Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Confirms GNOME Classic Mode For RHEL 7
An anonymous reader writes "The H-Online is reporting that the upcoming RHEL 7 will use GNOME Classic Mode over Gnome Shell as its Default Desktop GUI. Speaking to TechTarget ahead of the 2013 Red Hat Summit, Red Hat engineering director Denise Dumas said this regarding the decision: "I think it's been hard for the Gnome guys, because they really, really love modern mode, because that's where their hearts are." She added that the same team had "done a great job putting together classic mode" and that it was eventually decided to use it in favour of the more radical modern interface to spare customers the effort of relearning their way around the desktop again."
The fonts are a mess on that screenshot. How does that not hurt anyone's eyes?
I have been using the GNOME shell in Fedora 15 -> 17. Once they added the "extensions" interface it made it palatable as I have a number of extensions that give me back some of the old features. I do like the http://extensions.gnome.org/ interface though...makes it easy to find and add the needed extensions. But I can't honestly say that the changes GNOME3 introduced were worth the trouble. The workflow isn't greatly enhanced and the learning curve was bad enough to make me curse more than once.
I haven't seen a single interface enhancement that I can say was worth the headache: Windows XP -> Windows 7 ( I finally turned off Aero). I won't try Windows 8 unless I have to. Firefox upcoming v25 changes have me scared. MS-office ribbons suck.
In most cases I see these as a solution looking for a problem...
Our Corporate customers have Demanded that we don't make the interface change for only trendiness, so we are sticking with what works best for fur paying customers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
When Red Hat 6 or 7 are mentioned in close proximity I automatically think of the CDs I was installing on my PIII 450 MHz many years ago. Before I visited Fedora, *buntu and Debian.
I still have that PIII... maybe I should boot it up and frustrate myself trying to get LILO to install and then unfrustrate myself looking at pixelated pr0n at 28.8 kbps :-)
Geez, we have every Wayland thread filled with bitching about network transparency, and then we have RHEL threads filled with whining that you don't need X running on a server. Make up your damn mind!
Finally!! a bit of common-sense.. I just hope the CentOS devs carry that over to CentOS7..
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
GNOME definitely has a long way to go with the new UI theme. I found it fitting for Ubuntu (obviously), but as for Debian 7's default theme... I found myself caught off guard. As "conservative" as the Debian development team is, I'm surprised they defaulted to that.
As for Red Hat, I'm glad they chose classic mode. Maybe it will make the GNOME team step back and fix the annoyances associated with their modern mode.
You are much more diplomatic than I am. I did a Debian install yesterday, first non-headless one in a while, and narrowly avoided spraying acidic bile all over the keyboard when I saw what GNOME has become...
You're assuming that the machine RHEL is installed on is a server. If you have mission critical desktop machines, wouldn't you pick RHEL for that?
I tried using the new Gnome and found it slowed me down. I now use either Mate or just Fluxbox.
It isn't a tablet interface. It is a more efficient desktop interface. I wish I could get it on my workstations where I work, I am much more productive in it. With the initial release I had the same complaint as most everyone, that when you selected terminal (or any app) the second time it just took you to the first instance. I tried holding control while I selected it thinking that would obviously start a second instance, but it did not. But the second release they added the control thing and it is essentially my perfect UI. I think they could use a little more intelligence with the smart docking, but other than that nothing.
Using it for a tablet I would find very rough, every time I start an app I'm typing its name and hitting enter, (I remove all the favorites, I don't like clicky icons and you can't have one for everything you might run anyway), and text entry on a tablet is universally painful until they get the speech thing to work robustly.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Dodged that bullet. In all sincerity, thank you redhat.
It's not pandering, it's doing what is required to stay relevant. The new gnome just isn't quite at the point where it works as well as the older gnome interface, so the old one stays if RHEL want people to keep on using their distro.
I don't think that's it at all. I think Gnome3 has been weighed pretty well on it's merits. Many people consider it unusable. It made me jump ship for Mint (and I've been primarily running RH/Fedora since the mid nineties). I've tried alot of different desktops (Enlightenment, Gnome 1-3, TWM, KDE 1-4, and then some) . I'm not unwilling to change, and I think that's generally true of linux desktop users. We will try new things, and embrace the good ones. We will also harshly reject the bad ones. That's our culture.
And BTW, linux admins all have the same desktop. It's usually black w/ green monospace characters. ;)
Cost of unnecessary retraining = Bad.
Loss of productivity due to needless changes = Bad.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Surely this level of pandering is an extremely bad thing?
Not necessarily. If the benefits of GNOME 3 aren't worth the costs of retraining, and GNOME 2 is sustainable for a reasonable period of time, then why switch?
Seems most sensible though when there's some planning for the future. Will GNOME 2 support their needs for the foreseeable future, and is this dallying nothing more than short term cost saving with no consideration given for the future?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
That is amber monospace characters.
so many other distros have such superior and polished desktops. And other distros, not redhat, allow access to their repositories by anyone since paying customer pay for *support* and having public access to repos is way of advertising, marketing and getting community goodwill. All have which became foreign concepts to Red Hat long ago. I haven't seen a RedHat enterprise desktop in a decade. and that's a good thing.
An easy fix: apt-get install xfce4. For more thorough fix:
echo "deb http://repo.mate-desktop.org/debian wheezy main" >>/etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get install mate-desktop-environment
And for the love of Yog-Sothoth, remember to clean up the crap Gnome3 pulled in if you inadvertently installed it. Some stuff just wastes disk, some wastes memory, some (like avahi) is a security hole, some (network-manager) is just a wholesale sabotage machine.
Gnome3 Classic Mode is a bad joke: it superficially matches the appearance of Gnome2, while retaining but a small fraction of its functionality.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
We will be upgrading some of the workstations in our ops center in the future and some of those workstations have three monitors on them. If I had to hop across three monitors every time I need to get to the app's menu under the new unified Gnome menu, I would probably be throwing things across the room in a very short period of time.
New != Good
Sticking with the old version != unwillingness to learn
If the old version works better, why should they change? That's looking at it's own merits. Changing just because it's newer isn't.
Change for the sake of change == bad
If we're telling our sysadmins that they don't have to learn a new desktop environment, what's the point in them learning anything else?
Presumably because something else has functionality they need. Do you think sysadmins have extra brains available to learn a new GUI simply for the sake of learning a new GUI? Make it more functional, and they will eagerly climb the learning curve. That's why they're using UNIX in the first place.
We should be looking at everything in terms of their own merits
And the new GNOME interface has very few of those.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
New != Good either. Gnome 3 is not an improvement over what was there before, it's change for the sake of change.
Telling people they have to learn something new because your designers were bored is never going to go over well.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Who even uses a desktop on RHEL server? I have X installed to remotely tunnel a few apps through ssh, but I won't ever run a full desktop on a server...
Yeah, I'm a little concerned that the server has a window manager at all.
Some functions are better performed from the command line, and some from a GUI. Insisting that servers be command line only is just pointless obscurantism.
I don't even have X installed on my CentOS and RHEL servers. It's so much easier to manage from the command line... especially remotely.
But then I'm the kinda guy MS had to come out with "Server Core" for, I suppose.
-=JML=-
CentOS wouldn't make changes like that. Their changes are limited to the removal of branding, and stripping out the RHN stuff.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The server system doesn't have to be running an X-Server to present X-client applications on remote desktops. With X and network transparency, you have a choice.
A great improvement, but it still seems to use that stupid window skin by default - it appears to be designed to waste as much vertical space as possible in the header of the window. Obviously this makes a lot of sense in a world of 16:9 monitors where vertical space is at a premium.
I can understand the Gnome guys re-working the internals of the desktop to make it more maintainable in the long term, and having been using it now for six months I find some of the features of Gnome 3 are quite nice - e.g. the ability to start a program just by hitting the command key and then typing the first few letters of its name. The bit that drags Gnome 3 down though is their insistence on taking away so many other useful time-saving features. There's no reason why the internals couldn't have been tidied up, and new time saving bits added, without crippling it at the same time.
My personal pet hate is the adoption of Windows's brain-dead approach to problem reporting - "Something went wrong". This is one of the worst possible mis-features of Windows, so why port it to Gnome?
If it is possible for a new desktop to be better than its predecessor, then it is possible for it to be worse.
The users largely hate GNOME 3. Therefore, it has failed user acceptance testing. It is worse than its predecessor.
In this case, it's Red Hat - who pay many of the remaining GNOME devs - saying "dunno what you're here for, but we're here to serve our users." It's nice someone is.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
If you're performing a new install of Debian and want it to use xfce as your desktop right from the start, edit the install cd boot command and add the following:
desktop=xfce
Or you can go to Avanced Options and choose xfce.
Then your system will be configured for xfce from the get-go.
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
I bet Gnome kills classic mode because too many people are using it.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
How else are you going to operate the server with your touchscreen KVM/tablet if it doesn't have a touchscreen-friendly UI?
Added bonus is that we'll now be able to use autocorrect for all those pesky command-line things that unbellyfeel computers still insist on using (at least until they integrated into an app silo anyway, and then removed). That will finally open the door to speech-operated commands which'll dispense with the need to have supposedly "trained" server operators eating into your OP-EX.
Computer - export the data please
DATA EXPORTED
Computer - format the data please
DATA FORMATTED
Computer - send the formatted data into the reporting engine please
DATA REPORTED
Computer - take actions based on the report please
RHCE'S DOWNSIZED
All you oldthink dinosaurs need to get with the program.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Yes, so lets talk about merits. Lets say retraining costs are zero and every one of your admin's is a rock star 10 years ahead of the crufty enterprise OS, you still have to deal with:
1. Is the new system cheaper/better for productivity?
2. Will the new system help retain cheaper/better staff?
3. Will the new system help other systems work cheaper/better with this one?
If you can't answer these questions about the new design honestly, you'll start to understand why companies stick to things they know and understand. You'll still see eg. netware based enterprises out there today for no other reason than its a known quantity even though huge parts of their stack are so obsolete even the vendors want to stop supporting the products (but don't stop support because cash is king).
Bye!
That's what I ended up doing(call me a coward, or lazy, or too dumb for Debian; but why bother exhaustively scrubbing GNOME and then installing XFCE, all to save a fresh, 100%-not-yet-customized install that I could just pave over?)
So, where's Wayland's network transparency?
How do I run a Wayland app on my Ubuntu server and display the output on a Windows laptop without resorting to a hideous kludge like VNC?
Let's look at the FAQ, shall we?
"No, that is outside the scope of Wayland. To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing. The reason Wayland is so simple and feasible at all is that I'm sidestepping this big task and pushing it to the clients."
So basically, the answer is 'that's hard, so I'm not doing it. I'll rely on everyone else to write that code for me and since everyone will write their own, nothing will be able to talk to anything else.'
Wayland is throwing away the biggest single strength of X in an era where the world is becoming more and more networked and the ability to run software on one machine while displaying on another is more and more important. But that's not surprising, since the original X came out when users were getting more and more power on their desktop and didn't need to run their apps on a powerful central server to display on a dumb X terminal.
RHEL is a conservative release anyway, but this move is a good one. I suspected they would either pick "Classic mode" or use the MATE desktop environment instead.
This shows a lot of maturity on the part of the GNOME devs (for creating a usable classic mode), and on the part of RedHat for defaulting on it.
Radical change may be exciting for developers and vendors, who are too aware of the usability issues with the "old" desktop paradigm, but it's not trivial to change a culture overnight. We're not all Steve Jobs clones who understand what people want better than they seem to know. iPhones were greeted with love, but the new experimental desktops coming out of the free software world seem to cause more angst than adoration. It takes maturity to recognize that maybe you are going too far all at once.
Slow but steady is the smart way to go: allow for radical experimentations while not breaking usability patterns built over years of using computers.
Good show, everyone involved.
They'll all just end up copying Windows eventually anyway. There was some really interesting desktop development going on back in the late 90s (and I assume several of those projects are still going) but the tendency has appeared to be to, for the most part, stay with the crowd and suck in Microsoft GUI elements (both good and bad). The pressure to continue doing so, even in the face of the awful Windows 8 will be immense and likely impossible to resist for the KDE and Gnome guys.
Relevant? I wouldnt be surprised if less than 5% of redhat installs actually uses a gui at all. I know non om my RHEL installs has it. If I want a GUI, it measn I want a desktop OS, which is not RHEL (rather ubuntu or fedora). RHEL is for high reliability servers, on which a GUI has no place.
at least thats my $0.02
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Please do give 3 real-world examples of where this scenario would be relevant?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
How about we call you "efficient". Laziness is a virtue when properly applied.
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
My question is how DO you install a modern KDE on RHEL/Centos?
OpenSuse has become quite insane and I'm bailing out.
I find enabling Gnome fallback mode easier than changing distribution.
Not really. What this is is political bullshit: Backlash at new UIs means don't release with a new UI, and claim that people won't have to relearn. Then when they're forced to otherwise relearn anyway, they won't be as bothered down the line. On top of that, in 25 years when RHEL8 comes out there won't be any more bickering about Gnome-Shell and they'll be able to release without political pressure.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Is this the part where we pretend that the X application that you want to forward to another machine is doing anything other than copying a framebuffer around?
No, you don't need to pretend that, because it's not what the apps I use are doing. That's pretty clear when you see how responsive most X apps are over a LAN when compared to VNC.
But feel free to learn something about how X works sometime, before claiming that Wayland (aka 'Let's copy Windows now it's becoming obsolete') is oh so much better.
