Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172935

Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/11/13 11:29 AM, in article 20130411201436.464@usenet.drumscum.be,
"TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2013-04-10, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> 
> 8<
> 
>>> It's simple: a mate desktop program doesn't fit in on a Gnome3
>>> desktop. Menus, widgets, icon sets... Completely different.
>> 
>> I would like to see examples of menu naming and placement
>> differences.
> 
> I said menu widgets, ie. the building blocks of the menus and
> toolbars. I don't think there are any /structural/ differences between
> Gnome2/Mate and Gnome3/Cinnamon, although there /might/ be.

Do you have a screenshot or video of something that would affect the user?

>>> Because people can do and will do whatever they like, no matter how
>>> many of us want UI standardization on the "Linux desktop".
>> 
>> Is anyone suggesting people should not use what they like? Not sure
>> what you are arguing against here.
> 
> If there's standardization, people (as in developers that is) can no
> longer do whatever they like. That's quite obvious, right?

If there are standards developers can *chose* to use this does not stop them
from doing otherwise.

Heck, on OS X a developer can make an application that works horribly. Heck,
many have... and they do not do well - they either go away or are improved.
Ask the Firefox and OpenOffice teams about this - they both realized they
had to improve their product if they wanted it to do well. They were not
*forced* into this by anything other than user demands that they make better
products.

The whole idea of developers not being able to do as they wish is completely
*contrary* to my ideas... as I have made clear over and over and over. I
think the ideas I am talking about (which lead to improved usability and
greater choice) are so foreign to your way of thinking you are having a hard
time grasping them.

>> What I have noted is that people know they want better productivity,
>> efficiency, and error reduction but *most* do not know what it takes to get
>> that (and even people such as myself who focus on that certainly can
>> disagree with each other in many areas and the answer is not always so
>> simple - but there are general principles which are pretty clear cut).
>> 
>> On a well designed system there are experts who *do* get what it takes to
>> make a tool work well. This is true of almost all tools (...)
> 
> Including *NIX desktop environments like Gnome and KDE. I know this
> and I get the importance. Again this boils down to what you see as
> "the system".

I use terms in the common way: the system is the system - in the case of
desktop Linux it is the distro, or in context it can be a specific system.

>>>> Nobody is saying people should all do things the same way...
>>>> remember, my point is about doing things to allow *greater* choice
>>>> and diversity... not less.
>>> 
>>> I'm sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. Or people are allowed to
>>> do whatever they feel like, or someone steps in to put them in a
>>> straight line.
>> 
>> I never said I want it both ways. I think people *want* better systems (as I
>> describe above)... and unlike you I do not think the open source ecosystem
>> is incapable of producing such systems.
> 
> You're putting words in my mouth. The open source community definitely
> is capable of producing good systems. KDE and Gnome are two great
> examples.

If you think the open source ecosystem is capable of producing the types of
systems I talk about then what are you arguing against?

>>> For instance, the dialog button swapping that "got fixed" was
>>> actually on of those transitional things where GTK2/Gnome programs
>>> went from one way to the other, and not all programs were updated
>>> yet. Stuff like that happens *all the time*, and is in no way an
>>> indication of this "progress" you're talking about.
>> 
>> Look at PCLOS (...)
> 
> That was one of your examples from PCLOS and it is absolutely no
> indication of this "progress" as you see it. It was simply a
> transition from one layout to another that wasn't completed yet.

The improvement of PCLOS is clearly an example of improvement... and it very
much fit my predictions and COLA "advocates" very much argued at the time
that what I was saying needed improvement on was not needed, was a
non-issue, etc.

Again: one of the key points that is important to understand is that I
pointed out those problems and others *and* noted them as problems *and*
predicted that they would be improved over time... *also* it is key to
understanding the situation to understand how strongly some of the COLA
"advocates" argued against me. If you cannot understand or accept this the
overall concepts I am talking about will be hard to understand. This is a
very key point!

>> Looking at the above PCLOS screenshots (and what PCLOS offers today)
>> we can see things have gotten a lot better in just a few years. My
>> question to you is what do you think is going to stop this progress?
>> When will users and developers decide enough is enough - we have
>> gotten our systems as usable as we want and should just stop moving
>> forward?
> 
> Oh, but I do agree that there's progress. A lot even. But just not in
> the way you're saying.

You snipped the links to the specific problems I was noting... and we can
look at the PCLOS and see the progress has happened very much as I described
it then. Exactly as I described... likely not. I am sure we can find some
discrepancies - but I surely was far more accurate and detailed than *any*
of the COLA "advocates".

-- 
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 16:56 +0000
  Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 10:39 -0700
    Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 20:12 +0200
      Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-09 16:19 -0400
      Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:56 -0700
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:01 -0700
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:18 -0700
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-10 20:58 +0000
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-10 14:42 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-11 18:29 +0000
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-11 12:50 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-12 15:55 +0000
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-12 09:56 -0700
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2013-04-11 15:09 -0500
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-11 13:44 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-12 10:40 +0100
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-12 06:34 -0700
  Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 15:31 -0700

csiph-web