Gnome replaces Unity

[Xen]

Liam Proven schreef op 15-10-2017 15:25:
> On 14 October 2017 at 20:09, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> I would not use Cinnamon either but for someone who doesn't do a great 
>> deal
>> with a computer I think it would be better than KDE.
> 
> I'd probably agree -- _if_ they knew Windows first.

Otherwise they would never have started using a computer.

> The buttons are hidden by default. They can be turned back on with 
> TweakTool.

Right.

> No, they haven't, I agree, but credit to them for trying.

We can basically agree that they were trying to be different without 
good reason, whether that was because of legal threat or because of 
just.... wanting to be not-windows.

There is no way you can create something good if the thing you would 
ordinarily create, is not allowed.

If you are in the Netherlands and you want to find the best route to 
Paris, but you are not allowed to go through Belgium, that kinda will 
not result in a good outcome.

Being different should never be a goal in itself, because that means 
your competitor becomes your source of inspiration -- all your designs 
are now reactionary.

You can't create something good if your biggest concern is to not be 
like something else.

> No, they were trying to innovate, and in part, to take inspiration
> from the success of the significantly different interaction models of
> phones and tablets.

Yes like KDE has a number of Window switchers, two of which are "small 
icons" and "big icons".

The small icons are tiny, and the big icons are huge.

Why are there no medium icons?

Don't you see how "trying to be different" basically means you are 
skipping the thing that would actually be logical?

When I spoke of my KDE patch I meant a patch to the big icons theme, 
reducing the size of those icons to a normal size.

Meanwhile Cinnamon is not burdened by those "dare to be different" 
dreams and has a functional window switcher by default.

There is no excuse for having a phletora of window switchers except the 
most obvious one.

Innovation, sure but.... for what reason?

Why are you trying to fix what ain't broke?

I am sorry Liam but there is absolutely no functional reason or excuse 
for the example just given.

The only reason there can be for not including medium sized icons is "We 
don't want to be like everyone else".


And the consequence is a non-functional product. Innovation my ass. 
There was no reason for it. It worked fine before, now it doesn't.


>> But I agree that the Windows model is basically the only way you can 
>> do a
>> desktop. The Mac interface hardly diverges in my opinion.
> 
> That is not agreeing with me at all. You're putting your own words in
> my mouth and then agreeing with them.

I knew you would say that lol.

But if we take away all of the non-functional "innovations", what do we 
really have?

- Windows
- OS X
- ....
- ....
?

So all of the other ways of doing a desktop: I don't see them.

Then there are more similarities between OS X and Windows than 
differences.

Can OS X minimize? Definitely so.

The only prime design philosophy difference that I remember was that of 
the "Application Window" --> Windows apps traditionally followed a bit 
of an MDI interface, with the Mac trying not to.

For the mac, the application is not the window.

So you can close all windows while keeping the app open.

Well Windows solved that by minimizing to the system tray.

Yes that's a difference. In practice the only difference is that you 
have to explicitly close applications on the Mac.

OS X has the equivalence of Alt-tab and Ctrl-tab on the Mac, it is 
Command-Tab and Command-~ or something.

OS X containerizes applications and just puts them in the finder, I 
agree that is a difference. But that's not a desktop aspect.

OS X doesn't have a run dialog.

Apple follows more the philosophy of "You don't need to know what goes 
down under the hood".

But that's not a desktop difference really...

Exposé is different from what Windows does, sure...

The Mac is traditionally not focussed on maximized windows, sure.

So?

All of this is more Apple's philosophy of making everything easy for the 
novice.



While I was testing the Mac I had a debate on usenet about this 
Application Window issue. They said the Mac does not have an Application 
Window.

However for most practical purposes, most of them actually did.

> I vigorously disagree with both those statements.

Boohoo. Show me the differences between OS X and Windows that mean it is 
an entirely different thing other than a different cosmetic style.


> The _people_ are welcoming. The _community_ is welcoming.
> 
> However, they welcome people who will play by their rules, work their
> style in their way, conform and comply.

Liam, that's a complete contradiction.



> Ubuntu tried to contribute
> code and designs to GNOME 3 and was harshly rebuffed.
> 
> Mark Shuttleworth has written about the problems of working with the
> GNOME dev team -- e.g.
> 
> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/661

Harsh rebuffing is not exactly evidence of welcoming.

I am not eager to say but another team also has this style; you are 
welcome as long as you don't bring any ideas of your own and just do our 
work for us.


> Go do some research of your own. Don't take my word for it, please.

I don't see what I have said thus far that was wrong.

> Hint: comments like "Never heard of Psion; not interested in digging
> into ancient history" are not productive or conducive to informed
> discussion.

So you come with a desktop environment for PDAs which, due to the nature 
of a small screen, works with maximized 'windows' only.

This is no different from Android. You can't minimize an Android app.

You can close it, and you can bring out the 'desktop' but minimizing 
isn't there.

Personally I find that a bit annoying but because all apps are 
fullscreen (and tiny) it doesn't bother you so much.

The Gnome team apparently thinks that people want only maximized windows 
on a 1920x1080 desktop.

Fine, but to conclude then that people do not want to minimize is false. 
I don't know where they get that idea. "Most people don't minimize." Did 
they hold surveys?

> History is _important_. If you don't know it, you can't understand why
> things are the way they are.

Let me say again that Ubuntu was designed for a netbook and I actually 
do believe its design is excellent FOR netbooks.

> Qt was originally a (dual-licensed) commercial product. That shows in
> its polish and maturity.

I knew that.

> Gtk was merely the toolkit for GIMP. 20y later it's only on version
> 3.something. Old does not equal mature.

That's no excuse. When I first started working with GTK I was appalled 
by how bad it was.

I *never* expected it to be so bad.


> Although the kernel was written by a Finn, a lot of the Linux movement
> is American, such as GNU, and there is a lot of NIH syndrome. Unix is
> American. C is American. C++ is by a Dane, Bjarne Stroustroup.

Never knew that, thanks.

> So GNOME was a response to KDE. It was a FOSS desktop, ideologically
> pure, without the taint of the commercial, dual-licensed KDE (which
> RMS would not tolerate), and written in C, not the decadent C++.

Knew the first part, not the second.

> I respect GNOME for what it's trying to do, and I like the people, I
> just don't like the result.

Results follow from intentions.

If Gnome's intention is to create a Kiosk computer, than that's what it 
will become.


> Yes, I knew what you meant. You don't need to spell it out. I
> understood the first time. I just told you the truth: I never even
> noticed.

Not noticing means not seeing.

Maybe be more clear next time then ;-).

Because that also means you don't remember it and can't actually conjure 
up an image of it?


>> So I don't know how long you've used Cinnamon.
> 
> A few days. No decent vertical panels. Not for me. If they implement
> that, I'll come look again.

No time to get frustrated by the dialogs then is there.

I mean "Never even noticed" is a bit worthless if you are not even there 
long enough to start to be bothered by it.

You make me angry now.

Playing with words.

I was also not bothered the first couple of days.

But after a while you just notice how unintuitive it is.

Next time maybe only speak about stuff you have actually used.


> One person's disruptive change is another's trivial unimportant detail.

Yes, except that you can't even speak from your own experience.