|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Complaints and changes

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 19:00 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Complaints and changes by man_ls
Parent article: Changes and complaints

Let us face it: our marketshare is not increasing, and desktop linux is probably decreasing below 1% (cannibalized by Mac OS X users and Windows 7 defectors).

Actually your link shows Linux's marketshare at 0.62% six years ago and at 0.82% today. I don't think it's precise enough to do any large conclusions.

For every user that complains there are 9 that leave silently, and for every user that complains bitterly there are probably 99 that have already left.

Perhaps, but what does it change? As alankila said: Linux currently is for the 1%, not the 99% - you can afford to lose some of that 1% if you gain nearly any fraction of the 99%: number of users would increase dramatically.

Usability studies are something that you do when you do not have user feedback; it's not a substitute. Once you have user opinions there is no need to do fancy studies, you just have to listen. Users may not know what they want, but they sure know what they don't want.

Right, but irrelevant. They know what change they will complain about. They don't know what changes they will eventually accept. And this is vital metric. This is why Mozilla plans to track users: they are losing to Chrome (again, according to the link you've shown) - and they don't even know why.

As to Wayland, based on recent LWN.net articles 432 comments are something to take into account, and I wonder why its developers have not put a prominent message on the front page stating: We will strive to make Wayland network transparent as soon as possible.

Perhaps because good people are not supposed to lie?

In short, we need Free software to say out loud: People, we care about you.

s/we care/we DON'T care/

I think the people are doing what they are supposed to do but that they themselves are still in denial as to about why they need to do that.

Situation is very simple:

  1. Linux desktop goes nowhere.
  2. Small cosmetic changes don't cut it.
  3. We need to do something drastic if we want to attract new users.
  4. Old users may complain (or complain bitterly).
  5. This is irrelevant because if we'll not attract new user soon (as in: the next 3-5 years) then it's the end.

It's as simple as that. Some people may try to sugarcoat the truth, some are still lying even to themselves, but that's the sad truth.

As consumers, however, our most important contribution is to make ourselves heard.

As consumers you (well, we because I'm a Linux user, too) are irrelevant because there are just not enough of us. Yet Bug #1 is as relevant today as it was half-dozen years ago. The fact that someone is finally taking it seriously is encouraging - even if I'm not all that sure they have chosen the right path to fix it.


to post comments

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 20:07 UTC (Thu) by kh (guest, #19413) [Link] (16 responses)

I had in the last ~ five years gotten some non-technical users to switch to Ubuntu. It was easy to understand and work with, and they were happy with the reliability and security of the system. They bragged about the ease of installing printers and finding useful free-software programs and web tools. They came to understand and enjoy the desktop switcher. They got some of their friends and family to switch. Linux did not have all the games and a few other programs (e.g. accounting software), but they kept around a Windows partition for those few times they needed it. I kept hearing stories that they found they booted to Windows less and less. They would upgrade the OS themselves. They even came to like Google Docs & OpenOffice/LibreOffice better than the Microsoft product - they were not made to use the ribbon interface that forced them to work how Microsoft's UI experts told them they should. They felt treated with respect.

They have all now switched to Windows 7 as their primary desktop because of the change to Unity. They don't particularly like Windows 7, but feel it is an improvement over Vista, and much less trouble than Unity because Windows 7 gives them more freedom to work as they wish. They can still use Firefox and LibreOffice with Windows.

So when you say that your motivation is to give up on the 1% developer community in search of the 99% of other users, I can completely understand your motivation, but I think you have blinded yourself to the actual results of your actions.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 21:22 UTC (Thu) by jonasj (guest, #44344) [Link] (5 responses)

Why are they not just still running Ubuntu's latest LTS with GNOME 2? Did the introduction of Unity in a newer release cause the old, still-supported-for-more-than-one-year-from-today release to be ripped out from their harddrives?

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 21:34 UTC (Thu) by jmspeex (subscriber, #51639) [Link] (3 responses)

I would assume that the answer is a combination of:
1) Once you upgraded (the newer version has to be better, right), you can't easily downgrade
2) Why re-install, when you've just been burned and you know it's a dead-end because in one year, LTS will stop being supported and you won't be able to use gnome 2 at that point.

