Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Is Linux just a hobby?
Paul Keith:
Yes, OP was far from serious hence my usage of the word "If".
Again I go back to the article:
Forced change (key word: forced), by definition, causes friction and therefore hurts productivity.
--- End quote ---
As you said, MATE broke the mentality of a WM ported for the better. Therefore it's not your traditional WM. It was a port to bring back a one generation change because of the forced change that occurred.
No one is saying change should not happen but this was not only cutting edge design (something many designers tend to prevent average users from having by default) but it was failed cutting edge design both because it didn't have MATE built in as a counter measure and because it's just not that good.
Again to quote the link:
The worst part about the destruction of customization options in the name of “ease of use” is that it seems to have backfired horribly. Gnome 3 is not easy to use. For the developers who created it, maybe, for all of us normal people, no. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Three clicks to get to an application? Then when you complain, some Gnome 3 fanboy tells you it’s actually easier, since you can just type the name of the application? Brilliant! If I wanted to type the names of my applications, I would be using the freaking command line.
--- End quote ---
I don't know if I can get to you however. You're intermixing hobby with the rebuttal of new vs. old. Neither is really connected and I didn't merge them.
Note that any working thing can be stopped from being a hobby by a boss, a design philosophy, beta testing, controlled migration, etc. etc.
As far as the new vs. the old. Gnome 3 did not just try to be new. It was bad. It was bad because it didn't wait for Mate to mature before being Gnome 3 and it's bad because no one simply said "it sucks". Of course it doesn't cut it if the words "it sucks" were said with no other explanation or justification. No one did though so why reply to this straw man instead of the actual implication?
It's just as bad as your inability to grasp the difference with desiring for a familiar interface because you don't want the new interface vs. the desiring for a previous generation old interface because it's both familiar and better than the new interface which was shoddy implementation of a so called interface being adopted to the change of the decade as if that justifies forced change especially within the context of it's initial release.
mahesh2k:
As you said, MATE broke the mentality of a WM ported for the better. Therefore it's not your traditional WM. It was a port to bring back a one generation change because of the forced change that occurred.
--- End quote ---
Exactly.
No one is saying change should not happen but this was not only cutting edge design (something many designers tend to prevent average users from having by default) but it was failed cutting edge design both because it didn't have MATE built in as a counter measure and because it's just not that good.
--- End quote ---
If you don't give new interface the amount of time it needs to make things more productive, you'll never find out how usable they are. I am spending time with Unity (which is built over gnome 3 shell) and I find it more productive over the menu interface of gnome or KDE. It is all about adopting if it's more productive. HUD (headsup display) on unity is quite useful and more productive compared to old menu based interface. I can see how much they are usesful on tablets if gnome or ubuntu based tablets ever make it to the market. That's all i can say about forced change vs not wanting to change thinking.
You're intermixing hobby with the rebuttal of new vs. old. Neither is really connected and I didn't merge them.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly. If we go by OP's definition. Hobby is something that is not working as per his perception of how things should work as he was taught at first place(being familiar and all). Going by that definition when windows user tries MAC it becomes hobby. For windows user, linux is hobby because they're too lazy to understand how things are different than their walled garden windows.
For me crappy innovation like Ribbon interface and Metro interface are part of hobby. I can explain why they are less of innovation and more of hobby but we derailed a lot already here.
Gnome 3 did not just try to be new. It was bad.
--- End quote ---
I have to disagree. If you're into doing quick tasks, gnome 3 is way superior and can get tasks done way quicker than MATE and gnome 2. It requires more usage than just mere reaction over look and feel.
It was bad because it didn't wait for Mate to mature before being Gnome 3 and it's bad because no one simply said "it sucks".
--- End quote ---
What gnome 3 has to do with MATE being mature or not? Gnome 3 was released months before the release of MATE. In fact MATE was born because gnome foundation ditched the traditional desktop interface in version 2.
Of course it doesn't cut it if the words "it sucks" were said with no other explanation or justification. No one did though so why reply to this straw man instead of the actual implication?
--- End quote ---
Simple because many people who gave that reaction failed to use that interface and presented no measured results.
It's just as bad as your inability to grasp the difference with desiring for a familiar interface because you don't want the new interface vs. the desiring for a previous generation old interface because it's both familiar and better than the new interface
--- End quote ---
I don't think it's my inability to grasp things here where I corrected you MATE was born out of gnome 3s change of direction. It shows your inability to understand things here that old interface is soon going to be deprecated by WMs because of the touch interface hype. I never said I don't want the new interface in fact I have changed on that over time, I don't know what gave you that impression. As for previous generation of interface being familiar, MATE is going to change on that too. Are you going to still hold the same argument against them without keeping track of changes? Linux is all about changes, I learned that hard way. You can not quote old things on linux (or it's apps, wm's) and hold strong opinion on their current changes. Linux is very dynamic on WM/DE changes front these days.
Paul Keith:
Stating quick tasks does not equal measured results either FYI especially when it comes to productivity.
Stating Linux is very dynamic on WM/DE changes front these days is also not much of a statement. Dynamic compared to what? Even in pre-Gnome 3 days there were many WMs/DEs unique to Linux especially when you factor in other micro-apps that change how windows are managed but are not full shells.
Mate is related to Gnome 3 because Mate was a reaction to Gnome 3. You know it's bad design when someone needs to recreate an old interface. Not only that but you can't hide behind the amount of time it needs since you didn't specify such an amount and you're railing on people not providing any measured result. These two are contrary.
This is how Mate relates to Gnome 3. If Gnome 3 waited for MATE's maturity then there would have been less complaints. Instead it was force change. A change that wasn't just forced upon Linux newbies but forced upon long time Gnome users.
It is also disingenuous to both call the OP's words drivel and then to rely on his drivel to redefine the meaning of hobby according to him. Drivel means you can reinvent what he really meant when he said of hobby to support your own bias on what drivel really means. It also goes counter to you ignoring his drivel. Again this is a strawman rebuttal. You omit crucial words such as "Ifs", you would rather side with what you consider drivel than what the common lay person understands as hobby or even what that article defines as unprofessional forced change, you are merely supplanting your own bias instead of debunking anything.
mahesh2k:
Stating quick tasks does not equal measured results either FYI especially when it comes to productivity.
--- End quote ---
You have to actually open to up measured results in order to understand what they are. If you have never used HUD or Gnome 3 equal to the time you used traditional interface, argument is moot. Productivity regarding tasks is measured against time. HUD performs faster compared to menu interface on that.
Stating Linux is very dynamic on WM/DE changes front these days is also not much of a statement.
--- End quote ---
Sure it is not for you because you're not even keeping up with the changes in the WM and you are not even sure how those DE's are changed or from where they are forked and for what purpose.
Dynamic compared to what?
--- End quote ---
Dynamic compared to their own previous versions or even you can say windows versions. You can't beat linux WM's like dead horse by comparing gnome 2 version with windows 7 or 8, when you are not even aware that there are faster and more productive and responsive UI's coming out. If you're holding onto linux with your presumptions and going to be negative about it, then that is purely out of your perspective, that is not WM's fault.
Even in pre-Gnome 3 days there were many WMs/DEs unique to Linux especially when you factor in other micro-apps that change how windows are managed but are not full shells.
--- End quote ---
How many of them were more productive and eye candy or say polished at the same time? There was nothing unique in them when they were just mimicking the traditional desktop features that you can find on any other desktop. Problem with linux haters is that they're open to apple or windows innovation in UI or some design crap but if open source community does any innovation there is criticism for the sake of it, atleast criticism out of no strong points.
