Questions for deployments of GNOME [LWN.net]

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 16:32 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
In reply to: Questions for deployments of GNOME by nix
Parent article: Questions for deployments of GNOME

I don't know how many of us there are, but anecdotal evidence suggests to me at least that switching from KDE to GNOME is common (generally because you don't work in the total UI chaos KDE is set up to let you work; you can't change it because you can't find where in the forest of of options, like "Open In Cervisia" the thing you want is.), while switching from GNOME to KDE, well, it may happen (possibly if you're offended by the idea of `Glade' or something, or hate the idea of C), but I've never met anyone it's happened to. Why go from something intutive and usable to something with a totally chaotic UI, unless you're trying to install it for a lot of random clueless users and are looking for job security?

(There's nothing *wrong* with looking for job security, but I doubt it describes your average LWN subscriber well.)

to post comments

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 17:30 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, that was funny, but... not useful. Most of your attempted inversions, well, weren't.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 12, 2006 19:58 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] (4 responses)

The inverted post was at least as useful as yours. That you choose KDE over GNOME is fine, but please spare us the condescending speculation about why someone might have a different preference. Offended by C++? Get a grip.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 12, 2006 22:42 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, I originally picked GNOME over KDE because I found moc to be aesthetically ugly; it's provably unnecessary, as libstdc++ makes clear. Later, the simple usability gap forced me to switch back, unwillingly at first.

So it wasn't a `condescending speculation'; it's actually based on reality.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 13, 2006 16:53 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] (2 responses)

Regardless of whether C++ offends you the tone of your comment was condescending and you deserved the sarcasm you complained about. I've tried KDE and each time I find it an unusable mess, but unlike you I attribute that to my own preferences rather than some deep desktop principle that only the clueless could fail to appreciate. I'm glad you're happy with KDE but you're going to have to accept that not everyone wants the same things from a desktop environment.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 14, 2006 21:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

You really are completely incapable of comprehending what you read, aren't you?

I was quite clear from the start that I don't think that `everyone wants the same things', and that the existence of GNOME is a good thing. I'm just interested in finding out what it is that GNOME users think they can't get from KDE (I don't need to know what KDE users think they're not getting from GNOME: I know that already).

This is not so that KDE can 'conquer' GNOME or some childish idiocy like that. It's so that *both environments can get better*. (Where your `only the clueless could fail to appreciate' stuff came from, I have no idea. I *do* think that GNOME is probably well-targetted *at* the clueless, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily targetted *only* at the clueless, the protestations of some of its developers notwithstanding.)

Of course, if you prefer to believe that everyone who prefers one environment to the other does so for entirely unrelated reasons, and no general principles can be drawn from any of them, well, why are you even *having* this discussion? If you're right, you're not doing anything but wasting your time arguing with me; and if you're wrong, you're *still* wasting your time. If I'm right, I might be able to help the desktop environments improve, in some small way...

Nonsense from Start to Stop

Posted Jun 14, 2006 21:56 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

Wherever did I get the idea that you think only the clueless would not appreciate KDE? Here: "Why go from something flexible to something inflexible, unless you're trying to install it for a lot of random clueless users?" That is not some high minded query aimed at understanding what GNOME users think they can't get from KDE. Take a break from patting yourself on the back for armchair desktop improvement and you'll discover what you've actually posted is inflammatory bigotry.

Where is your evidence that I believe "everyone who prefers one environment to the other does so for entirely unrelated reasons"? What I actually said was that not everyone wants the same things. That doesn't rule out groups of people who do want the same things. I'm amused that you accuse me of not comprehending what I read (mostly because you don't comprehend what you wrote) and then immediately demonstrate your own reading abilities... or lack thereof.

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:13 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Every time I try GNOME I'm left with an impression that it's a disparate bunch of applications with a window manager over the top. KDE seems more coherent as a whole, to me.

Every time I try KDE, it isn't long before something stops working, or fails to start. That doesn't seem to happen with GNOME; GNOME seems more stable, to me.

But then, those are just initial impressions... because every time I try either of them, it isn't long before I end up scurrying back to a blend of fluxbox and screen. 20 years of developing GUI programs and they're not actually getting any better, just bigger; everyone is convinced that they know The One True Way to present everything, and nobody can agree on what it is, whilst in the meantime everyone's so busy tacking "features" on the side that nothing ever gets smaller or works better. (No, I'm not going to go out and buy a brand new computer just because you can't be bothered to consider efficiency.) And then the most useful programs to me - bash, mplayer, vi, emacs, mutt, elm, xpdf, firefox, OpenOffice, seq24, dillo, links, LyX, Ted, TeXmacs... I could go on - don't even integrate with either system anyway!

If I have to live with a bunch of disparate interfaces and philosophies anyway, why on earth should I give up the relative simplicity, stability, speed and compactness of the command line? Honestly, until you can be vaguely useful to me without being annoyingly slow and/or crashing every 5 minutes on a box with half a gig of memory, a CPU which doubles as a storage heater, a plague on both your houses!