Drop Gwibber from default install
eapache at gmail.com
Sun Mar 11 21:21:51 UTC 2012
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Kai Mast <kai.mast at freakybytes.org> wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> I would like to open a discussion about removing Gwibber from the
> default install. Gwibber has several defects that make it way worse to
> use than the Twitter-Website.
> - No support for Twitters Streaming API makes it a lot slower than the
> NOTE: This feature is nearly 2 years old!!
> - No autocompletion of usernames makes it much more difficult to
> communicate with Gwibber
> Also some other stuff that is really annoying:
> - No smooth scrolling
> - No multi-column view
> Is there anybody actually using Gwibber on a daily basic? I have it
> uninstalled on all my machines and use Twitter through the Web-Interface.
> I would love to use a native desktop-application but Gwibber is just
> missing soo many features.
> What do you think?
> Kai Mast
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Bedwell, Jordon <jordon at envygeeks.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Rodney Dawes
> <rodney.dawes at canonical.com> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> Because leaving a tab open to twitter.com clearly coordinates with
> your reason not to remove Gwibber right? Your point is moot, because
> I came up with a valid solution, I suggest you look up what a moot
> point is and you made it more moot with your latest statement about
> just leaving a tab open without popups/notifications of any kind.
> Your memory usage statistics are pretty bad too, looking at a tab of
> twitter that's been open the last couple of hours it's using, oh wow,
> a whole 86MB... oh wait it fluctuated to 102mb and then dropped down a
> bit. And memory usage really drains the battery more then CPU time, or
> that memory is the only factor (if any major factor in modern laptops)
> in batteries. Remember users have to open up Gwibber too, to read the
> messages back again if they weren't there, so tack on another 86MB of
> memory each time you open it, the CPU time it takes to open it and
> the battery killing memory it uses too. What makes it so much better
> than an app tab in Firefox which can be used for other purposes too?
> >> > 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?
> I don't need to troll Canonical, you lot do just fine at that by
> yourselves. But I'll leave it to a Canonical employee to assume that
> everybody who disagrees must be a troll and therefore is one by
> default because they are blunt and don't sprinkle love and care all
> over their statements as if it's a new born baby. By Canonicals
> standards though, the pain and agony it causes me every time I try to
> use it is scientific enough. Add the other 2 users in this thread who
> do not like it and we have ourselves a bona fide study. Remember, the
> Canonical usability test only consisted of 15 people (that sir, is a
> huge and I mean HUGE sample group) and that was good enough for ya'll
> this right here is a perfect study :).
I think it would benefit everyone to take a step back and calm down please
What we have now is a problem with two possible solutions. The problem, as
nicely articulated in the original parent's message, is that Gwibber is
slower and less feature-full than the Twitter web site. The original parent
provided several verifiable examples, so I don't think anyone can agree
with the problem statement, even if you might disagree with its severity.
Solution One: Remove Gwibber from the default install.
Solution Two: Improve Gwibber.
If the Twitter website is sufficiently fast and feature-full that Gwibber
can never provide sufficient advantage to outweigh it's cost in maintenance
and CD space, then the correct solution is to remove it. If it is believed
that it can, in future, become more useful, then the correct solution is to
improve it. Obviously neither of these are going to happen for Precise, as
we are well past FeatureFreeze at this point.
I have CCed Ken on this, since he is one of the main Gwibber devs and is
probably best equipped to answer questions on what sort of effort would be
required to improve it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss