| |||||||||||||
Mobile plans?Mobile plans?Posted Mar 29, 2013 5:39 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: Mobile plans? by rahulsundaram Parent article: GNOME 3.8 released
Where some in case of Windows, Mac, Android and IOS is north of 90%. Gnome 3 cannot even cover their old, entirely insignificant in numbers, user base. Yeah, great success.
And on the point of designing things "my way" - absolute crap. You clearly did not understand my point.
Your suggestion to me appears to be: when faced with opposition, give up. Yeah, no thanks.
(Log in to post comments)
Mobile plans? Posted Mar 29, 2013 5:54 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
You are claiming that OS market share which is based on a number of varied factors is dependent on the UI but I don't think GNOME UI is responsible for Linux low market share on the desktop. If that was the case, other desktop environments would have been successful. There seems to be no clarity of thought here.
What I am suggesting is that your UI preferences does not match the design trajectory of the desktop environment and you cannot change it by your approach.
Mobile plans? Posted Mar 29, 2013 7:21 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
What I'm saying is that Windows (with version 8 still being a bit of an unknown), OSX, Android and IOS quite obviously suit most people. I don't see folks jumping up and down about Jelly Bean UI, IOS 6 UI, Windows 7 UI or whatever is the current version of OS X UI. And, generally speaking, people pick up on the opposition UI without much fuss.
But, Gnome managed to alienate a good proportion of their already tiny (and most likely dedicated, like myself) user base, which would suggest that things are not all that flexible.
Once again, you bring up UI preferences, trying to imply that I'm appealing to what I want. I will explain it to you this way. If Gnome had the capability of moving/removing things on the panel, for instance, that would suit both you and me. You would not touch anything, I probably would. As it stands, it only works for you. So, objectively, what I'm suggesting is more flexible, because more people can use it.
Mobile plans? Posted Mar 29, 2013 9:00 UTC (Fri) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]
I do not like MacOSX but I still use it quite a lot.
Mobile plans? Posted Mar 29, 2013 16:08 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Most Windows users aren't even aware that are alternatives and just because they use it, I wouldn't assume they are happy with it. I would suggest you ask users if they are actually happy to get the answer.
While the ability to move panels might make it more flexible, that flexibility comes at a price. For instance, the first deployment of GNOME 2 I did, a lot of users removed panels or window switcher and called up support because they couldn't figure out what happened. This was solved by making it more harder to do it by default in subsequent versions but I was amazed at how much trouble it did cause in the first place. When we wrote internal help documentation, if someone else moved the panel around, other users get confused because what they see in the help doesn't match reality. Now with GNOME 3, I can be reasonably sure what the UI would look like and if I were still doing some desktop administration, that is a big advantage.
Now GNOME 3 could still offer the flexibility if they had the ability to lockdown the UI for large deployments but this requires a lot of careful planning and development and isn't as simple a choice as you make it out to be.
Mobile plans? Posted Mar 29, 2013 21:43 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Yeah, "careful planning and development" being the key words. Totally agree with that part.
|
|||||||||||||