What REALLY changed with Gnome 3? The desktop shell is the only real change. That experience can be replicated with already existing technology. Honestly, the only people I hear saying they are pleased with Gnome3 are the extremist fanboys. Those are the folks who have too much emotional investment in Gnome to admit it sucks. The sad – or should I say funny? – thing about this kind of discussion within
Am Samstag, 14. Januar 2012, 13:19:36 schrieb Roger Luedecke: the linux community is that both groups argue "x/y is better" or "I like x/y better" just that one likes x and the other y. Yet while liking x is a clear sign of fanboyism, liking y better is regarded reasonable.
But it gets even more "funny" because those that think of themselves as not being fanboys but reasonable, tend to use a kind of language that shows more signs of subjectiveness, exaggeration, over-simplification, group-think, insularity, fanatic devotion, emotionality, ideology etc. than those labeled as fanboys.
IMHO – as soon as the term fanboy comes-up, Godwin's law is close.
Sven I think that certain devs on certain systems have forgotten the old Ann Landers bit, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Have they also forgotten that people--most of us, anyway--like stability? With the exception of the goofy fonts, the gui in Windows 98 was a pretty nice desktop. I think it was superior to
On 01/14/2012 05:16 PM, Sven Burmeister wrote: the guis in XP and W7, but MS simply had to screw with it. They have made it more difficult for users at any level above secretary to do what they would like to be able to do. Some implementations of Linux--especially Ubuntu, but also some others, have done as MS did. Their philosophy: if it's not in plain site, you shouldn't do it. You shouldn't even _want_ to do it! On the other hand, some of the modern distros don't want _anything_ in plain sight. They believe that the desktop should be completely blank, except maybe for some "wallpaper" or the distro logo. Even some implementations of KDE have made it particularly difficult to get at the bones of the system. (I haven't seen suse in about 3 years, but it was not one of the guilty ones.) I have to say that I appreciate KDE; without the extremes that can be obtained with the transparencies, it is quite similar to Windows, which is what 98% of us grew up with after CPM or DOS. It wasn't broke, so they didn't fix it, Deo gratias! With Dolphin, or something like it, you have a lot of the capability that the later versions of Windows threw away, such as finding files, moving files and directories, copying things to other places, etc. (rant off) --doug -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org