME project - is it a one company show
(the one who's CEO said that Linux is not for the Desktop and never
will be and then take over GNOME {small rant by myself, sorry - well,
not really, just kidding;-})?
Is it now only for a limited and very special purpose - tablets only
(and only for those with small resolution - sorry to wake you up, but
till the time GNOME 3 may be working full-HD will have come down to
tablets - ups - surprise)?
Why were there clear statements of the developers before GNOME 3.0 was
released that they learnt from the KDE 3.0 -> 4.0 disaster and then
made something of an order of magnitude worse - to be truly named as
a real catastrophy for their users?
Are they stuck with historical assumptions (like the famous one
"640k ought to be enough for anybody" from Bill Gates in 1981)?
Are they dazzled by shiny design so they totally neglect functionality?
Do they adore simplicity - and will follow the path to a one coloured
screen (maybe a blue one)?

When Dirk Hondel and Linus Torvalds criticised, it was well to late
and many users trying to help improve GNOME 3 by bug reports were not
treated nicely.
And the result - people lost politeness - as it was deserved (treat
people the way you want to be treated - not so new, is it)?
GNOME project/developers had its user base with GNOME 2 - they had
responsibility for them - companies invested in usability studies to
improve GNOME2.
And the impression users got (and I got from their statements, which
as non-user really were amusing - sorry for the extra salt;-):
Suddenly the clouds fell apart and the sun was shining on a new concept
so good no further piece of advice was needed - especially not from
users of old GNOME - and not from their own `lessons learnt' book.
Sometimes I just wonder what people are smoking if they really did
not expect a big "NO WAY" from their former user base.

If a user wants a feature like focus-follow-mouse and it can be
implemented without disturbing other functionality, performance etc.
(which is technically clearly the case), it _HAS_ to be implemented
on a social ground (look at kernel developers - the know it).
And if people are promised things the don't get [Unity folks - just
wake up - what's about the promise to include that said feature in
Ubuntu 12.10 (LTS+1)?] - well, they go crazy, writing comments (even
crude ones, which only shows the code was near their heart, being
fanboys and -girls:), making `rants' (I was told by a developer
I am in that game, too - so guilty myself ;-) and finally leaving
the SW project behind - populating other projects user base instead
(in case of GNOME maybe XFCE, LXDE, enlightment, fvwm2, KDE4, Mate ...
what ever meets the need of each unhappy user the best).
Well, I hope that GNOME developers wake up and realize that they
do have responsibility for their user base - and the criticism is
well deserved and should have come from their own group too - only
for the sake of fans of old-style GNOME desktop.
Otherwise I would suggest those developers unhappy with criticism
to do inhouse software and stop screaming because they are criticised,
as it is just their work and those people are not really willing to
help but just complaining.
If you are a singer and step on stage and the audience don't like
the way you sing you may get hit by a tomatoe - and its up to you
to step on stage time after time till all tomatoes are sold out or
to learn how to sing - but trying to shoot your own fan doesn't help.
It's a big difference to shout at journalists not being involved or
people of other, maybe rivalling projects - or at your own users.
Don't do this - or you don't deserve them.
And Linus Torvalds just spoke up as a user of GNOME - a prominent
well known user - but only a user - so shouting at him he should
not have used blogs to make other people aware of the catastrophy
you created or advice him to help out would be stupid -
wouldn't it.
If it would be his business, maybe he would construct a desktop suiting
his personal needs as he created git - and trying to please as many
users as possible.
[Don't get me wrong: Linus may be smart, but he is human - having been
a fan of binary additions to the kernel (which of cause helped all
users of that kernel in former times but then got a big burden) and
than saying "f*ck you, Nvidia" may seem not so smart - but maybe it
is sort of geek diplomacy - at least I like it. ;-]

I am not a GNOME user - I never was (only as a professional Unix admin,
but hey - I even had to use Windows) - and as the developers statements
show me I will never be one (and they be happy to hear that - I know;
world is a beatiful place if there only would be win-win situations
like this one ;-).
From my point of view Linux has been a better desktop OS than any rival
(OS/2, Windows, Mac OS {X} - you name them) since at least 1999 - and
you can configure any desktop who is configurable and stable to meet
the neets of the different users (not nice work, but can be done by nice
administrators). This is true for scientists as well as for CAD/CAE
experts as user base - which I can testify.
But you don't have one single set of settings to make all happy.
Get that clear, guys trying to develop any Desktop GUI.

Glorifying a brand makes no sense for anyone (there are well known
examples for that ...).
Hiding Options at the first glance may be a good idea, but hiding
them for professionals, well, is no good advice.
And trying to dictate professionals with much more experience than
you have yourself - well - you may prefer to jump in broken glass
instead.
If you really think press is against you - without justification -
as your users are happy with your code - ask for opinions like here
on LWN (you may get them here anyway - even if not asked for -
I guess ;-).
But realising that the two biggest desktop distros formerly well
behind GNOME2, Ubuntu and Mint, have their problems with GNOME 3 -
and their own users comments are not welcome (if coming from a small
minority or even a mojority) ...

As long as GNOME people don't react constructive (i.e. by changes
and additional {expert-} options) on reasonable complaints (from
any user - not just one being well-known like Dirk Hohndel), they
don't deserve users at all.
But this conclusion is to be made by each and every user of the GNOME
desktop - and if someone is happy with what he gets now - greetings and
best wishes that it will stay that way and keeps you happy.
For the current and former users not happy with the direction of
their beloved project - keep complaining - or move on - whatever
you want and seems suitable for you. Both is justified - and it
is fully up to you.

