Re: Re: gnome-panel & gnome-applets?



Excerpts from Emmanuele Bassi's message of mar dic 28 23:47:29 +0100 2010:
> On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 23:07 +0100, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> > Il giorno mar, 28/12/2010 alle 16.50 +0000, Emmanuele Bassi ha scritto:
> > > On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 13:42 +0000, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> > 
> > > > Sergey, who sometimes prefers to look backwards rather than forward
> > > 
> > > no problem with that. you can maintain the old user experience for
> > > yourself and never upgrade.
> > 
> > "and snarkyness is never going to get you anything, mmkay? (cit.)" 
> > 
> > :P
> 
> it wasn't at all meant to be snarky[0], nor was I sarcastic in any way,
> shape or form.
> 
> it is, in fact, an exact assessment of what anyone who wishes to keep
> the old user experience should do: there's no need to ever upgrade if
> the 2.x UX is doing the job.

My only concern is people who *can't* use gnome-shell because of
hardware requirements, and it isn't a matter of buying a new computer,
my previous laptop was a modern one, but the nvidia card made imposssible
to use gnome-shell for more than 5 minutes. So, my point is, if we
want to provide a fallback for those people and we are going to use
gnome-panel and metacity because they are already there, why not keeping
the applets too for the same reason? If I couldn't use gnome-shell, I
would still want to upgrade all other modules to 3.0 and use a
fallback mode without loosing the weather applet, for example.

> +++
> 
> by the way, this whole thread is pretty angry and confrontational - or,
> at least, it feels a lot that way.
> 
> the 3.x UX is not complete, and will probably take some development
> cycles to iterate over the various ideas that are being experimented; I
> think it's been implied many times, since we all know that the 2.x UX
> took years to reach the point where we had to chuck a lot of it away to
> make room for something that was designed from the ground up, instead of
> the result of "convergent bumping around of ideas". I don't think anyone
> in the Shell team or in the gnome-design team has stopped taking into
> consideration new ideas - though, obviously, they have to balance that
> with the resources being what they are.
> 
> this whole thread, like the *many* others that preceded it, has been
> fairly aggressive in the pushback of the new design - it doesn't
> implement that pet feature, it requires hardware capabilities that not
> every one is willing to commit to, etc. - and while on one side my
> initial reaction was to say: "well, tough - here's a nickel kid, go buy
> yourself a better computer; and if you want to keep using gnome2 feel
> free to maintain the pieces you require; and if you don't want to, then
> there's the door: don't let the it kick you in the ass too hard on your
> way out"; but that was just my initial reaction, and I'm *really* trying
> (and willing) to tune that down. might be that the old age is finally
> catching up on me.
> 
> I understand the pushback to changes. I understand that something that
> was designed from the ground up is still missing some feature. I
> understand that that design calls for some drastic changes in how the
> user experience should be shaped, which means that some features will
> not be implemented. these are choices made by people that generally know
> what they are doing, and that have been trusted for years by the whole
> community of people that show up in GNOME. I'm pretty sure they haven't
> been replaced by pod people. I guess the same measure of trust should be
> still applied, even if we don't immediately see the endgame.
> 
> if that measure of trust cannot, or will not, be applied then we can
> give up creating a coherent Operating System, and we can go back
> maintaining separate pieces of an OS, with small time collaboration
> between projects, and design deferred to drive-by ad horizontal patching
> done by heroes trying to drain the swamp.
> 
> ciao,
>  Emmanuele.
> 
> [0] unlike the time when I replied to you with the phrase you quoted.
> 
-- 
Carlos Garcia Campos
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x523E6462

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]