LWN: Comments on "The GNOME project at 15"

The GNOME project at 15

rich0 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:04:32 +0000

It would seem to me that it is mostly targeted to things like netbooks or other small laptops, or tablets. The netbook platform actually makes sense, and from what I've heard people running those love Unity or Gnome 3.

Tablets just don't make sense, since almost nobody replaces the OS on them with something different. About the closest I've seen is maybe running something else in a chroot, without X11. Getting Gnome on one of those is a real pain anyway with all the proprietary drivers and great variation in hardware. They aren't like your typical PC motherboard where no matter what you can at least get the thing into VGA mode using the same IO ports you'd have used on a 386.

Give GNOME 3 time

rich0 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:48:06 +0000

Who uses double-clicking to do the "common thing"?

Why else would I be clicking on something in a file manager? I can see the possible logic in getting rid of double-click in open dialogs and such, since most apps don't support multi-select there anyway.

The only time I use a file manager is to manage my files. I don't use it to open documents or whatever.

Give GNOME 3 time

rich0 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:45:41 +0000

How often do you select a menu item or hyperlink without actually opening it?

The only time I use a file manager is to move files around in bulk but with somewhat careful selection. I'd be using the shell if I just wanted to manipulate a single file or something that I could use wildcards for.

So, having to figure out how to select files without opening them is incredibly frustrating in KDE. Fortunately somebody in this thread just referenced the config setting and I changed it. Finally, sanity prevails until somebody decides I don't know what I'm doing and removes the option...

Following conventions

hummassa — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:31:14 +0000

KDE 3.5 was never abandoned. But it's true that most app devs got lured into the upgrade lure. 3.5.10 was relased in august 2008, when 4.1 was already out, and 3.5.13 was release as Trinity last year.

The GNOME project at 15

rich0 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:13:03 +0000

That, and keep releasing new versions that are lower-numbered.

You can't abandon KDE 3.5 and then say that people shouldn't have migrated to 4. The current version is whatever keeps getting bugfixes.

Most serious software packages don't just do all bugfixing at the bleeding edge. Heck, the kernel still has full support for v3.0 and v3.4, with later versions not having longer-term promises (they're the equivalent of KDE 4 or 3.99.9 or whatever).

Following conventions

rich0 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:09:24 +0000

Not only that, but was 3.5 still maintained?

Distros generally ship the version of upstream that is maintained - that is the one that when you report a bug against it the bug is very likely to get fixed and posted in a new release.

Once 3.5 was abandoned, distros basically had little choice but more to 4. So then to say that it was only a beta/etc is a bit disingenuous.

The GNOME project at 15

wookey — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:24:46 +0000

CAD is a weak area, I agree and has been for a long time. I too used QCAD/LibreCAD _a lot_ over last two years, and it is rather 1980s, but recently we got FreeCAD, which is proper 3D CAD usingthe OpenCASCADE back-end freed-up from a proprietary vendor. And libreDWG which helps break the .DWG stranglehold. Free software can be important in CAD and BIM too because it has the same advantages in this area as in others (openness to all formats, ubiquity, ability to fix things). Breaking the strangehold of the proprietary vendors is a long slow process, but opening up data formats and libraries really works in our favour and it seems to me that there is steady progress here and it's not all hopeless. There is a huge amount still to do for Architects to be able to use a Linux desktop, but like libreoffice, FreeCAD works on all 3 popular desktop platforms so people can use Free Software even if they can't use a Free OS for everything yet.

I see real signs of progress in this area, after a rather bare period.

The GNOME project at 15

kragil — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:07:21 +0000

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_se

The GNOME project at 15

bronson — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:15:10 +0000

> It wasn't! A lot of features never came back.

The features that lots of people cared about (printer settings, fonts, focus follows mouse, keyboard layouts, ...) did come back. This was definitely a sign of success, but perhaps it would have been better if they had never been taken away? Hard to say.

Also, you seem to be saying that anyone who liked Gnome 2.32 was wrong to dislike Gnome 2.0 (or that the success of 2.32 demonstrates the success of 2.0?). They're not the same beast. Gnome 2 improved a huge amount during its earlies and teens.

Other than those points, I totally agree, especially about not overreacting to flames.

It would be nice to be able to use Gnome 2.early or 3.early but both are pretty tough sledding... Maybe this is an intentional part of its development model? Shed hardware, users, and features in one giant release, then gain them back over the next few years. Maybe I should just plan on not being able to use Gnome between the second and fifth year of each decade. :)

The GNOME project at 15

hp — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:15:29 +0000

> This worst thing that the GNOME devs did
> was make it so GNOME 2 and 3 could not be
> installed side-by-side.