(Log in to post comments)

Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users

Posted Nov 12, 2012 1:28 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Sorry, but FSF/GPL are most definitely not about "user freedom," the users are not even mentioned once. All it cares about is developer freedom.

Also, Red Hat said that there is no money to be made on distributing desktop Linux, not that it is irrelevant. If you look around, every company into Linux is focused on servers, on embedded systems, or it is called Google and targets smartphones. Canonical's Ubuntu is trying to break even by targeting the same space. It is not some hipocrisy to target servers and be active in moving the desktop forward. Without a polished graphical desktop you won't be able to interest anybody in your operating system offering nowadays.

Yes, Linus Torvalds complained, and everybody took that as a sure sign that Gnome 3 was done in. Reading later posts by Linus shows he is using Gnome 3 day-to-day. But that is no news...

It is the rare feature that can be implemented without any impact whatsoever on the rest of the system. And the (limited!) developer time and interest available have to be spent on high priority items, not on the favorite rant of a tiny minority. If focus follows mouse truly is so easy to do and so low impact, you surely can do it yourself.

Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users

Posted Nov 12, 2012 1:51 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

> FSF/GPL are most definitely not about "user freedom," the users are not even mentioned once. All it cares about is developer freedom.

"The FSF advocates for free software ideals as outlined in the Free Software Definition, works for adoption of free software and free media formats, and organizes activist campaigns against threats to user freedom like Windows 7, Apple's iPhone and OS X, DRM on music, ebooks and movies, and software patents."
_http://www.fsf.org/_

"'Free software' means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them."
_http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html_

"The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too."
[...]
"Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users."
_http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html_

Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users

Posted Nov 12, 2012 14:43 UTC (Mon) by JMB (guest, #74439) [Link]

Well, I would not agree with you at all.
GPL is a licence picked to enforce that code can not be taken away
from free usage by any user (today with even broder scope - nicely
given by the citations of Trelane).
If you take that code, change it and give it to anyone, that person
(per definition a user) has the right to ask for the source code.
It is all about the users.
RMS worked in AI research - and as a scientist he helped (as many
more) to improve proprietary code - some things were taken, others
dropped.
But suddenly scientists lost the right to use their own changes
on _their_ systems - that was the starting point for GNU.
(If I am wrong, please say so.)
The additional burden in GPL which is cited from rivals calling
for more `permissive licenses' (and so being open for misuse; well
BSD was chosen for a well known system ... ithing:) is added to
ensure the users right - and take the right away from the developers.
And thus called copyleft.
So users' freedom and developers' obligation!
It's all a social/ethical thing!

Concerning RH I know of a CEO citation which is harder than that
currently one can not make money with DEs - but this is not
important here.
Linux is much better than to be a cheap Unix replacement (while its
focus on small HW and HA has its merits) - and unfortunately it was
also responsible for pressure on incomes of people working in the
high-availability business.
Ubuntu reached a lot - but unfortunately is currently using a
problematic path.
It grew communities and showed that even beginners can install a
Linux system ...
Give a beginner a Xubuntu CD/DVD/stick and one of another distro,
you _WILL_ see a difference (I like RH as administrator - but nor
as DE - this is also true for Fedora - and I try them - personal
taste, no need for flame war here ;-).
As long as Linux is not pre-installed reasonably and in large numbers
plus all specialized software is also available for Linux (current games,
tax software, ... you name it), world domination can not reached. :(
But it had been ripe for years - and it is currently much better
than everything from the proprietary world.
OS/2 2.x was better than Windows - it lost anyway - lack of OS/2-SW
was the main reason.
Linux can survive another 15 years without dominating DE - and we will
survive whatever DEs may be present.
But one day rivalling with Linux will be too expensive - even for a
monopolist - unless they misuse politics and law (patents, secure boot,
we will wait ...).
The desktop is and will be ready - just now it may not be possible
for the majority to switch 100% - this is the problem.
And RH is well advised to focus on servers and be ready for other
usages ...

Well, Linus Torvalds comments showed the world that what GNOME3
presented was not adjustable to a professional workflow at least
as effitiently as GNOME2 was. This was a highlighted regression
report after those of others were neglected - and thus well
received by many people.
Maybe he loves GNOME 3 now - maybe KDE or XFCE.
It is interesting for many to hear - but it is not deceicive
for my opinion (only shows that I am not allone:).

The last passage is absolutely untrue - it may be correct in a
limited way - but look at the kernel. It was said one needs a
kernel for all special purposes - and Linux is quite good on
servers, desktop, tablet, phones, ... different CPUs ... and
still real time can be introduced by special patches which got
smaller in number (as the kernel took the parts which are not
problematic for other needs).
Good quality code takes time and is in need developers - and
users.
Nothing new - true for kernel and DE work.
But missing options X provided before Linux even existed?
Those should be so problematic to implement - or negative
for other functionality/performance?
I don't buy that argument.
It burns down in the "our brand - our workflow - don't even change
themes" attitude. If you have a child, you will take care of it,
but has to release it to the world - in small steps. Similar for
a software project (especially which aims at being useful for
the mass - not for special purposes).
And this _is_ a social thing (back to the reason for the start of
the GNU project).
At least IMHO.