Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Feb 2010 12:22 UTC, submitted by kragil
Gnome GNOME hacker Seth Nickell has written a lengthy PDF and accompanying blog post with a number of very interesting ideas for GNOME 3.0. I pondered putting this up on the front page, but since that usually only attracts the "It's not what I'm used to so it sucks"-crowd, I decided to put it up here. Be sure to read the blog post, the PDF, and the comments on the blog post to get the entire picture.
Thread beginning with comment 411283
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Thank you for deciding how I need to use my computer.

First of all, EVERY f--kING OS/DE does in one way or another enforce their own view of how you should use the computer, that's the whole point of it; if all worked exactly the same there'd be no point in even having more than one single OS and DE. Some focus on presentation of the filesystem as abstract objects, some focus on actual filesystem layout, some focus rather on presentation and manipulation of windows contents etc. Claiming that GNOME does try to make you do things in a certain way and that f.ex. OSX or KDE4 doesn't is utter bull; they all do it in their own ways.

Secondly, exactly how does these planned features hinder you from doing what you wish? All of them allow you to do the same thing as before, just in a slightly different way and providing ways of planning your actions over several days. Most of them are even customizable or can be disabled.

While I do agree with you to some extent, it is important to point out that KDE goes a great length to ensure that the computer works the way you want and not the other way around. KDE 3 even more so than KDE 4 obviously, but KDE 4 is getting there.

You can change keystrokes, toolbars, default applications and with Plasma even the desktop itself - making it look and behave like other OS/DE if that is what floats your boat - so it is somewhat incorrect to state that KDE "forces" you to do anything. For example, I change most KDE/Qt applications' "Refresh" keystrokes - when that applies, of course - to F5 to match my old habit of pressing F5 to refresh web browsers while some people that I know prefer to press Ctrl+R. Neither Windows nor Mac OS X can claim such levels of flexibility.

On the other hand, GNOME tries REALLY hard to enforce its developers' vision on to your usage pattern. I guess that it works for some people but I'd rather have something that I can shape and mold to work the way I want or that fits my workflow better and not the other way around - reasonable defaults notwithstanding - so the parent poster's point still stands.

Edited 2010-02-27 00:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:

On the other hand, GNOME tries REALLY hard to enforce its developers' vision on to your usage pattern

I'd say that is a point of view: atleast I find my GNOME desktop customizable enough and not forcing me to do things in some specific way. It would be forcing if you weren't allowed to change anything, but you are and as such the point is moot.

Of course KDE4 is more customizable than GNOME, but it doesn't mean GNOME is forcing things on you either: if not having every possible imaginable option available means you are being forced to work one way or another then KDE4 would be forcing too; it just doesn't have every possible imaginable option either.

Besides, these are all just semantics; GNOME3 hasn't been released even as an RC and no one can yet say whether it'll be any good or not.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Daniel Borgmann Member since:

Yes, some people prefer something they can mould according to their own tastes, others prefer something that just works out of the box and is reasonably rigid. For me personally, the value of customisability in itself is pretty much non-existant.

This is also a case of giving choice. In our world, ultimate customisability is always guaranteed on the source code level. Beyond that, requirements differ.

Reply Parent Score: 2