Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Thread beginning with comment 541614
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by kurkosdr on Fri 9th Nov 2012 13:05 UTC
Member since:

You know the situation in Linux Desktop is bad when you have to choose between Gnome 3, KDE and Unity. Cinnamon is three guys hacking in weekends, and LDXE and XFCE are good from a usability standpoint but dated.

Linux Desktop is losing relevance quickly. It's the ugly truth, but if Linux Desktop was run by business men willing to make money, they would stop the UI madness and divert resources into fixing and PulseAudio breakages in upgrades. For example, OS X is run by people who want to make money, and they refrain from messing with the UI in too radical ways, and instead focus on making upgrading easy. Instead, the Linux world is run by arrogant people, and "if you don't like it, it's free, I don't make any money from you I don't care".

As another example, if Metro in Windows 8 x86 tanks, Ballmer will oust Sinofsky and bring back a more traditional desktop. If Ballmer doesn't do it, the stockholders will oust him and the new CEO will do it. But if you don't like Gnome 3, they will push with their "plan" till the end, because they don't make money from you. This is an advantage of the proprietary model IMO

Reply Score: 3

RE: Re:
by CapEnt on Fri 9th Nov 2012 17:16 in reply to "Re:"
CapEnt Member since:

It's impossible to divert resources to fix or PulseAudio. (there is something to fix on them actually? is on verge to be replaced altogether by Weyland and PulseAudio is quite stable right now)

Why? Because "Linux" isn't a company, it's a kernel, one of the many projects that make a full usable OS, each one with their benevolent dictator, and every single one with their own priorities.

Developers in the open source world go to where their interests and most important, their abilities, fit's in. I don't expect that the average GNOME/KDE developer know a dime of driver development or hardware level infrastructure to mess around with or Weyland, neither the opposite, that a Weyland developer knows how to design every single application used in a desktop environment.

Linux desktop is not loosing relevancy. It never had any. It is a desktop whose applications are made mainly by power users to power users. A market niche that will never exceed 5% of the total desktop market share.

And for such small market share, it's quite impressive how alive it is. In Windows what i'm used to see is the same old applications refreshed and nothing new coming along for years in a row. In Linux, in just 12 years (release of WinXP), we left from KDE 2.0 to KDE4.0, from GNOME 1.4 to GNOME 3.6. Many window managers born and died, many new small desktop environments came along, with hundreds of new different apps... and goes on. It's a thriving environment that clear fills his niche market quite well, and people who really use it are happy.

If someone wants to grab a chunk of all projects that makes what we call "Linux desktop", fork it and make it a "user happy" OS, with plenty of market share so he can rule the world, they are free to pool the resources needed to do it and go ahead. Google is the living proof that this is possible with Android.

But don't be so idealistic about the abilities of the proprietary model to fill up their markets. Inside a company there is far more than just money that can decide your future (and the company's future), and egos play a large part on it. If companies was so fast to adapt and listen to their users, we would never see tech software companies going bankruptcy.

Reply Parent Score: 4