Linked by thesunnyk on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 22:14 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 536289
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: That's no evolution. That's the past.
by thesunnyk on Mon 24th Sep 2012 13:56
in reply to "RE[2]: That's no evolution. That's the past."




Member since:
2005-07-06
Here is where you are wrong. Nobody needs to convince the Gnome developers that they have to adopt another vision than they have for Gnome 3. People either adopt it or they don't.
The people who don't adopt it should stop leveling criticism at Gnome 3. This desktop wasn't written for them. Gnome 2 is dead, long live the myriad of alternatives.
The other side of the medal might be that Gnome 3 shouldn't expect to take the same leading position with the distro's it had with Gnome 2. After all, nobody is obligated to adopt Gnome 3. (The jury is still out on the question if Gnome 3 including Shell is loved by the majority).
Personally, I like most parts of Gnome 3 and I think those parts are substantial improvements. I even like the infrastructure that was written for and is underpinning Gnome Shell, but Gnome Shell itself... My personal opinion is that Gnome Shell should be incinerated at 5778 K, but I don't have to use Shell to use the rest of Gnome 3, so I've come to terms with Shell's existence and I can leave it to the people that do like this interface.