Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
GNU virtual private Ethernet
Posted Jan 27, 2013 15:44 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
Perhaps launcher buttons couldn't be transparent before and the background setting was a workaround that was made obsolete, just like the absence of an exhaust pipe on a hypothetical car whose predecessor required one. Since the result is almost completely superior, there's little reason to complain about it, but that almost certainly cannot be said for many consequences of these big product upgrades.
Posted Jan 27, 2013 16:27 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 27, 2013 17:52 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
I also noted that if a feature goes away because it is obsolete - to take an ancient example that once applied to some desktop systems, you don't have to allocate memory manually to a process because the system now does that for you - you can ignore the regression because nothing that anyone was doing before that they can no longer do now (say, allocate a process size of N) is anything they still need to be able to do (because the system will give the process N if it asks for it). Since there is no longer any benefit in even being able to do those obsolete things, there's no general functional regression (you can still run that process).
None of this has anything to do with whether I "like the changes". The issue I have is the way that people deny the experiences of the users by playing games with definitions of what the system was and is, as if the users were supposed to care more about the brand gymnastics than the features actually being delivered.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 14:04 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576)
Clearly, everything you say is therefore correct. It must be wonderful to know that you are so much better at everything than anyone else. I hope you enjoy your future career in law, and wish you all the best.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 16:05 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 28, 2013 16:17 UTC (Mon) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
With Gnome 2 I was able to control my CPU governors with a graphical applet.
With Gnone 3 there is no applet and I can't control my CPU governors through the GUI.
For me it's simply a regression.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 16:40 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 28, 2013 17:02 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
Perhaps there isn't an "applet" but there is an extension, available through the extensions.gnome.org website.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 18:52 UTC (Mon) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
You're right. The extension is here : https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/444/cpu-freq/
It didn't exist six months ago and I'm glad someone took the pain to create it. I retract my comment about this regression :)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds