User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Quotes of the week

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 1, 2013 5:35 UTC (Fri) by naptastic (guest, #60139)
Parent article: Quotes of the week

Apples and oranges. Gnome 1 had serious problems and needed to be put out of its misery.

The only thing wrong with Gnome 2 is that it isn't Gnome 3. It offers the user too many choices, and too few buzzwords. Too much power and not enough bling.

Gnome 3 isn't better. It's different. They should have just called it something else.


(Log in to post comments)

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 1, 2013 6:03 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

"The only thing wrong with Gnome 2 is that it isn't Gnome 3. It offers the user too many choices, and too few buzzwords. Too much power and not enough bling."

That's pretty much a precise description of people's complaints about Gnome 2 back in 2003. You can't blame developers for noting that they've been here before.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 4, 2013 0:55 UTC (Mon) by ThinkRob (subscriber, #64513) [Link]

> That's pretty much a precise description of people's complaints about Gnome 2 back in 2003. You can't blame developers for noting that they've been here before.

And they only quelled those complaints when -- after a couple years of work -- they weened themselves from the idea that users were to stupid to handle features.

Try comparing the featuresets of the early 2.x line with some of the late versions.

We stopped complaining because they fixed it, not because we forgot. :D

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 4, 2013 2:50 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

There is also the concept of a minimum viable product which can explain the behavior. Build what is needed to ship the work on filling out features, based on the feedback you get. It's good engineering practice. Even GNOME 3 shows good engineering, even if many don't care for the new shell, it is clear that the developers are not dummies

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 4, 2013 3:11 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

There is a huge difference between

"the feature is not available, we'll get to it someday"

and

"the feature is not available, because we believe the feature is wrong and we will never implement it"

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 4, 2013 5:02 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

And? Major projects routinely rejects features.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 4, 2013 10:51 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

> Major projects routinely reject _new_ features.

Fixed that for you.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 4, 2013 15:00 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Wrong. Sometimes they remove existing features and sometimes they get added back in a different way, via extensions or a different workflow. Think: Firefox and status bar. Think: KDE and desktop icons.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 20, 2013 17:26 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>Think: Firefox and status bar. Think: KDE and desktop icons.

What are you talking about? Wrong on both counts, which you could have discovered in a few moments if you had bothered to check (as I just did).

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 20, 2013 19:06 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Umm. Firefox doesn't have a status bar by default anymore and KDE 4 has changed the way you add desktop icons. So, no, I am not wrong on either counts.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 20, 2013 19:28 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

In KDE4, you can have desktop icons just like you have in KDE3. It's just the default that changed. You right-click on the desktop, choose the "folder view", and voila. Works on 4.9, I tested.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 20, 2013 20:51 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Precisely my point. It was not there in KDE 4.0 and it got added back via a different method.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 20, 2013 20:54 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

That's not my recollection (KDE user since 2.something). AFAICR, It is what it is since I made the somewhat precocious transition from 3.5 to 4.0.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 20, 2013 21:24 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

KDE 4.0 had some issues with desktop icons. It wasn't implemented properly until a couple of revisions later. I wrote a review at

http://magazine.redhat.com/2008/05/14/fedora-9-and-the-ro...

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 21, 2013 12:22 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

I disagree that 'having some bugs in the unfinished x.0 release' counts as 'feature removed and added in a different way', but I certainly can't disagree that there were indeed a boatload of bugs in KDE 4.0, so if that's what you're really meaning, then fair enough.

On Firefox though, this is taking a turn for the bizarre; I can't understand where there is scope for disagreement. When I tried it yesterday it was using the version from the Ubuntu repo, so I wondered if maybe it had been mucked about with. I just downloaded a copy of the Windows build from their website and ran it with a fresh profile - I definitely have a status bar without changing any settings. Maybe you're seeing a bug or a repackaged version with changed defaults?

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 4, 2013 14:10 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

I think that actions should be louder than words, and they did implement requested features.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 5, 2013 20:40 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]

GNOME always add features with every version. However, I used 1.x and various thing that you could do in 1.x you never could do in either 2.x or 3.x.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 1, 2013 16:58 UTC (Fri) by duffy (guest, #31787) [Link]

"Apples and oranges. Gnome 1 had serious problems and needed to be put out of its misery."

LOL that's certainly quite easy to say now, but back in... 1999 / 2000 was it? Not quite the case at all.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds