Drop Gwibber from default install

Rodney Dawes rodney.dawes at canonical.com
Sun Mar 11 19:35:39 UTC 2012

On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 12:46 -0500, Bedwell, Jordon wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Rodney Dawes
> <rodney.dawes at canonical.com> wrote:
> > I don't think a couple of people expressing a little frustration with
> > a couple of missing or removed features, is a good reason to remove
> > something from the default install.
> Why? You guys think a few people constitutes a reason to make bad UI
> choices.  Yes this is a shot at your supposed study about usability
> which was far from a study, far from unbiased and not even a real
> study.  Such a small sample group it was more like actually it was
> nothing.  What is different about this situation other then it's the
> opposite of what you guys think, and actually right and true.

Whatever you think, this isn't a mailing list for you to try and take
pot shots at Canonical, because you disagree with something that came
from the company. For your information, not everyone in the company
works on the teams you're making a complaint about. If you have some
specific problems, please file bugs. Vague complaints about "you guys"
on an unrelated thread on an Ubuntu mailing list, isn't the way to
solve anything.

> > Even if I use the Twitter web site to interact with it, and gwibber is
> > "slow" to update, it is useful to see the notifications which pop up
> > due to gwibber running on my system (though I have a bug with where
> > the notifications are popping up, in notify-osd).
> Because you can't use Chrome and a small little addon to send updates
> from twitter.com to notify, or hell, better, just use built-in desktop
> notifications in Chrome.  I'm sure you could even build an addon that
> does that for Firefox if one doesn't exist.  So your point is moot.

Actually, no I can't use an add-on for Chrome, as I don't use chrome.
And even if there was one for Firefox, I wouldn't want Firefox running
all the time to do that. If I did, I could also just leave a tab open
to twitter.com, now couldn't I. But while Firefox is sitting around
using constant CPU and 500M of resident (real) memory, gwibber-service
is only using CPU when it needs to, and only 31M resident. Some people
do value their battery life. My point isn't moot. You just disagree with
it. There is a difference.

> > If you haven't got a reasonable replacement, then your only goal is
> > to punish others by removing something they might use, because you
> > have some frustrations with it yourself.
> Or is their goal to save them the agony?

Oh, despair. Rage rage, against the dying of the light. Do you have
a valid point to make, actually related to the thread, or are you
just trying to troll Canonical? If you want to reply again, please try
to get back on topic with it. Do you have a bug or scientific research
which suggests gwibber causes actual physical pain (agony) to users of
Ubuntu, simply by existing on the default install?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20120311/9ebff461/attachment.sig>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list