Personally I switched to XFCE, but I can see how people who just came in from Windows would go back.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 22:12 UTC (Thu) by jonasj (guest, #44344) [Link] (2 responses)

The poster I was replying to specifically talked about Ubuntu, where:

1) Once they upgraded from v10.10 to 11.04 (first release with Unity), they still had GNOME 2 (11.04 stuck with GNOME 2), and could just pick it from the login screen.

2) But the next LTS will still have the gnome-panel package in the archive! Yes, it might be officially called "fallback mode" now, but it is, for all intents and purposes, the exact same experience as GNOME 2 -- or is there something I'm missing here?

Complaints and changes

Posted Mar 1, 2012 3:45 UTC (Thu) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] (1 responses)

> Yes, it might be officially called "fallback mode" now, but it is, for all intents and purposes, the exact same experience as GNOME 2 -- or is there something I'm missing here?

You have clearly not used GNOME3 fallback mode.

All the panel applets are missing.

The GNOME developers have made it clear that they will stop maintaining it ASAP.

Complaints and changes

Posted Mar 4, 2012 12:02 UTC (Sun) by jonasj (guest, #44344) [Link]

I have used it, don't make claims about things you don't know. (I personally don't need any of the missing applets.)

They have also made it clear that anyone is welcome to continue maintaining it on gnome.org infrastructure.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 23:36 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Because, linux being what it is, you _have_ to upgrade to get access to new drivers and new applications. People buy new machines, and want to use improved software.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 24, 2012 2:22 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (9 responses)

I make everyone at work run Linux. One of our sales guys put Ubuntu on all of his home computers (he had got used to Linux and started to like it.)

When the Unity interface came out, it drove him mad and he defected (to Debian, thankfully... not to Windows.)

Our sales guys run Debian Squeeze and GNOME 2. I will move them to XFCE rather than undergoing the pain of transition to GNOME3.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 24, 2012 7:40 UTC (Fri) by jonasj (guest, #44344) [Link] (8 responses)

I would like to ask you a question about the "pain of transition to GNOME 3" that you mention. I assume in this context by GNOME 3 you refer to gnome-shell, and not the newer infrastructure (GTK3, etc.).

See, like your users, I'm running GNOME 2 on Squeeze at the moment, but when time comes to upgrade to a newer distro release, I expect I will run the same interface on it as I do now: that is, gnome-panel. The thing that is difficult for me to understand about all the people complaining about GNOME 3 taking away their old and loved interface, is that they are still, for the time being, shipping gnome-panel, with practically identical functionality and behaviour as in GNOME 2. I feel like either there must be some major problem with version 3.x of gnome-panel that I'm just oblivious to, or everyone's complaints just don't make sense. It's driving me crazy trying to grasp why people complain about the GNOME interface change. Can someone who is angry with GNOME 3 tell me, what do you have against the so-called "fallback mode", a.k.a. *the same interface you used to use, just with a different version number*, which is still being shipped in GNOME 3.x releases? Is it really just small things like holding down alt to change panel configuration? Or is there something major I'm just missing?

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 24, 2012 12:12 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (7 responses)

I'm moving my users from GNOME to XFCE for one simple reason: XFCE doesn't introduce radical changes. For my non-technical users, stability of workflow is far more important than whiz-bang new GUI paradigms.

My users could almost certainly cope with GNOME 3 after a period of adjustment, but why should I lose productivity if I don't have to?

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 28, 2012 0:42 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (6 responses)

Oh, so you're actually claiming that moving from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 (potentially with fallback mode) is a more disruptive change than switching to Xfce?

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 28, 2012 1:04 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (5 responses)

I found this to be true.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 28, 2012 1:15 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (4 responses)

Considering that fallback mode is pretty much the same as Gnome 2, the only possible conclusion is that you're confused.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 28, 2012 2:46 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

It is certainly possible that I am confused. It is also possible that I have been swayed by all the negative publicity. But when I upgraded to openSUSE 12.1 and got Gnome 3, some stuff that I valued just stopped working, so I had to make an active decision. "Switch to Xfce" seemed easy, and it turned out that it was.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 28, 2012 9:54 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

Fallback mode is GNOME2 only for a limited period of time - soon as software rendering is in place for gnome-shell (which might be the case already, shipping in Fedora 17?). So the GNOME2 -> (GNOME3 | XFCE) disruptive change will soon be unavoidable.