Mate is related to Gnome 3 because Mate was a reaction to Gnome 3. You know it's bad design when someone needs to recreate an old interface. Not only that but you can't hide behind the amount of time it needs since you didn't specify such an amount and you're railing on people not providing any measured result. These two are contrary.
--- End quote ---
Sure it was reaction to new interface. But in order to call it bad you have to use it for equally long time like the old interface. Initial reaction was purely based on the look and feel and uncomfortable feel that people got while navigating the desktop. Nobody focused on productivity to get things done. On productivity scale it is far more superior. Have you even used gnome 3 for searching files, programs and to manage multiple workspace? I underestimated all this earlier with same arguments against gnome 3 and after using it I realized it was meant to save a lot of my time. Sure it resembles apple's design, but it is working. Your asssume that MATE retains the superiority of old interface with that fork,in reality MATE is just a refuge desktop that many people have as of now. Same goes for cinnamon. It is about time that linux like any other desktop going to make changes to the traditional interface, there is nothing wrong with that. It is natural for people who are into UI based desktop to get shocked to see major changes in their desktop. There is going to be another shock when tablets will be more cheaper and we'll be using new touch responsive UI in next year or so.
This is how Mate relates to Gnome 3. If Gnome 3 waited for MATE's maturity then there would have been less complaints. Instead it was force change. A change that wasn't just forced upon Linux newbies but forced upon long time Gnome users.
--- End quote ---
Again same thing. Is it hard for you to get the hard fact that MATE was born after Gnome3? :huh: If you check the thread which i posted earlier you'll realize that MATE's maturity has nothing to do with gnome3. It's like saying baby shouldn't have been born before it gets mature in womb. Here is something for easy. Gnome 3 first and MATE second and also one important point, MATE is based on OLD gnome 2 code which used GTK 2+ which is now going to be deprecated. MATE was born because gnome-classic session is going to be ignored when gnome 4 comes for new hardware and 3d acceleration. It is not forced at all. Gnome-panel or gnome classic session was always there for people who wanted to use the old gnome interface. It was not forced at all. You're talking about linux here, open source community always cares for people, because it is for people software, not profit. LIke donationcoders, they are running totally on worldwide donations and there are people working from around the world for gnome.
It is also disingenuous to both call the OP's words drivel and then to rely on his drivel to redefine the meaning of hobby according to him. Drivel means you can reinvent what he really meant when he said of hobby to support your own bias on what drivel really means.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly, it is drivel. Google "confirmation bias" to validate whether it was my bias to call it drivel or it was drivel again linux to begin with. If you carefully read his post until he decided to approach linux with open mind. I am not here to defend linux or open source. I was in thread to see if he wants the solution to his problem then we got derailed to what we are posting right now.
you would rather side with what you consider drivel than what the common lay person understands as hobby or even what that article defines as unprofessional forced change, you are merely supplanting your own bias instead of debunking anything.
--- End quote ---
If you're talking about your ignorance for gnome-classic session which shows gnome 3 was not forced change, then I have posted about that in my previous point. I have nothing to debunk. It is something you want to make up from this discussion.
Paul Keith:
No the arguments can't be moot because,
1) productivity is not just based on speed (i.e. time management)
2) speed is also based on the user's knowledge and skills with utilizing certain aspects of a feature (say mouse clicks vs. hotkeys)
3) You were the one who lumped the other side as all not using measured results so you raised the issue. By calling it a moot argument, you would be calling your own original statement a moot argument.
4) Blind tests are more important than being opened to measured results. In fact, while opening up is important to users less willing to experiment, it is also deadly for more intelligent users who might be biased towards a positive result.
5) A small increase in productivity can't make up for the longer time to adopt a new piece of interface and Linux by default is plagued with other areas that are just as time consuming besides the DE/WM.
Mind you you're wrong. It doesn't require any advanced user to keep up with developments to know how dynamic Linux WMs can be. You're showing your faulty prejudices here.
