Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 03:50:56PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 12.02.2013 15:47, schrieb Olav Vitters:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Am 11.02.2013 11:31, schrieb Olav Vitters:
> >>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:59:22PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
> >>>> In the end, more than any usability quibbles, the best reason to give
> >>>> up on a project is when it refuses to listen to its end users.
> >>>
> >>> The GNOME release notes over various cycles have listed loads of changes
> >>> which have been made based on the things that have been learned. This
> >>> happened during 2.x as well as 3.x.
> >>>
> >>> Although you do not explicitly state it, it seems you were talking about
> >>> GNOME. Vincent Untz phrased it much better than I ever could, but he
> >>> basically pointed at the "Power Off". You can also read the release
> >>> notes for loads of other changes
> >>
> >> this is all fine
> >>
> >> BUT why are things completly re-written and in a pre-alpha state
> >> released replacing and destroying the users workload and after
> >> that it takes years to fix all teh issues in the one or another way?
> > 
> > I have a totally different view.
> > 
> > Could you show me the bugreport about where GNOME destroyed something on
> > a users machine?
> > 
> > GNOME 3 was delayed by 2 cycles. Before that we made loads of releases
> > available for testing. The 3.0 was really stable
> 
> what are you not understanding in "destroy users workload"?
> it dies not help if software runs stable if it forces the
> user to completly re-learn how he used to do things
> 
> workload = people are runnign their PC for working with it and
> doing things not only play around with the OS itself

Did you read my email at all?

In any case:
"destroy users workload"

In my understanding:
1. You're really angry (aka "destroy": wtf!)
2. I have a totally different view
3. It seems you can speak on every users behalf (related to #2)

Note that #2 I already quoted, aside from the things you snipped which
gave IMO a friendly explanation. In any case, we can also turn this into
a offlist flamewar if you want.


-- 
Regards,
Olav