GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:10 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
In reply to: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode by Company
Parent article: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

So which version of Firefox removes great chunks of functionality making it essentially useless like GNOME3?

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:16 UTC (Wed) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] (10 responses)

So which version of Firefox removes great chunks of functionality making it essentially useless like GNOME3?

you got a question and now you feel the need to move the goal posts in order to "prove" to others that you're right, and everybody else is wrong.

you are a sad, sad person, and you have my pity.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:27 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] (9 responses)

So you disagree that GNOME3 removed significant functionality?

And to prove your point you start calling names?

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:32 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (8 responses)

He didn't call you any name.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:00 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] (7 responses)

> you are a sad, sad person

Ad hominem.

Seriously, GNOME3 dropped a lot of functionality (some of which it still hasn't gotten back) which is is understandable for .0 release.

Why deny that and call me sad?

What is so hard to understand about users wanting to continue to use GNOME2 until GNOME3 becomes viable?

Sure, I replied in kind to the Company post. So that makes me sad?
Sure, GNOME2 - 3 is just like a 6 week firefox iteration. I'm the unreasonable one.

GNOME3 is above criticism? Defend GNOME3 at all costs?

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:12 UTC (Wed) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]

You are being intentionally inane just to make people call you inane just so you can say "See! Ad Hominem Attack!"

Lame.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:13 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (5 responses)

I agree it was an ad hominem, I was nitpicking on being called a name.

In any case, you complain about "ad hominem", while continuously showing the similar behaviour (just directed at many people instead of 1). And not just this article. It seems similar to the "graffiti theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#New_Yo...). If everyone responds nicely and rejects unnice behaviour, it'll likely be a nicer behaviour overall. To be clear: this is not directed at you. In this article alone you'll note that various people respond harshly towards each other. I noticed that corbet mentioned a while ago that he doesn't want moderation except in extreme cases. IMO this badly affects the comment quality.

You'll see that once the sarcasm stops, the chance of being heard vastly improves.

And criticism is very helpful. If everyone says yes, you only need 1 person.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 21:10 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] (4 responses)

I don't really consider sarcasm a terrible case of not being nice.

Calling someone a sad person that you pity is more unnice.

But hey, criticism accepted, I will tone it down.

I think the real problem is that team GNOME considers anyone who says something they don't like or don't agree with, or says anything less that total praise for GNOME3 as a troll and not worth listening to.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 7:34 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (1 responses)

Sarcasm is a difficult thing to master well without coming off as hostile.

You are coming off as hostile and perhaps a weebit passive aggressive.

Speaking from my own personal battle with the disorder...
If you are prone to sarcasm, and you don't have the necessarily health care to cover the cost of the meds to control it you can still make a series of choices on when and where you use sarcasm. Control the disorder don't let the disorder control you.

Among many strategies I have tried over the years, the one I find most successful in written communication forums is to keep bulk of the sarcastic comments aimed directly at oneself. I believe the term is self-deprecation. You still might not master right off the bat, unless your British, I'm not so I'm still working on it, but it does help take the edge off a bit when others are reading what I write. Instead of coming off as hostile, when making sarcastic jibes at other people, you just come off as a bit odd, muttering about yourself. And maybe this strategy isn't for you. Maybe you need electroshock therapy. I can't tell you want will work for you. Experiment... maybe try that electroshock stuff a couple of times just to be sure its not the right treatment for you.

-jef

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 18:21 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Unfortunately there's no way I know of on LWN either to send private messages, or to look up a user's "Personal Info" (e.g. I have a link to personal details in http://lwn.net/MyAccount/paulj/PersonalInfo, but I don't think anyone else can see that - least, I get a "not allowed" message if I put other usernames in there). So I have to reply to you publically.

As someone who's been on the receiving end of your sarcasm elsewhere a few times, a good while ago, and not particularly enjoyed it: Bravo for recognising it and trying to address it. I hope I could do the same if/when needs be. ;)

Not sure about the electroshock treatment though. ;)

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 13:41 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

It really depends on the tone. There is a lot of feedback given in various ways. If someone people are very aggressive, it tends not to give a good impression.

I am on various mailing lists, mostly just to look for feedback and spot problems. Sometimes one person saying things is enough, sometimes only when many people say something.

Elsewhere the "faster horse" thing was mentioned. If someone gives feedback it can be various things:
- outright bugs
- hardware issues
- something that doesn't work right at the moment
- packaging problem
- performance (known or unknown)
- design/usability problems
etc

All of that is useful to know, but there is not a one on one relation between this. E.g. a "don't drop fallback mode" criticism might be the result of something else, e.g. a hardware issue. Further, if someone doesn't like a nautilus 3.5.92 or even 3.6.0, it could be either a design issue, maybe not. Often what is expected that some suggestion must be implemented immediately. Not always possible... takes quite a bit of time to figure what the feedback really means. E.g. some stuff in gnome-shell 3.0.0 wasn't working nicely, but actually can be difficult to understand if feedback is in the form of "what are you doing?", "idiots", etc.

That's just interpreting feedback, after that knowing what to do, etc.

Not saying things couldn't/shouldn't be improved, just that the expectations are a bit high.

Note that recently I saw a few designers commenting on usability testing, saying that big usability tests (like Sun did) would be very welcome and is a bit lacking atm.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:58 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

Forgot to say: Thanks

I was too aggressive, not only to you. Sorry for that.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:40 UTC (Wed) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link] (6 responses)

3: fucked up autocoplete with "awesome bar"
4: messed up UI
6: fucked up the location bar by making stuff gray
7: broke copy/paste from location bar
8: needs manual fudging for add-ons
9: messed up UI again
10: removed forward arrow
13: added the horrendous "home tab"
15: suddenly auto-updates without asking

... and that was just a quick look.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:58 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] (5 responses)

>3: fucked up autocoplete with "awesome bar"

Never had a problem with autocomplete not working.

> 4: messed up UI

Wow, detailed and scathing criticism there.

Maybe I will use that gem on the next GNOME release.

> 6: fucked up the location bar by making stuff gray

Yep, surely that is on par with GNOME3 removing the ability to change the font size, or minimize windows or getting rid of the task bar.

Or the hideous and unchangeable and largely useless black bar across the top of the screen.

> 7: broke copy/paste from location bar

Sounds like a bug more than an intentional design change. Never experienced it here though.

> 8: needs manual fudging for add-ons

Sorry I forgot Gnome extensions are fully supported and always work perfectly.

> 9: messed up UI again

Wow once again, such constructive criticism.

> 10: removed forward arrow

Hmmm... I have a forward arrow here.

> 13: added the horrendous "home tab"

Easily disabled since you know, they actually support user preferences.

> 15: suddenly auto-updates without asking

Which is bad why?

But the GNOME3 defense is now - "Others make crappy software so we can too".

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:12 UTC (Wed) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link] (1 responses)

I get it. Firefox is exempt from having to be parallel-installable because you like it the way it is. GNOME isn't because the current version isn't to your liking.

Tip: Do your own distro, it can come with all your favorite versions of all your favorite software!

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:34 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Debian for a time had firefox3 and firefox2 (or "iceweasel", as they call it). Now distros just don't bother with this, but it surely was possible.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:17 UTC (Wed) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link] (2 responses)

> Yep, surely that is on par with GNOME3 removing the ability to change the
font size, or minimize windows or getting rid of the task bar.

1) You can still change the font size
2) You can re enable that feature
3) There is an extension available for that

> Sounds like a bug more than an intentional design change. Never experienced it here though.

He probably means the hiding of the "http" and adding it to the pasted url even though it wasn't part of the copied url.

> Easily disabled ...

So now changing options is acceptable? (see the 3 points above).

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:40 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] (1 responses)

> So now changing options is acceptable? (see the 3 points above).

Seriously? You had to (still do?) need to install a separate tool search through and hack the registry.

Not the same as opening a preferences dialog.

You guys just cannot concede anything. GNOME3.0 was perfect.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 21, 2012 23:55 UTC (Wed) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]

> Seriously?

Yes.

> You had to (still do?) need to install a separate tool

Yes.

> search through and hack the registry.

No you have to just to click on a few buttons in said tool ... not exactly rocket science.