Complaints and changes

Posted Mar 6, 2012 8:30 UTC (Tue) by jonasj (guest, #44344) [Link]

GNOME developers have stated publicly that anyone who wants to are welcome to continue maintaining it on gnome.org infrastructure. So just because GNOME 3 won't depend on it any longer once software rendering is in place, it will still be available.

Complaints and changes

Posted Mar 1, 2012 7:58 UTC (Thu) by cmm (guest, #81305) [Link]

> Considering that fallback mode is pretty much the same as Gnome 2

False, it's not even close.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 22:04 UTC (Thu) by daglwn (guest, #65432) [Link]

>> I wonder why its developers have not put a prominent message on the front
>> page stating: We will strive to make Wayland network transparent as soon
>> as possible.

> Perhaps because good people are not supposed to lie?

>> In short, we need Free software to say out loud: People, we care about
>> you.

> s/we care/we DON'T care/

And with one post khim demonstrates how completely misguided this editorial is.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 23, 2012 22:23 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

> Situation is very simple:
>
> Linux desktop goes nowhere.
> Small cosmetic changes don't cut it.
> We need to do something drastic if we want to attract new users.
> Old users may complain (or complain bitterly).
> This is irrelevant because if we'll not attract new user soon (as in: the next 3-5 years) then it's the end.

so stop pretending that what you are creating is an upgrade of existing packages.

Go off and create new ones, use a new name, don't claim (by implication) that what you are doing is just a new version of the existing software.

This is something that Canonical did mostly right. They created a new name (Unity) for their new desktop, and left the option in place to use the old desktop (GNOME), along with the option to use other desktops (KDE, etc). Unfortunantly, their decision to do this coincided with the GNOME madness which is a classic case of how not to do this (make the new thing have the same name as the old one and be incompatible with it)

The KDE 3->4 transition was ugly, but for a very different reason (premature transition), and while there are a few cases of "there's no maintainer for that so it's not getting reimplemented", for the most part, their response to complaints has been either "you can disable that new feature if you don't like it" (frequently with a "here's how"), or "we're planning to do that but haven't got to it yet". This seems to show a very different attitude.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 24, 2012 9:55 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

A brand new package instead of an upgrade would be an improvement for two of the cases described above: GNOME and KDE. I understand that the temptation to experiment with your current userbase must be overwhelming. My answer would be: fine, but as long as you are ready to roll it back if your users don't like it.

Ubuntu Unity (not Ubuntu Shell, sorry!) and Wayland are however new packages, and the situation is still not good. Wayland is a good example: even the idea of change in a pre-release package can scare people off. Something which should in principle be seen as a welcome renovation does instead create a backlash; and given the precedents we cannot blame those would-be users.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 24, 2012 0:16 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (1 responses)

> Perhaps, but what does it change? As alankila said: Linux currently is for the 1%, not the 99% - you can afford to lose some of that 1% if you gain nearly any fraction of the 99%: number of users would increase dramatically.

A false dichotomy. You don't have to upset your current users in order to gain new ones. in fact, it's doing the opposite that Microsoft, Apple and now Android have grown. Network effects are your best friend. Or would have been, should I say.

In two months it's going to be a year from the release of Gnome 3. What fraction of that 99% will have Gnome 3 won in that time?

Complaints and changes

Posted Mar 1, 2012 3:51 UTC (Thu) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]

> In two months it's going to be a year from the release of Gnome 3. What fraction of that 99% will have Gnome 3 won in that time?

Excellent point.

Is Fedora the only distro that defaults to it?

So GNOME went from having nearly all the distros use it by default (GNOME2) to one?

I suspect that GNOME3 not only has no significant gain of the 99%, but has lost most of the 1%.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 24, 2012 2:24 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (2 responses)

s/we care/we DON'T care/

Thank you for clarifying that. Now we see why the editorial is completely wrong.

When developers are that arrogant, they don't deserve users. I suppose that will, in the end, reduce the volume of complaints.

Complaints and changes

Posted Feb 24, 2012 2:36 UTC (Fri) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] (1 responses)

> When developers are that arrogant, they don't deserve users.

Non sequitur - it's not developers, it's khim. If that demagogue has ever developed anything other than verbal diarrhea and, perhaps, political connections, I'd be very surprised.

Complaints and changes

Posted Mar 1, 2012 3:52 UTC (Thu) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]

Yeah and ad hominem is so much better than non sequitur.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds