Lugh wrote:The task management and switching does seem to bother me though. That seems to be the one issue that I think would bother me about Shell/3. [...] I tend to think that OSs are front-ends to let us run applications. I do a lot of multi-tasking though. If Gnome Shell makes that harder, I wouldn't like it much. If it is just a reorganization of environment, I could easily adjust to that.
And I absolutely want to put stuff on my desktop for easy and quick access (and no, the powers that be of the Gnome foundation should ditch their stupid sense of entitlement: they are not entitled to tell me how I'll use my computer; if I wanted a petty dictator telling me how I'll use what I've given my hard-earned money for, I'd have bought something from Apple). I demand to be able to switch between desktops with one click and in a split-second. I demand to be able to customize my menus and whatnot whatever way I want. It's my computer, I'll do whatever I want with it. I demand to have the ability to dual-boot or multi-boot (what idiot thought of hiding the "shut down" option?). After all, Linux is all about choice, right?
I demand to be able to customize my menus and whatnot whatever way I want. It's my computer, I'll do whatever I want with it
What was your initial reaction to the news that GNOME 2 was being laid to rest?
I thought it was idiotic. I agree with what Linus said about it and the thing that upset me the most was the fact that nobody cared what people wanted. GNOME 3 could have used a different names, or at least been packaged with new libs and in a way that allowed people to continue to run GNOME 2. The way it was done, you could only replace GNOME 2 with GNOME 3, not run both.
Gnome 2 is the most popular Linux desktop out there and a few people decided we were no longer going to use it. Of course, people always get what they want - MATE will bring back GNOME 2, but it will take time to get right.
tzoannop wrote:(...) I want to make my desktop work and look the way that is convenient and pleasant to me. Any deviations from such principles brings us closer to the "vision" of prison systems like the iOS. If you want Linux to be like iOS, perhaps you should switch to iOS and be done with it.
Never a week goes by in here without a sanctimonious frothing rant. Just a few points to the above, no one is forcing you to use Gnome Shell, you can use any one of the many alternatives and unless you've been conned by someone you haven't paid a dime of your hard-earned money for Gnome, it's a free product, you're criticizing a free product for no longer being exactly like you want it to be. This sort of childish selfishness is common though, so don't be too embarrassed, but be a little embarrassed. You finally seem to be confusing "Linux is about choice" with "it shouldn't be allowed for developers to change things I like", if you study those two sentences closely you'll find that they are very different concepts. That Linux is about choice is exactly what should stop these inane puerile rants, go choose something that suits you better. I'm trying to imagine a mindset where you think the free desktop you've chosen owes you something, that you have a right to be upset when a free product you haven't paid for decides to go down a path you're not keen on. I can't get past how utterly childish it is.
esteban1uy wrote:I'm a young person (I'm 12 y/o, almost 13) but something I learned very well is that if you want to change anything in the Linux world you have two options: the do-it-yourself way, and the do-it-with-your-fellows way.
tzoannop wrote:(...) The Gnome Foundation removed power, privileges and rights from the users, in complete and blatant violation of the Free (as in Free Speech) Software philosophy.
(...) the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
tzoannop wrote:Removing the end user's (...) ability to configure the system the way s/he wants is a violation (however indirect and perhaps even sly) of Freedom 1.
tzoannop wrote:Freedom 1: Change and configure the software to adapt it to do what you need it to do. You'll say "oh well, you can study the code and...". That's not a valid answer -
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
tzoannop wrote:Freedom 1, which we enjoyed with the configurability of Gnome 2, was thrown out the window, simply because a few people decided they know better what the user needs and decided to remove the users' ability to change things. And don't tell me about the new "Gnome-tweak" tool; it's nowhere as comprehensive as it ought to be. Even the way Windows 95 and Window Maker allowed people to change their desktop settings was considerably more extensive than that. Removing the end user's (again: NOT everyone is an experienced programmer who can study the code and make the significant changes Gnome 3 needs to become valid) ability to configure the system the way s/he wants is a violation (however indirect and perhaps even sly) of Freedom 1.
tzoannop wrote:Developers are not entitled to mandate how the user will work.
tzoannop wrote:if I wanted a tablet, I would buy a tablet. I want a desktop machine, so I bought a desktop machine.
tzoannop wrote:I have quite a few things to say about Gnome 3 and Unity and none of them is positive.
And don't even get me started on the change of workflow that has been forced upon us by the dictators of the Gnome foundation. I've been using computers since I was 10, starting with MS-DOS 3.2 on an 8088-equipped Samsung SPC-3000 PC-XT clone with an 84-key AT keyboard and have used just about every flavor of Windows (3.11 "for Workgroups", 95, 95 OSR2 - also known as "97", 98, NT 3.51, NT 4, XP, Vista, 7), as well as HP-UX and SunOS dumb terminals, and even Solaris workstations at my university's library and now I've moved to Linux. Over the course of 25 years,....
The GNOME project has a tradition of high-quality interface design which has been strongly influenced by usability principles and practice. GNOME software is available in a large number of spoken languages, and the project aims to ensure that its software is usable for everyone, including people with disabilities.Source
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests