| |||||||||||||
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" modeGNOME Shell to support a "classic" modePosted Nov 22, 2012 10:15 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)In reply to: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode by dgm Parent article: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode
No need for stupid sarcasm, thanks.
Already mentioned that XMMS, a gtk+1.x application should work fine in GNOME 3.
I think all distributions still have the GNOME 2 libraries. The only thing I am aware of that won't work is a gnome-panel applet. I doubt that the proprietary application is an applet.
In any case, please be more specific.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 13:50 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link]
"No need for stupid sarcasm, thanks."
Please leave out personal insults from this site.
Rehdon
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 13:53 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
What you quoted is and was not a personal insult.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:07 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link]
Those are your very words to someone noting how the person he was replying to had reading comprehension problems, so I'll leave you discussing about it with yourself ;)
Also, your English is puzzling O.o
Rehdon
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:21 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
I know it are my words. As said, I don't see any personal insult in there.
Suggest to read again, just because I mentioned "stupid" doesn't mean it was about a person.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:47 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link]
As I said, since you replied with exactly those words to someone doing exactly what you did, it's up to you to understand what has happened. I can only suggest that something beginning with hypo- is going on here (hint: it's not about hypothermia! hmmm, does that qualify as "stupid sarcasm" too? ;)
Rehdon
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:54 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
To summarize:
- you think something is an personal insult, I say that it is not - you didn't respond to what I've said - you did suggest my English is not good - you did suggest my reading comprehension is not good - you are suggesting some goose chase because you do have some argument
In my view, you're mostly getting personal while ignoring any argument.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 15:06 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link]
I think you have reading comprehension problems: there, go read these two comments and see if you get any enlightenment:
http://lwn.net/Articles/524448/
Hope you also make some progress on the hypo- quiz thingie.
And finally, I'm not "suggesting" your English is not good:
"What you quoted is and was not a personal insult." sounds like bad English to me.
"I know it are my words" is definitely bad English. Period.
Rehdon
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 21:04 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
In summary: No arguments, let's get personal with 'bkor'!
Complaining about someones English and all the other behaviour you've displayed here is pathetic while trying to complain about my behaviour. I've asked for details, instead you show this kind of behaviour.
Get lost, really.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 21:07 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Oh, alternatively: go to FOSDEM (GNOME stand). As alternative suggestion, suggest talking to me in person because at the moment I get the strong impression your current behaviour would not be the same.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 22:17 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link]
What argument are you talking about? It should've been clear from the start that I wasn't arguing about the "classic" mode in Gnome 3 (too little too late, if you ask me), the only sensible thing you wrote is that my comment was personally directed to you: yes, I hoped you might notice how hypocritical of you was telling one guy "enough stupid sarcasm" after you took the high ground telling another one "please don't insult anyone" for exactly the same kind of remark (which didn't include the word "stupid", btw).
But of course that didn't happen: God forbid that you might admit being wrong! I guess you might be the kind of person who says "look where you're going!" when you bump into someone. No, I won't come pay a visit to you at FOSDEM: my attitude might be different indeed, but it's yours that it's at fault here.
I'm afraid the current problem with GNOME development it's not technical, and it's not political either: it's just that the wrong people are doing it. You're back at the starting point of the open source movement: you're scratching your personal itches, so to speak, only you're disguising that using words like "vision", "brand", and so on. The technical regressions in GNOME 3 are just a symptom of the psychological regression and detachment from the GNOME community by the current developers.
I almost felt sorry for you guys when reading the heavy trolling in this thread, but not anymore, you reap what you sow after all. I will be back to GNOME when you either grow up (in all senses), or a new generation of developers will take your place.
So long and thanks for GNOME 2.x (if you had any part in it).
Rehdon
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 22:32 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
First comment I noticed is this one:
https://lwn.net/Articles/526359/
Where you complain that I personally insulted someone. It was not a personal insult, nor meant as one.
I don't care at all about "brand" and all the other stuff you're adding to this. Seems you're getting very emotional and personal for no good reason.
So again:
Was NOT intended as a personal insult. It also is NOT a personal insult. If you read it as such, I did NOT mean it that way.
In any case, you continuous behaviour (condescending, getting personal, and psyco analysis of me as well as other GNOME developers): Rich to complain about me taking the high ground.
Noticed you never replied the times I stated I did NOT an personal insult. Also, you seem to have ignored my request to go to FOSDEM.
Trying to be constructive here and understand, but even if I was wrong somewhere, you're not making things any clearer for me with this kind of conversation style.
This is going nowhere, so this is the last I'm going to say.
perhaps my opportunity to be flamed ...but Posted Nov 25, 2012 9:12 UTC (Sun) by ds2horner (subscriber, #13438) [Link]
When I first read "No need for stupid sarcasm, thanks.", I considered it a personal attack, a criticism of the individual making the comment and not a constructive criticism of the comment.
I suspect you do not have a good appreciation for what the word sarcasm means nor the implicit derision the word conveys. A normal denotative meaning of sarcasm (according to New Lexicon Websters Dictionary 1990 edition) is "n. a cruel humorous statement or remark made with the intent of injuring the self-respect of the person to who it is addressed ...". So, by labeling the comment as sarcasm (not matter the intent of the "stupid" qualifier) you made a value judgment of the speakers intent and character; and that being a negative one. Thus it would usually be seen as a personal attack on the speaker. However, in my opinion, even the use of "stupid" in such discussions is sufficient to be offensive, especially as its secondary mean (from the same reference dictionary is "adj. ... resulting from lack of intelligence". And you appeared to understand this as you gave an excuse for your use of the adjective.
perhaps my opportunity to be flamed ...but Posted Nov 26, 2012 10:11 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
OK, I did not find bkor's response offensive. I understand that dealing with a community that is critic with something you care about can be tiresome and at times frustrating. That's OK, and I would like to encourage bkor to continue defending what he/she believes in.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 18:49 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
No, there are deprecated GNOME libraries that are no longer shipped and hard to build (at least via distro means), breaking apps. See my referencer comment.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 23:00 UTC (Thu) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] No, there are deprecated GNOME libraries that are no longer shipped and hard to build (at least via distro means), breaking apps. seriously, if a distro ships an application without satisfying its dependencies, why are you complaining to GNOME and not to the distribution that is breaking its own packages? do you, perchance, think that GNOME is responsible for removing packages from distributions as well?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 7:18 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] seriously, if a distro ships an application without satisfying its dependencies,This thread was explicitly about proprietary applications, which are usually not shipped by distributions.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 9:44 UTC (Fri) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link]
the libraries in question are still there. they didn't fell off the face of the earth, they are still in git, they still have tarballs, and they are still at the same level as they were before GNOME 3.0 was released.
GNOME didn't do anything, except say that nobody is working on those libraries any more, except for eventual security issues; patches coming from distributions have been folded back, whenever applicable, and releases have been made.
if you want to maintain old libraries, you're absolutely encouraged to do so: just ask for a Git account, or push clone on github/gitorious if you want to, and ask distributions to switch over to your tarballs.
if that's not to your satisfaction then I'm sorry: you have a profound issue with the whole "free software" thing.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 10:03 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Thank you for the condescension, just what I needed to brighten up my morning. I actually consider myself to be reasonably au fait with this whole free software thing. It paid my wages for quite a few years, and it might again in a few years time. Indeed, there's a small, but not insignificant, chance that you or your packets are a regular user of free software I have written / helped maintain. (And I am a regular, happy and grateful user of your software).
So thanks for that.
Note that I was *not* assigning blame anywhere, and I was not ranting. I was merely stating a fact: a good application disappeared from a common distro because of churn in libraries, and that the old libraries are difficult to build on that distro, at least using the packaging facilities of that distro. If stating quite objective facts on LWN about free software is akin to questioning and having profound issues with the whole basis for free software, then perhaps we're all on a quite shaky foundation.
As I've written here before, my view is the problem is a business one. In particular, the fact that it's impossible to pay the major employer of Linux desktop developers for support on the software I'd like to run on my desktop (i.e. software that isn't 5+ years old on average, but not sub-6-month old either). Further, even if they would take my money for that, that still leaves a good number of developers I depend on not owing me anything. I'd have to get support contracts with each of them.
Re fixing your problems yourself, it's not always possible to learn a codebase and figure out how to fix it within the space of the hours to a day you can afford to spend on fixing some random software problem. But I'll give the GNOME lib building another try and see what needs fixing.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 7:34 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Well, parent up a few comments to see my original comment on referencer.
I'm not blaming GNOME for distros not shipping libraries. GNOME deprecated those libraries, and then building those old libraries on modern distros became troublesome (likely for a variety of reasons). Because of that, those distros decided to stop shipping those libraries (or just couldn't), which, obviously, lead to that app no longer being shipped. Again, it's more than a case of an app no longer being shipped - which a user could easily fix themselves.
I don't know who's to blame, but my point was that - regardless of the work you say the library maintainers put in to maintain API and ABI compatibility - a very useful application disappeared from at least one distro because of library churn in GNOME/GTK+.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 10:09 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
It was not my intention being sarcastic. I don't find it funny in any possible way.
I'm sorry that I cannot provide you with specifics. The problem I have witnessed is this:
I work for an engineering company, developing custom automation products. It's very rare to find Linux based developments running there, all important automation packages run on Windows.
One of our clients, though, bought a system for classifying defects based on video cameras. The system was running in an very old Ubuntu (Dapper I believe) PC. When the time came to replace that computer they first tried with a recent Ubuntu. The application refused to run. They called to me and I had to explain what Unity is, and that they need to install Gnome, which they did. The application crashed. The only way they found to make it work was to install an old version of Ubuntu (10.4). I don't know what the concrete problem was, just that they could not fix it. After that, they have been regretting their decision of buying anything based on Linux.
What do you think they will do if I suggest to them to buy something based on Linux?
Backwards compatibility over features Posted Nov 23, 2012 16:10 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That is a disgrace; your experience should be sent to all Free software developers. It is OK to stop adding features if you don't have the time; but it is not good to stop maintaining old stuff. I think we have it backwards most of the time.However, let us put things in perspective here. Dapper was released in June 2006 and it has been supported for five years. At the time of its introduction Vista had not yet been released (January 2007), so the most current version of Windows was XP (released in October 2001). If your story had read thus: The system was running in a very old Windows XP PC. When the time came to replace it they first tried with Windows 7; the application refused to run. They called me and I explained what Aero is, and that they needed to install Windows XP Mode, which they did. The application crashed. They had to install an old version of Vista. I don't know what the problem was, just that they could not fix it. After that they have been regretting their decision of buying anything based on Windows.who would you think that your client would have blamed, Microsoft or the original devs? There are two important differences: first that Microsoft is supporting XP with SP 3 until 2014, and each service pack is essentially a new version of the OS. Second that your client did not pay for Ubuntu, probably. If they had chosen Red Hat they would be happily running RHEL 4 on the new machine (supported until 2015). I think you could do worse than recommending anything based on Red Hat. (Note: I am a happy Debian user, and would be grateful to recommend Debian oldstable; but I also value what Red Hat gives to companies.)
Backwards compatibility over features Posted Nov 23, 2012 17:08 UTC (Fri) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
The other difference is that Linux is perceived as riskier. To succeed there must not be cases like this where people's suspicious appear to be confirmed; on compatibility the Linux desktop needs to set a *higher* standard than its proprietary counterparts, not a lower or even an equal one.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 22:16 UTC (Fri) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]
1. Try installing Debian - especially stable.
2. Related to that - did anyone do a scan to see what libraries the application used? Once that is determined, you can download the libraries as .deb files.
This is one of the standard problems with proprietary software -and I've seen it on Windows quite a bit. However, I can run my old WordPerfect for Linux (from mid-90's) on Linux, as long as I install the right user-space libraries.
|
|||||||||||||