(btw, just compile one of them with a --prefix and I'm sure it could be made to work. The only problem is FHS fundamentalism.)

> But it was clear that the features were indeed
> coming back and things would get better.

It wasn't! A lot of features ("features"?) never came back.

> Also I think it's foolish to assume that history is repeating.

FWIW I agree that it's foolish to _assume_ this.

However. I also think we can say that people thinking/saying the same things about GNOME 2 were _wrong_. So I think it's also foolish to assume that similar comments are now on-target.

Now, I agree. GNOME 3 _may_ turn out badly.

But it won't be for the _reasons_ most people are talking about here.

We know from experience that the "methodology" Linux discussion forums have for trying to understand desktop UI changes and their effect is flawed.

It's because commenters have a lot of wrong "folk models" about what makes a good UI and what "most people" are like and so forth, which are simply not accurate. Commenters also aren't able to see into various tradeoffs (both design and resource based) that become a huge factor in real life outcomes. And nobody can predict what "batting average" developers will have in making the right judgments; or what random external factors will get involved.

I think a lesson from GNOME 2 is that flames and "widespread outcry" can be wildly wrong, because we have GNOME 2 as an example of success despite that.

GNOME 2 doesn't give us evidence that flames are _always_ wrong, just that they _can be_ wrong. So for GNOME 3 it remains to be seen.

However: here's what it means for the GNOME 3 developers. They should not "listen to" the flames. They may want to _extract information_ from them - there's some content there, about certain users. But they should not "listen" in the sense of doing exactly what those flames are advising.
The flames are one data point among many, just as they always are with every piece of software. Developers and designers have to go chase down the broader, more thorough data they need, and apply copious amounts of their own judgment.

They may get it wrong, or not. But that doesn't mean using judgment was a mistake, just that when using judgment, one can be wrong.

The GNOME project at 15

hp — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:48:34 +0000

I said somewhat the opposite of what you're saying (not exactly the opposite, because I don't believe "power users" vs. "new users" is the correct way to understand potential audiences).

Within _existing_ Linux and GNOME users, in my view there's a substantial divide about the Linux user interface. Most fights about desktops have been _within_ the existing userbase. I elaborated more in some other comment earlier.

I don't agree with blaming changes on "massive untapped market." When complaining, people like to claim that "most existing Linux users" are on their side. For GNOME 1->2, I think we have enough history to say that those people were flat wrong; GNOME 2 was dominant and successful without reaching any massive untapped market. Instead, it became popular with "most" (at least "many") existing Linux users.

GNOME 3 remains to be seen, but I think it's worth noting that the similar contemporary claims about GNOME 1->2 turned out to be wrong.

It's very dangerous for any of us to over-extrapolate from our own experience.

The place of innovation

hp — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:29:51 +0000

I think most experienced devs (including those at GNOME) understand this. It's just that on balance they think some changes are worth it. Every developer will make different judgments on that front.

Making a change optional is frequently, though not always, _very_ impractical. Especially without unlimited resources but often even if you did have that.

Everyone knows that people don't like change and that change breaks some things. The question is how to handle that without being CDE or Blackberry or some other technology that was destroyed by the new and different.

Suggesting that change is always or never OK is not a useful guideline for people who need to make real world judgments.

The place of innovation

man_ls — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:18:53 +0000

Innovation is fine, as long as it is optional. If you cannot turn it off, in effect you are forcing innovation down people's throats; they feel like guinea pigs and get angry.

That is something that the GNOME project apparently have not yet understood: we are not all innovators. In fact the majority of people are conservative: they don't like surprises.

The GNOME project at 15

HenrikH — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:23:25 +0000

Sort of I think, I looked at it before building our own solution. But I never really figured out the how/what/when when looking at their project web site.

The GNOME project at 15

Zizzle — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:09:59 +0000

This worst thing that the GNOME devs did was make it so GNOME 2 and 3 could not be installed side-by-side.

It seemed like GNOME 3 was rammed down our throats.

I'm sure if Fedora and Ubuntu and SuSE came with both, there would be a lot less complaints.

"Oh this new GNOME is not quite there for me, I'll keep using GNOME 2 until it is."

MATE was forced to waste a heap of time renaming every executable in GNOME 2.
Only now are distros starting to package it.

