Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" modeGNOME Shell to support a "classic" modePosted Nov 22, 2012 5:23 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)In reply to: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode by ovitters Parent article: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode
Add users you don't want to see in your account's filters. Very nice kwn feature for GNOME 3 threads. :-)
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 5:24 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Lwn, not kwn. Tablet Keyboards still too small for my fat fingers. :-)
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 8:25 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
I'm used to having the access to filter for all. In any case, that is unwanted, you cannot participate and moderate/filter at the same time, that is not going to work (bias&conflict).
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 12:18 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
I don't have any clue about what you just said.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 13:18 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
On GNOME mailing lists I can filter for all. I don't have nor want that access on LWN. At the same time, I do not like filtering for just myself.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 15:09 UTC (Thu) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Well, I'm happy that you post on LWN and I'm happy I've had a chance to exchange ideas with you. On topic, I'm very excited to see what a classic mode will do. I use fallback mode currently because I have a more GNOME 2-ish workflow, and my gma500-based video card makes anything but basic video operations painful.
I do wish comments on these articles would stay away from hyperbole. Every time GNOME is mentioned people immediately jump to making assumptions about people and intent. There are gifted coders and contributors on LWN. Surely the time would be better spent contributing.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 16:03 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
To be fair, if your desires fall outside some cloudy concept known as "the Gnome Brand," there's little chance your patches will be accepted. It's a big risk. All the recent turmoil has shown that this very uncertainty can make forking seem desirable!
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:49 UTC (Thu) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
There are the MATE and Cinnamon forks, both with a bit of a different focus. To your point, I'm not aware of a fork of GNOME 3 that includes patches/changes that have been rejected from GNOME 3. There are enterprising individuals on this site, maybe they'd take up the torch?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:14 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
> I do not like filtering for just myself.
So don't filter posts with your account? Personally, it helps me deal with stressful persons who're likely to just draw me into yet another unproductive debate.
The "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" thing. It makes life suck just a bit less.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:47 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
I'm terrible at coding so for me the time wasting doesn't matter that much. Staying up to date is pretty useful for e.g. GNOME release team (for me a large share of that involves noticing what is happening... be it GNOME, some distro, feedback, etc).
|
|||||||||||||