Fedora - time to blink

Ian Malone ibmalone at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 08:22:08 UTC 2011

On 27 November 2011 23:24, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mellertson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 11/27/2011 05:13 PM, Tim wrote:
>> And then there's the point of view that it's a community
>> project, and this is the forum for that community, and
>> *significant* numbers of this community are saying that it
>> sucks.  Yet we're being told we're wrong, it doesn't suck, by a
>> few with their fingers in their ears.

> Very childish. If you want it to change, you have to say more then
> "it sucks". Saying it is different from what you are used to using
> is not going to cut it either.
> Now, if you say it is lacking some features, and are specific,
> that will help. If you file a feature request, that will help
> more. But if you really want to make sure you get the feature you
> want, submit a patch that implements it.

Except Gnome 3 is a fairly radical change. Why is all the burden of
proof on people who think there are flaws in it? If I want to get a
power off button in the system menu is it just a case of submitting a
patch that adds it? Are there really Gnome devs scratching their heads
thinking, "That's a great idea, but I just can't see how to do it?"
No, there's someone thinking, These morons don't understand the genius
of my design." Or the overview which is really nothing more than eye
candy that was probably cool to write, but actually is less useful
than Compiz's cube which /looked/ like eye candy, but actually added
something useful (like drag and drop between workspaces).

Sticking with it for the minute as I remember the Spatial era and hope
that usability arguments eventually filter through. However I don't
see any real improvement in that direction going from 3.0 to 3.2.


More information about the users mailing list