Workstations. You know, stations that you use to do work.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Well, I'd also happen to recommend against your managing anything mission-critical.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Yep, that idle GDM session sure eats CPU cycles!
You clearly knew what you were talking about.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Computer - export the data please
WHAT?
Computer - format the data please
WHAT?
Computer - send the formatted data into the reporting engine please
WHAT?
Computer - take actions based on the report please
WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO VOICECOMM IN A NOISY DATACENTER?
FTFY.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Change for the sake of change is usually not a good thing when it comes to enterprise systems.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
what's insane about opensuse ?
it still seems to be the best kde distro around.
granted, there are some annoying issues i've encountered in latest & patched 12.3 - rather frequent kwin segfaults and knetworkmanager showing "connection failed" for all connections right after attempting to connect... even if it eventually succeeds :)
Rich
it's a bit of a shame rh doesn't really offer a decent kde implementation. last one i saw was... terrible. maybe it has gotten better since rhel4-5 or so ?
Rich
If you have a desktop machine that is mission critical, you need to evaluate your deployment strategy...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I'm taking it you're a windows person, saying that.
Let me introduce you to the X protocol, if you use an application that requires a GUI.
The idea of a console based GUI is very obsurd for a data-center server.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
see, you cant name a single example and just try to smart-ass your way out of it.
loser
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
I wish microsoft would think that... :( ... and as a Unix guy, I have to re-learn it to support the "enterprise backend".
Every damned version of Windows to come out has everything completely re-tool'ed
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Does my name look like deusmetallum? No. I just think you're an ass and wanted you to know.
Let me guess, your a Windows shop?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The users largely hate GNOME 3.
The people posting on Slashdot are largely full of shit.
See, I can do this too.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Ever since KDE stopped sucking around 4.2.6, I've gone back to KDE after hiding out in Gnome 2.x
It has the least amount of derp out of all the desktop environments. The KDE devs flirted with the "hey, let's remove features" fad, but actually came to their senses a lot quicker than the Gnome guys when they started having to don Nomex underwear.
KDE 4.10.x is spectacular. It's chock full of features, and not that much bigger in footprint than XFCE.
As for server stuff, who the heck puts a desktop on a server?
--
BMO
Indeed, and I wish some Windows 8 proponents understood this as well. Some of us have tried W8, looked at it based on its merits (both usability as well as performance, among other factors) and have decided that Windows 7 is ultimately a better fit. It's nothing to do with an unwillingness to change - it's about not just moving to the next version without some sort of validation that overall it's worth the extra expense and effort.
RHEL is also used for desktops - the "workstation" segment where servers run the software and the users have an X windows capable desktop machine to display it. So much for your two cents, that's where Redhat is getting their $ - desktops for engineering and scientific users in areas such as design and resource exploration. If a bit of software from Halliburton (yes they have software too) that hasn't changed since 2003 doesn't display properly in a new window manager then RHEL will lost sales if they use the new WM.
Kasbar back?
This. Why people ever moved beyond twm and Norton Commander is beyond me.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
So, let me rephrase, for mission critical stuff, you install stuff marked as "technology preview" ?
( cf https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/6.1_Technical_Notes/ar01s03.html ).
You know, the whole TP that is explicitely written as "not to be used in production" from the same documentation :
https://access.redhat.com/support/offerings/techpreview/
So in the end, the vendor say in the release note "do not do this, this may break", and when it break, you just rant because you forgot that part ?
You know, Pixar use RHEL for workstation :
http://www.muktware.com/5536/pixar-animation-studios-uses-red-hat-enterprise-linux
Now, if this is classified as mission critical or not is a whole debate, but there is desktop that are important for business or you are losing time. Likely less than a server serving several clients of course, but no one will deny that some workstation exist and need to be up or you are losing money ( think trader for example ).
It is not really "not learning", it is more "not learning too much in 1 go", and "not learining too much when you have different versions". I am sure people can learn if you give them time, but usually, you don't give them time. RHEL 7 will come with various news stuff ( systemd is taken for granted, there is story about having xfs by default, and for sure, lots of news other under the hood changes and improvement ), and nowadays, IT is talking about cloud, about puppet/automation, etc, all of them who are rather huge changes since the last few years. So yeah, people can learn, to some extend, there is a limit.
Also, remember we are talking of a default setup. The regular gnome 3 is just 1 click away, this is not forcing anything on people, those that can want or love gnome-shell still have it.
Not the same. At least for your hypothesis, we can find more than 10 years of evidence.
There is no such thing as "sake for the sake of change". Either you change and do exactly the same way with a better architecutre ( so it is more extensiible ), or you rewrite to be more maintainable ( so you can spend more time later on fixing others issues, or offering features ).
But if there is a change, then something improved somewhere, and so the change was not done without reason. That people miss the reason of a change doesn't mean there isn't one, just that they do not see and that it may not matter to them. And that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to someone else, coders included.
In Debian policy, something that is "unstable" and "unsupported" is still subject to the rules. Ubuntu repositories are organized based on support--main, universe, multiverse--and even things in multiverse aren't to receive breaking changes during a release. They may lag--they might be poorly tested, they might not work, they might not get prompt updates--but they certainly won't break on you.
High-availability is, by the way, a common business case and is in primary support in Ubuntu; but that's just nitpicking. Ubuntu is satisfied with the risk/responsibility the current software provides with the amount of testing they've done and the resources they have; RedHat is not. The real difference is Ubuntu does not expect its customers to accept the risk that software in the stable distribution may change, whether they officially support it or just supply it as a convenience.
Really, this is like one dentist office (RedHat) having a notice that says, "Our fillings contain 50% mercury and may leech over 5 years and cause long-term mercury poisoning," and another dentist office (Debian) having a notice that says, "We use 100% composite resin fillings." Amalgam fillings last 12-15 years, if they don't expand and crack the tooth; composite-resin last 7-10 years, after which they tend to shrink some and leak, requiring replacement. Then: You go into the dentist's office... and they tell you you need fillings or your teeth will rot out and you'll need root canal oral surgery.
Obviously, a 15 year replacement cycle is nicer than a 10 year replacement cycle, just like RedHat's 20 year maintenance term is nicer than Ubuntu 5 year LTS. Too bad RHEL is toxic while Ubuntu is guaranteed not to be.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
So when Ubuntu updated their startup scripts to shave about 1 second off of boot time, and as a result AT and PS/2 keyboards no longer worked, that was a change for the better?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
A 'new' user interface or API should NEVER render a power user or experienced computer guru into becoming a N00B again, simply because someone ELSE wants to line their pockets.
While I understand your point and agree with the sentiment I would like to point out that a "power user" or "experienced computer guru" would definitely have no problems with a changed UI. This is silly.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Sure. It's the CEO's desktop machine. It's the CFO's desktop machine. It's anyone else that have your sorry ass out the door in fifteen seconds flat's desktop machine.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There are different flavours of RHEL for different uses. Among those are AS for servers and WS for workstations.
If you didn't know that then you've pretty much disqualified yourself from this discussion.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Optimize is derived from the Latin optimus, the superlative of bonus.
Gnome 3 was certainly not created through optimization. Mutation, fornication, inebriation, defecation ... take your pick.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But it makes perfect sense to swap the pedals over. Which idiot did the original design?
Think logically instead of hanging onto tradition. The brake stops you, OK? If you're stopped, you haven't left. Therefore it should be on the right. It's much more intuitive!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wow really, did you ever imagine i might have considered their ws edition so overpiced it isnt a business option. I suppose your unmeaseable intellect was too sophisticated for such a scenario.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
If it's needed to do the job then it's worth it. Somebody thinks so, or they wouldn't buy it.
Keep grasping at straws like that and you'll have enough to build a man out of.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Changed UI or worse UI? My personal theory[1] is that power users (and developers) are less tolerant of bad design because they know it doesn't have to be that way.
I've worked as a developer and I did a lot of HCI at college. Shit interfaces infuriate me. Yes, picasa, I did glare at you.
Confucius he say, doctors make terrible patients, but the barefoot kid is the cobbler's son.
[1] If anyone has actually done research on this I'd be interested to see it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wrong. If you drink enough of it you change into a state where you fall over.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Your analogy is totally wrong. That's more :
- here is a list of stuff, we will do our best to support, but you have no guarantee on anything
and the other
- here is a list of stuff, we plan to guarantee this. Also, as we know that you may want to plan and deploy the technology for testing in advance, so here is a preview for testing, we wait on your feedback, but that's too new to guarantee much.
That you have a business case do not change much. People have business case for lots of stuff, that doesn't mean this can done or supported in the long term.
In the end, you can turn that as much as you want, you seem to just rant because you have no one to blame for your lack of understanding of the current documented policy.
I blame the documented policy for being stupid and risky. It's inferior. It's like a car engine made of brittle iron versus de-sulfated iron: one of these is definitely better than the other. It's not a matter of "well one's a V8 and one's an I4, so you should understand that one of these has more power"; one of these will crack the block relatively easily, and would be acceptable if it were made of de-sulfated iron instead so it wasn't a brittle piece of shit.
Support my political activism on Patreon.