Also I think it's foolish to assume that history is repeating. Sure there was a lot of flaming around GNOME2. But it was clear that the features were indeed coming back and things would get better.

With GNOME 3 it seems more like the devs are willing to say "We don't want your type around here no more". That moving icons or configuring the font size is something ridiculous to want.

The GNOME project at 15

Zizzle — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:02:05 +0000

I was coming to say something pretty similar.

The GNOME devs have been saying that the old crufty Linux user base is not something they want to cater to anymore. That there is a massive untapped market of new users if only they make it take more clicks to launch an app or switch virtual desktop.

Havoc even hints at it in one of his posts above.

Ok, so you have made it clear, GNOME 3 is not for old time Linux users or power users. You don't care about losing that part of the user base. But they are typically the ones who write code.

So what desktop will the application developers be using? What desktop will the kernel developers be using? Not GNOME 3 - no one wants them there.

The GNOME project at 15

markhb — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:02:33 +0000

Some fascinating tidbits in that Ottawa Linux Symposium LWN article that Jon linked to:

A mention of Liz Coolbaugh reporting for LWN; how many years has it been since she left?
The announcement that Perl 6 would be a complete rewrite
And this little piece...
CO may be purchased by Caldera, reports this ZDNet article. This is reminiscent of some predictions that one of the post-IPO Linux companies would pick up SGI. SCO has been around for almost twenty years and has a long track record. Now it might be purchased by a veritable "upstart". Nonetheless, this looks like a potential good match. SCO's emphasis on reseller channels matches Caldera's long-term philosophy and their support services would put Caldera on a much better footing in competition with Red Hat, particularly in the international markets. Meanwhile, the rumored price, $70 million in stock, seems incredibly small given the prices for small Linux startups only a few months ago.

Amazing how time flies....

The GNOME project at 15

vasi — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:25:49 +0000

Thanks, Havoc.

I've always been puzzled at the extreme conservatism of many desktop Linux users. Back in the beta days of Gnome 2, I remember reading on Slashdot how anti-aliased fonts were sure to be slow and blurry and yet another symptom of the dumbing down of Linux desktops. Nowadays, you never hear anyone clamouring for a return to non-aliased fonts—I guess all those folks are now busy complaining about needing an extra key-press to access the "Shutdown" menu item.

The experimentation in desktop Linux makes now an exciting time. This doesn't mean I'm always 100% down with every decision Gnome takes, but I'm interested to see where things go. Props as well to all the other innovators, like Unity and KDE4, and also to the MATÉ project for actually stepping up and maintaining the desktop they want instead of just whining about things.

The GNOME project at 15

paulj — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:47:16 +0000

Sadly, I can't find back any copies of the Sun "GNOME Usability Report". All links seem to lead back to:

http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ut1_report/report...

Which is gone. Thankfully, the Wayback machine still has a copy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080212092210/http://develope...

I think Sun had some other HCI work, but I don't remember & can't find anything to back up that feeling.

Point is, it'd be nice to see that level of testing guide the efforts today.

The GNOME project at 15

ovitters — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:43:47 +0000

That is not what I meant.

I mean that you cannot take your personal opinions and preferences to mean anything for the general case.

In any case, usually people don't refer to their opinions as facts, do I don't get why you're having difficulties to follow what I mean.

The GNOME project at 15

paulj — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:35:33 +0000

Out of curiosity, how was that testing done? Was it systematic HCI testing, like the Sun stuff in 1.x → 2 days?

The GNOME project at 15

ovitters — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:32:01 +0000

If you look at what you state, it seems for instance that you like to minimize windows. You can only do that in a inperfect way and by default that is hidden.

Your personally like to hide windows. But then your personal ideas don't make things a fact.

Or otherwise stated:
A -> B -> C

A: You like minimizing windows
B: GNOME 3 doesn't really do that
C: GNOME 3 is no good (for you)

But you cannot state in general that GNOME 3 is no good based on this. I'm not arguing that minimizing windows can or cannot be done. Just that you lack a 'fact' to show that something like that is needed (in general). That bit is personal. This is what I meant before with not presenting facts.

The GNOME project at 15

ovitters — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:56:50 +0000

Some things need be tried out in practice. You can leave things for an additional 6 months in some branch. No progress will be made.

I believe there might be a few small changes could go in by delaying it an additional 6 months, but relatively minor things.

What does improve things is way more people using it.

The GNOME project at 15

ovitters — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:52:43 +0000

I never said that people love change.

Initial impressions of GNOME 3.0 from the people testing is was hugely favourable. There was a lot of positive feedback. Only after the release there was a lot of negativity.

With the knowledge you have now, loads of decisions could've been improved. It seems that is what you're suggesting? Which comes across as a bit petty.

Obviously the people testing it were testing it because they don't mind change. But one doesn't rule out another. I believe GNOME 3.0 is great, people will love it and that change is annoying. There is no conflict in these things.

Suggest to read up on how change is usually accepted to better understand what I mean. One example is for instance change due to company restructuring. In any case, the after the fact 'one of my thoughts is right' is pointless.

The GNOME project at 15

njwhite — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:16:49 +0000

Isn't that what OpenSUSE's Open Build Service does?

The GNOME project at 15

reddit — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:10:38 +0000

If it's not fully ready, what the heck is it doing in a branch leading to a stable release?!?

The GNOME project at 15

HenrikH — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:10:23 +0000

At work I do a simple "make_distribution <package>" and it will be built for all current Ubuntu/Debian/CentOS and Red Hat versions automatically. RPMs and DEBs are also created and added to our repos.

Yes initial setup of such a build server took some trail and error but not it's very easy to add new distribution/release. What I do think that we miss in the community is prebuilt building solutions like this.

The GNOME project at 15

elvis_ — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 06:42:08 +0000

"GNOME, he says, should aim to be the platform of choice for content creators"

The irony, GNOME already WAS the platform of choice for many content creators, we call them programmers! Ones who wanted a powerful customisable desktop environment. Why chase an audience when you already had one that loved you?

An Opportunity is coming...

renox — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:22:33 +0000

It won't but "Wayland fans" are convinced that all the Linux's GUI troubles are caused by X11 (without considering the drivers, the toolkit) so they think that Wayland will solve all the problems..

An Opportunity is coming...

dlang — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:40:39 +0000

I don't see how Wayland would have any bearing on commercial software being ported to Linux.

It may speed up high speed video things, but really, current desktop X systems are fast enough for 99%+ of the video stuff that people need to do.

The GNOME project at 15

dlang — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:37:50 +0000

While I agree that we need to have commercial software targeted at Linux, I think it's a fallacy to look at any software and start making claims that FOSS software will never compete.

They said the same thing about many areas that are now dominated by FOSS, including the OS itself (something that's far more complex than any CADD software)

An Opportunity is coming...

rahvin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:07:12 +0000

IMO there is a major opportunity about to present itself to Linux and I want to post this hopefully where some of the real developers of the base Linux system will see it.

In October of this year Microsoft is going to shoot themselves in the foot with a 80mm howitzer. I fully expect Apple to follow through and do the same but much worse with the next version of OSX.

First, Windows8 is going to be a user productivity disaster, it's going to be a total failure in the business sphere and will likely make Vista look like a raging success. Combined with Metro and MS's insistence that no application built to the metro interface can be sold through any forum other than the MS application store (do you think Adobe is going to want to give MS 30% of every software sale?) along with the lockdown and touch based interface that is going to absolutely destroy peoples ability to get real work done you're going to have a system that will create a viable opportunity for competitors that exploit it.

Second, I fully expect Apple to double down on this and go a step further and basically turn the next version of OSX into a version of iOS that is completely and totally locked down (they put the foundation in place with the current version) as I believe their top management has decided (mistakenly) that the PC is going to die and will be replaced by tablets and phones.

These two events are likely to present an grand opportunity to capitalize on these combined failures. Moving forward and getting a system in place that creates a standard upon which commercial software vendors can operate might finally allow Linux to see broad PC adoption and significant market share. The content creation paradigm that Apple has dominated for decades has been slowly being eroded by bad decisions on Apples part, much has moved to Windows as of late (Adobe now pushes windows as the primary version) but nothing is certain yet. There is a grand opportunity to step in as the alternate Windows replacement that is more like OSX while MS shoots themselves in the foot then be there to take the rest of the market when Apple abandons rationality.

MS is slow but generally corrects bad decisions in the next version because they are very in tune with the business community after all the bad feedback comes in. The colossal failure of Windows8 will only present an opportunity until Windows9 (probably a minimum of 3 years). If Linux distributions want to capitalize on this they need to be waiting in the wings in October and be in active discussion with Commercial software vendors, OEMS and businesses in the content creation business right now. There is already a foundation in place in specific segments (Blender for example) and if properly executed it could be possible to take most of the content creation business. What probably needs to happen is one of the distributions (or all/some of them in cooperation) need to start the discussions now.

I'm not sure what it will take to succeed, maybe cleaner standards and compliance by the cooperating distributions or maybe it will take something like Wayland to make it happen. Not being a software developer I can't say, but I do see an opportunity that I think is highly likely to happen. The only way to succeed is to figure out what it will take to succeed before MS fires the foot shot in October and to move rapidly shortly thereafter to be in place with a content creation alternative before Apple fires the 120mm Howitzer into their foot.

I am curious if anyone else has seen the disaster/opportunity I see coming and what their thoughts are.

The GNOME project at 15

njwhite — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:00:31 +0000

I'm not convinced this is a big issue. So long as you have a simple build system which works, and clearly state dependencies, it should be easily packagable by any distro that the users care about your project on.

Targetting one popular distro's library versions and creating a package for that, with an easily buildable and repackagable source, gets you as far as you need. Nowadays distributions are far more standard and regular in things than you may think.

I get the impression from your post that you're really concerned about the difficulty in getting proprietary software packaged for many distributions. Ultimately that's a problem caused by their own restrictive licensing terms, and I don't think trying to enforce exactly the same versions of key software on all distributions is a sane way to fix it.

The GNOME project at 15

rahvin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:02:10 +0000

Some of those big software platforms will never be FOSS. You are never going to see a FOSS CADD package that is equivalent to AutoCAD, Microstation or the other major players. This is software that requires thousands of man hours just to keep up with the innovation in the field and that means commercial vendors with pricey support contracts to move the software along.

Having tried every FOSS CADD package a couple years ago I can say with certainty there wasn't a single one that was even close to the cheapest 2D piece of crap commercial software in existence (there are 4th tier commercial indie CAD applications that are available for near nothing that are better than QCAD which was the best I tried) let alone offered real 3D and the precision necessary in commercial engineering.

If Linux is to succeed commercially we need commercial software. There is a lot of software that is only going to be developed as commercial software because of the specialization and work involved.

The Desktop

rahvin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:43:50 +0000

There are quite a few people using windows today that after receiving a new system reset the look and feel to "classic mode" which is essentially the interface of Windows 2000 which is close to 15 years old. There are lot of people that don't like change for the sake of change.

In my opinion the interface of something like Gnome2/KDE3/WindowsXP along with keyboard and mouse is the culmination of nearly 40 years of evolution of the computer interface towards the most efficient method of input/output, and processing along with information display. What's happening with Gnome3/Unity/Windows8 (and others) is trying to revise the PC interface to be that of a touch based information retrieval device not that much different than a TV (limited input, little control and restrictions how it's used).

It frankly doesn't make sense to me. I don't doubt that over time that as each interface revision fails miserably that they will move back towards a more optimal interface, but I don't ever see phones/tablets and PC's having the same input/use characteristics because they are used differently. Anyone that thinks the PC is going to be replaced by a tablet (or they should have the same interface) doesn't use a PC for real input/output/processing.

I do think there are improvements to be made in the PC interface, but thinking those improvements need to be in the avenue of touch based is IMO crazy. Finally, a small example, the Ribbon in recent version of MS Office has been shown to be easier for new users to learn and master and once learned offers a much more streamlined and quicker use. It's been demonstrated to be better in actual user studies but at the same time it's harder for existing users to use because they are used to the clunkier menu based interface yet you've never seen people complain so heavily about it. I myself did the same after being forced to use the new version at work. Having finally learned the interface I realize it's better (very painful to admit after complaining as much as I did), but the change was brutal on existing users. Without the monopoly MS wouldn't have been able to do it, even though it's better for new users, because of the damage it does to existing users workflow until learning it.

The GNOME project at 15

rahvin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:05:19 +0000

So what format is that repo in? .deb? .rpm? .tar.gz? .ebuild? .apk? There's almost as many package and distribution formats are there are distro's and a lot of them aren't compatible (though yes, the major ones can be converted for the most part).

One of the simplest aspects (the format of the package) isn't even a simple question on Linux. If you want broad public use the distributions need to give up their fiefdoms and standardize on some things the least of which is package managers and library versions (personally I'd prefer RPM go away and DEB be standard but that's my bias). We aren't going to see widespread adoption of Linux until this stuff is sorted out. And that means everyone standardizes and follows each other on things like directories (where things are), packages, libraries, kernel version and certain software (X/Wayland, Audio, init, window manager, etc).

