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