I call bullshit on "both sides do it". There is only one party here is going off the deep end in the past 10 years. Democrats are a lot easier to bullier than Republicans to do the right thing.
Let's not do both sides do it. Only one side here is the bad actor. When it comes to corruption, Dems are a lot more trustworthy than Republicans. You can generally consider Republicans as a bunch of clowns, and not to be taken seriously and the country will run fine. I mean, we are talking about the party who wants to default on our debts and is okay with that.
Republicans have never been in action been in support of free market or at least smart free market. This is one of their big lies.. Dems are generally for smart governance, that doesn't always mean big government.
Ugh, sorry for the terrible writing - basically I was saying that what looks foreign will become familiar over time as with anything else.
The one difference with my Perl -> Python analogy is that I took the initiative to do that, and so I had an incentive. Much harder when the change is not something you initiated. Which is the heart of a lot of this debate.
yeah, it's nice. I don't work in IT anymore and moved into doing distro engineering (hence the systemd stuff). But I know I used to be irritated with the change, but the experience is somewhat similar to when I moved from Perl to Python. I knew I could do all this stuff in Perl but I had to force myself to use Python until it was second nature. In the end, it is similar and you know software evolves. If systemd guys listen and is able to evolve it, listening to systems administrator then things are going to look a lot better.
Join teh systemd list and ask. Just explore and see what can be done. In fact, you might find new or interesting solutions that might not have been possible before.
I shouldn't have to try anything. You shouldn't be doing too many unique business processes in the first place. the only thing we have different is a new runlevel that has some small number of services + network.
I have an Android phone with version 4.4.2. I find the interface cluttered, and would like to remove most of the Apps. However. I am happy to use a different GUI on my phone than my desktop - though a built in terminal would be nice (in case I have to log into a server while I'm out).
I found the arguments for the changes in GNOME 3 unconvincing, to put it diplomatically. I hate this dumbing down approach, dumb people can always go to Apple.
It isn't dumbing down. It's creating a set of defaults that work for 90% of what you do. It's communicating clear intent. Good communications to make sure that a user is getting the proper feedback. These are all important when you're creating a general purpose desktop environment that as our mission states is for everyone regardless of physical ability. Let's go back to the mission, GNOME is a GNU project, our job is free software proliferation.
You want to create a system for everyone, not for just your 2-3% who have technical chops. And those users are transient. They aren't going to be on this planet forever, so you maybe have those captured users for what? 20 years? Even that's not guaranteed, there is no loyalty to a desktop, people jump ship and trying new stuff all the time.
Continual improvement, risk taking are all sound pillars of trying to innovate against companies who have very large budgets and designers, and testers, QA, etc.
Yep, that's right. GNOME 2 advanced the eco-system too. GNOME developers are generally more willing to work up and down the stack and help improve everything instead of work arounds. They try to work for the right experience out of the box and talk with kernel devs. I'm proud that we have people like Lennart and Havoc who have contributed so much both to the desktop but also to the entire eco-system.
A lot of it is historical. A lot of people did not like the GNOME 1.x to GNOME 2.x where a massive cultural and technical change occured. Features were removed, almost brutally, and a lot of consolidation happened. A lot of people still remember that and so people at least on slashdot foam at the mouth when they hear any kind of GNOME news where there is even a hint of feature removal.
GNOME didn't do any community management during that time, and even after GNOME 3 release they were not prepared. I did a talk about it at FOSDEM which you can probably search for.
Sorry, you feel that way. The transition could have been better. If there was a bridge from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3 it would have worked out better. Unfortunately, there is only so much resources GNOME has. The transition was really about turning GNOME into a product as part of the earlier evoution from a bits of pieces into a unified whole. That's why it was designed as a unified whole.
The change was made because all the other desktops are modernizing and well Free Software has to as well in order to compete with them on the modern hardware that are being built today. The goal is Free Software proliferation, otherwise the dream dies as we won't find new generation of users who have grown up with modern interfaces.
So when you ask why the change? Consider "market forces". The design isn't bad and it's been gaining popularity. Maybe you'll look at it again in a couple of years.
How did you switch? Did you use alt-tab or alt-~? That's how you can rapidly switch between windows and apps in GNOME 3. Otherwise, what steps were you using? You can also use extensions and add a taskbar if you wanted or any of the 3rd party docks to put in a taskbar.
Some UI changes because the hardware has changes. Things change because the original parameters and constraints have changed due to changes in teh hardware and if you want to take full advantages of them you need to make changes.
Otherwise, what happens is that your desktop will eventually die because nobody younger will be willing to continue to support it because they are on whatever new thing that they are fixated on. (maybe they'll end up like you, not wanting to change.. but they aren't going to use your stuff for the same reason).
This is pretty much true in life. Nothing stays the same. If you don't adapt to it, in nature, you die. In our society, it means get off my lawn.
I think that's fine. I raelly want to create a federation so that we can merge all these projects into one umbrella. Because all these projects depend on GNOME core to exist.
I thought GNOME was all about apple with all the designers and the like.
I'm sorry you didn't like GNOME 3. There is an ever increasing number of people who have found GNOME 3.10 to be pretty good. You do have to adjust to it, but most of hte defaults are sane and you don't have to tweak it and for a lot of people that's really the attraction. Just set it up and go.
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit on "both sides do it". There is only one party here is going off the deep end in the past 10 years. Democrats are a lot easier to bullier than Republicans to do the right thing.
Let's not do both sides do it. Only one side here is the bad actor. When it comes to corruption, Dems are a lot more trustworthy than Republicans. You can generally consider Republicans as a bunch of clowns, and not to be taken seriously and the country will run fine. I mean, we are talking about the party who wants to default on our debts and is okay with that.
Republicans have never been in action been in support of free market or at least smart free market. This is one of their big lies.. Dems are generally for smart governance, that doesn't always mean big government.
Indeed!
Ugh, sorry for the terrible writing - basically I was saying that what looks foreign will become familiar over time as with anything else. The one difference with my Perl -> Python analogy is that I took the initiative to do that, and so I had an incentive. Much harder when the change is not something you initiated. Which is the heart of a lot of this debate.
yeah, it's nice. I don't work in IT anymore and moved into doing distro engineering (hence the systemd stuff). But I know I used to be irritated with the change, but the experience is somewhat similar to when I moved from Perl to Python. I knew I could do all this stuff in Perl but I had to force myself to use Python until it was second nature. In the end, it is similar and you know software evolves. If systemd guys listen and is able to evolve it, listening to systems administrator then things are going to look a lot better.
Join teh systemd list and ask. Just explore and see what can be done. In fact, you might find new or interesting solutions that might not have been possible before.
Nope, all kinds of Unix and Linux. I have never administrated a windows box in my life.
I shouldn't have to try anything. You shouldn't be doing too many unique business processes in the first place. the only thing we have different is a new runlevel that has some small number of services + network.
Not only kill runaway process, but contain them in their own jail so that they don't take too many resources. (eg cgroups)
Yep. Pretty much. Good post.
I've been a system administrator for over 15 years. I can count on one hand how many times I had to touch the init system.
anonymous cowards are boring.
I have an Android phone with version 4.4.2. I find the interface cluttered, and would like to remove most of the Apps. However. I am happy to use a different GUI on my phone than my desktop - though a built in terminal would be nice (in case I have to log into a server while I'm out).
I found the arguments for the changes in GNOME 3 unconvincing, to put it diplomatically. I hate this dumbing down approach, dumb people can always go to Apple.
It isn't dumbing down. It's creating a set of defaults that work for 90% of what you do. It's communicating clear intent. Good communications to make sure that a user is getting the proper feedback. These are all important when you're creating a general purpose desktop environment that as our mission states is for everyone regardless of physical ability. Let's go back to the mission, GNOME is a GNU project, our job is free software proliferation.
You want to create a system for everyone, not for just your 2-3% who have technical chops. And those users are transient. They aren't going to be on this planet forever, so you maybe have those captured users for what? 20 years? Even that's not guaranteed, there is no loyalty to a desktop, people jump ship and trying new stuff all the time.
Continual improvement, risk taking are all sound pillars of trying to innovate against companies who have very large budgets and designers, and testers, QA, etc.
Yep, that's right. GNOME 2 advanced the eco-system too. GNOME developers are generally more willing to work up and down the stack and help improve everything instead of work arounds. They try to work for the right experience out of the box and talk with kernel devs. I'm proud that we have people like Lennart and Havoc who have contributed so much both to the desktop but also to the entire eco-system.
Why not just use GNOME classic or Mate?
A lot of it is historical. A lot of people did not like the GNOME 1.x to GNOME 2.x where a massive cultural and technical change occured. Features were removed, almost brutally, and a lot of consolidation happened. A lot of people still remember that and so people at least on slashdot foam at the mouth when they hear any kind of GNOME news where there is even a hint of feature removal. GNOME didn't do any community management during that time, and even after GNOME 3 release they were not prepared. I did a talk about it at FOSDEM which you can probably search for.
Sorry, you feel that way. The transition could have been better. If there was a bridge from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3 it would have worked out better. Unfortunately, there is only so much resources GNOME has. The transition was really about turning GNOME into a product as part of the earlier evoution from a bits of pieces into a unified whole. That's why it was designed as a unified whole. The change was made because all the other desktops are modernizing and well Free Software has to as well in order to compete with them on the modern hardware that are being built today. The goal is Free Software proliferation, otherwise the dream dies as we won't find new generation of users who have grown up with modern interfaces. So when you ask why the change? Consider "market forces". The design isn't bad and it's been gaining popularity. Maybe you'll look at it again in a couple of years.
How did you switch? Did you use alt-tab or alt-~? That's how you can rapidly switch between windows and apps in GNOME 3. Otherwise, what steps were you using? You can also use extensions and add a taskbar if you wanted or any of the 3rd party docks to put in a taskbar.
Some UI changes because the hardware has changes. Things change because the original parameters and constraints have changed due to changes in teh hardware and if you want to take full advantages of them you need to make changes. Otherwise, what happens is that your desktop will eventually die because nobody younger will be willing to continue to support it because they are on whatever new thing that they are fixated on. (maybe they'll end up like you, not wanting to change.. but they aren't going to use your stuff for the same reason). This is pretty much true in life. Nothing stays the same. If you don't adapt to it, in nature, you die. In our society, it means get off my lawn.
This is slashdot. Reality is never considered here.
You should be able to get most of that wtih GNOME 3 + extensions.
I think that's fine. I raelly want to create a federation so that we can merge all these projects into one umbrella. Because all these projects depend on GNOME core to exist.
I'm sorry you didn't like GNOME 3. There is an ever increasing number of people who have found GNOME 3.10 to be pretty good. You do have to adjust to it, but most of hte defaults are sane and you don't have to tweak it and for a lot of people that's really the attraction. Just set it up and go.
They do support X. It will be awhile before GNOME completely switches to Wayland, at least 3-4 releases.