Don't get me wrong, I like the choice (its why I use Linux in the first place), but you aren't going to see someone like Adobe building their software for Linux if they have to target 10 distro's with all different libraries, packages and base software where they can't even predict which glibc will be installed.

I know there is work underway to fix some of these problems (I think wayland will be a game changer, along with systemd and others that have the promise of standardization of key components). But in the meantime you have what Firefox did which is to bundle every library version and piece of underlying software into their package so they ensure they have specific versions they need and that's just not practicable for most software, particularly commercial software. Android is popular because Google did what the community couldn't they created a standard base with a guaranteed foundation to build software on. You are absolutely guaranteed that Android version X on every device has the same libraries and base system and their application store uses version and hardware tables to check comparability and tries very hard to avoid offering software you can't run.

I don't see broad Linux success until the distro's play politics and start compromising and standardizing. Everyone going their own way and doing their own thing only fragments things worse and scares away commercial software. Maybe Google will bring enough of Android into Linux that they basically force standardization but I'm skeptical that the major players would be willing to compromise as they would be giving up some sovereignty in their digital fiefdoms.

Getting back on topic, can Gnome do this? I don't think they can, they're scaring away their own users and shooting for things that don't even appear to be in the scope of the project. But I'll give them props if they succeed, but I'll remain skeptical of their chances.

Pure wisdom

man_ls — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:21:31 +0000

Hear, hear. In the early days computer interfaces had to be designed with real-world metaphors in mind, because users were unfamiliar with them. Nowadays it doesn't matter so much; good designs are not good because they appeal to computer newbies, but because they offer no surprises to existing users. Smartphones are quite new, but we had many years to adapt to touch screens in kiosks, ATMs and other finger interfaces; Apple (and other manufacturers) just followed the trend to its logical conclusion.

The Desktop

nim-nim — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:42:39 +0000

In fact, all those interface changes have been as minimal as possible given the technological constraints and consumers have consistently rewarded manufacturers that simulated old controls with new tech whenever possible. Even radical changes like taking pictures from a screen and not a viewfinder have been smoothed over by providing both for years to give users time to adapt.

Interface changes are a cost not an opportunity. Radical interface changes are only seen in concept cars and quietly dropped before going into production (and when designers are too prideful to remove enough of the concepts from the concept cars in production models the result does not sell).

Consumers do not like interface changes in real life they like solid no-hassles and no-surprises execution. Gadgets with radical interface changes succeeded in spite of those changes not thanks to them (the iphone built on ipod familiarity, and the ipod tried to build on Apple computer device looks at a time no two mp3 players had the same buttons in the same place). Radical interface changes only work on TV commercials. Users do like bling and surprising looks, but only on non-functional pure decoration parts they don't have to interface with.

A fugly app like LibreOffice is getting slowly adopted because it gets the work done reliably (and is cheap). winamp and xmms had a terrible interface but this interface was stable and the software worked and that led to wild adoption at the time. GNOME 2 got happy users when it stopped trying to impose new UI paradigms and focused on fixing bugs. The most loved Windows release of all times was the NT version that got delayed, forcing developers to fix bugs for months because the scheduled feature and UI changes were already finished. Apple made a comeback thanks to Steve Jobs insistence on fixing every little thing (not because he had some magic vision, and in fact his vision changed several times, from color imacs to black-and-white ones, but because he made sure each time his people executed cleanly without cutting corners). All the server-y unix stuff Desktop people have denigrated for years have been increasing its market share in the past decade because it just worked and didn't eat your data. Working, not eating your data, and being predictable is much more a seller than half-finished software that tries to follow some abstract vision at the cost of execution.

GNOME people will get some praise and happy users the day they stop looking after the rainbow for a way to win market share instead on focusing on fixing bugs and adding features while changing the interface as little as possible. And it won't matter at that stage what interface design is in place. What makes a Rolls Royce is not the paint colour but the insane number of paint layers that ensures Rolls Royce owners do not have to bother with paint scratches ever. Software is no different.

Following conventions

halla — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:14:41 +0000

Yeah... And that's also why KDE released two more 3.5 versions after 4.0 was released. Maybe it should have been more, and if distributions had asked for another 3.5 release, I'm fairly sure one more would have been released, since for some time bug fixes were going in.

Following conventions

sfeam — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:47:51 +0000

I'm not a OpenSUSE user, but Wikipedia states that 11.0 and 11.1 shipped both KDE3 and KDE4. OpenSUSE 11.2 (late 2009) was the first to offer KDE4 only, and by that point it was KDE 4.2.something.