GNOME 3.4 released

Posted Mar 29, 2012 22:05 UTC (Thu) by blujay (guest, #39961)
In reply to: GNOME 3.4 released by ovitters
Parent article: GNOME 3.4 released

Loads of drawbacks--yet frustrating users by breaking existing functionality is not one of them.

The bottom line is that there are two choices: doing what's best for users or what's most fun for developers. Volunteers, they may be, but "with great power comes great responsibility"--they ought to be more considerate of existing, loyal users. Oh well, there's always MATE and Cinnamon.

Please, lose the political correctness. Hey, I don't typically call girls "guys" either, but many people do, and you know what he meant, so don't go picking a fight.

GNOME 3.4 released

Posted Mar 30, 2012 7:34 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (4 responses)

I see that you don't go into what I said regarding the way of releasing software. Suggest to try and release something the size of GNOME yourself and do that a few years.

Saying that this isn't best for users: I totally disagree and I explained the reasoning why 2 times in different ways.

Going from bugreports to "breaking functionality" (rather vague): terribly vague. I don't see how this relates to the way bugs are fixed or GNOME is released.

As hadess mentioned, that this worked reliability was by sheer luck. So I guess timing related. Meaning: The bug was always there, just never triggered.

If you want an answer from me, address what I say a bit more concretely please and don't bring up vague stuff.

PS: Why focus so much on a remark I placed at the end? And I do mean it, but it is not to start a fight, nor to be politically correct. I find it terribly odd you interpret it as such. GNOME has started various projects to get women involved. Yet you still see posts by women who say that they feel harassed or just excluded.
Don't go telling me what that I should just accept that ("guys" remark, not last sentence).

GNOME 3.4 released

Posted Mar 30, 2012 18:02 UTC (Fri) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link] (3 responses)

Perhaps it's a cultural difference. The reality is that many people refer to mixed groups of people as "guys". It's become almost a generic term for people, like "folks." I don't like it, but that's the way it is. So it's rather absurd to take offense at it.

What if I said that I take offense at anyone's taking offense at it? That makes about as much sense. ;)

GNOME 3.4 released

Posted Mar 30, 2012 23:57 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Quite. We should be using 'guy' to mean specifically male Catholic would-be revolutionaries who failed at the last moment, were captured and executed, and get burned symbolically on an annual basis. Or perhaps their mannequins. (That is, after all, where the term comes from.)

It has already expanded wildly in meaning since those days (even in the UK, where that expansion is relatively recent): I don't see any problem with its expanding a little more.

GNOME 3.4 released

Posted Mar 31, 2012 13:37 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (1 responses)

I know it happens often. I just think it is wrong. You never had women object to this? Where I work I have 10+ nationalities and used to be way more btw.

GNOME 3.4 released

Posted Mar 31, 2012 20:26 UTC (Sat) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link]

In my experience, I've "objected" to it more than any females have.

Why do you suddenly change gears from sex to nationality? Bait and switch? ;)