| |||||||||||||
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power usersMena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power usersPosted Nov 11, 2012 0:04 UTC (Sun) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)In reply to: Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users by sorpigal Parent article: Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users
Um, firstly that's a pretty pointless analogy since GNOME 3 certainly doesn't bring massive enforced loss of irreplaceable data. And secondly, if you started in 1997, then you'll remember the GNOME 1.4 → 2.0 transition. That was nothing if not jarring, and yes, at the time we heard all the same complaints: it's not really GNOME anymore, they hate power users, they're trying to make a UI for idiots who will never use Linux, why aren't they developing both in parallel, these fascist 'designers' have really gone too far this time (interesting how no-one ever scare-quotes 'coders', by the by), etc, etc.
And yet, here we are ten years later, hearing the exact same arguments for keeping that unusable, idiot-focussed, 'designed' desktop.
(Log in to post comments)
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 11, 2012 0:12 UTC (Sun) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
You and I remember it differently. I remember that most of the stuff that was removed was put back later, because it wasn't a good idea to remove it in the first place. Cycling 'round again, here we go.
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 11, 2012 13:25 UTC (Sun) by JMB (guest, #74439) [Link]
It is not pointless, as distributions are forced to use GNOME 3
instead of GNOME 2 as GNOME 2 is no longer supported. Yes, you can maintain it yourself - as a folk ... done as MATE, but was GNOME 2 really that good and stable? In 1997 there was no large share for GNOME - ridiculous to make analogies to the path to GNOME 2. Which distros were common that day - what was the standard? When industry (Sun, HP, IBM, ...) got behind GNOME (as CDE successor; long ago - and even forgotten now - well, I liked CDE more anyway, NOT kidding) even experts I know ask - GNOME? Maybe I should have a look at it ... With Linux kernel 2.0 Linux distros were full capable as Desktop systems for scientists - predominantly using fvwm and later fvwm2. They were accustomed to CDE/MOTIF - and that was a nice fit back then. Concerning sorpigal's statement: well said. (+1 :)
|
|||||||||||||