Drop Gwibber from default install

Bedwell, Jordon jordon at envygeeks.com
Sun Mar 11 20:37:04 UTC 2012

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 :).

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list