You can't even figure out something as basic as I think Linux WMs are dynamic so just because I raised the issue of Gnome 3 you immediately assumed:
Sure it is not for you because you're not even keeping up with the changes in the WM and you are not even sure how those DE's are changed or from where they are forked and for what purpose.-mahesh2k
--- End quote ---
...when caught on this you went back on your statement and rephrased the question into:
How many of them were more productive and eye candy or say polished at the same time? There was nothing unique in them when they were just mimicking the traditional desktop features that you can find on any other desktop. Problem with linux haters is that they're open to apple or windows innovation in UI or some design crap but if open source community does any innovation there is criticism for the sake of it, atleast criticism out of no strong points.-mashesh2k
--- End quote ---
Problem with people with prejudices is that they jump to conclusions.
1) Desktop features can still mean many things depending on how the usability goes. It's not traditional vs. new but you're trying to lump those to paint a straw man where you can then argue against "criticism out of no strong points".
2) Many Windows user do use things like BB4Win.
3) If Gnome 3 was polished, there wouldn't have been as much complaints.
4) You talk all these good game but really the only example you have stated so far is Gnome 3 and the only thing you have hidden behind so far is Gnome 2. I don't deny that you may be more knowledgeable and aggressive at keeping up with news of development but it's like a mainstream fan talking about mainstream stuff and then railing all about polish and then flip flopping and talking about productivity all without defining much of them and when asked for proof after raising their measured data argument, then goes back on their statement and just say the argument is moot and you have to be open to the argument at the same time.
Sorry. Your vague line is contradictory. You can't say you follow developments only to say it's all about productivity only to then say it has to be polished only to then say some other things when the context was whether Linux simply has dynamic WMs/DEs. You're making new criterias as you're caught when you know my original statement is true so long as you don't make statements as as you go along:
Even in pre-Gnome 3 days there were many WMs/DEs unique to Linux especially when you factor in other micro-apps that change how windows are managed but are not full shells.
--- End quote ---
Some proof:
http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=107488
http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=101604
As small as these were, these were generally what got people excited about windows management in general and you didn't have to be a techie or a Linux user or even a constant development news stalker to grasp your mind around that these were fresher concepts that didn't need to hide behind what's new or old or mainstream.
The fact is you've already listed the facts:
MATE came after Gnome 3 because G3 is bad/was not polished. If you want to soften it up then fine: Gnome 3 is mediocre/above average/average.
MATE came after Gnome 3 because people wanted Gnome 2 but there was no way to go back to Gnome 2 on Gnome 3.
Hence from the beginning it was bad. Again, two words forced change. You want to make it semantic with things like settings, fine: forced default change.
It doesn't matter what new things you keep bringing up. You were the one who first replied to me, I clarified what my post meant based on your initial statements, and I simply replied based on the information you wrote at the time.
Not only that, some of the new issues you bring up are pretty sketchy. MATE never retained gnome 2 completely. That was one of the arguments why people constantly railed on Gnome 3. They said MATE is not just doing it for them.
...then some of the things you insert are flat out malicious. Secretly injecting the word superiority so that you can argue that Gnome 3 is superior for example:
Your asssume that MATE retains the superiority of old interface with that fork
--- End quote ---
I'm not saying you're intentionally planning it out but come on! Show a little sincerity here will you?
Is it really that hard for you to get the hard fact that Gnome 2 came before Gnome 3 and MATE only gained in popularity after because Gnome 3 wasn't doing it for certain people?
Is it so hard to understand that MATE's maturity is linked to the maturity of Gnome 3 because MATE's maturity is linked to getting back the maturity of Gnome 2?
Some of the new stuff you're bringing up are just so weird. You realize how close you sound like a cult member when you say things like:
open source community always cares for people
--- End quote ---
It's all over the place. Again, I probably won't get you because you're accusing me of making shit up and by showing you where you're making shit up it's probably coming off like now I'm the one accusing you back but you have to see some of the obvious faulty jumps to logic you're making up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version