Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 7th Jun 2014 00:53 UTC
Xfce Over the past several years, mobile devices have greatly influenced user interfaces. That's great for handheld users but leaves those of us who rely on laptops and desktops in the lurch. Windows 8, Ubuntu Unity, and GNOME have all radically changed in ways that leave personal computer users scratching their heads.

One user interface completely avoided this controversy: Xfce. This review takes a quick look at Xfce today. Who is this product for? Who should pass it by?
Thread beginning with comment 590494
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
demetrioussharpe
Member since:
2009-01-09

Other reasons that Linux must churn is that most hardware is actually badly implemented and so the subsystems must change once in a while because the amount of specific work arounds start working against each other.


Sounds like the solution is pretty obvious -stop piling workarounds on top of each other. It's like finding a victim with a shotgun wound on his chest & trying to patch him up with lots of little bandaids, instead of applying a proper dressing. This isn't a technical matter, it's a social & managerial matter.

if(HerdingCats(sLinuxDevelopmenters) {
StopAllDevelopment();
RemoveUnorgizedDevelopers();
AddFreshDevelopers();
ActuallyEngineerSolution();
ImplementSolution();
ScrapAllOldSolutions();

if(SolutionWorks()) {
CommitSolution()
}
}

It's not rocket science.

(My indention spaces were automatically removed by the site software.)

Designing things to be perfect from the beginning only works if nothing ever changes. Like I said before, Linux churn is a result of previous Linux churn. BSDs don't experience this because they don't have previous churn to force them. There's no positive feedback loop.


Now, you're just making excuses. Churn can always be stopped. Churn could've been stopped when the development started on each major version of the Linux kernel, but no one bothered to actually do it. Every project has a beginning, so saying that the BSDs had no original churn is no excuse. Linux could've started without original churn, but it didn't. Linux could've transitioned to a system with less churn, but it didn't & it won't. Like I said earlier, this is a social & managerial mater -not a technical one. By the way, you're right, Linux churn doesn't exist in a positive feedback loop.

So yes, it is somewhat a matter of funding and resources. Change creates more change, and Linux has a lot more sources of change from outside that it becomes a juggernaut. Linux very much can't say "stop giving us code" for long.


If a project can't reject badly designed & badly engineered code, then that project has serious issues. What's funny is that you really believe that bs. I'm looking at what you wrote & I'm matching it up with how many years came & went that were supposed to be the year of Linux on the desktop. If your desktop can't stabilize because the kernel is churning faster than a dairy farm produces butter, then is it any wonder that the year of Linux on the desktop never arrived? This discombobulated approach to development has forced Linux to play catchup to TWO OSes, where it originally had to play catch up to just one. I've been around for the development of both Linux & the BSDs. As trashy as Windows can be, there's no doubt about the fact that it's still more seamless than Linux...when it's not crashing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You seem really ignorant of how Linux development works. All your criticisms would apply if Linux were a corporate project with top down control.

But Linux isn't.

In fact, you seem to think that waterfall development model is either in use, or should be in use, with Linux.

You're right that it isn't rocket science. Because to build rockets, you have top down control of every aspect of designing and building a rocket. Large, open source, software systems are not built like that, and your rant shows you to be completely ignorant of these matters.

Reply Parent Score: 2

demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

You seem really ignorant of how Linux development works. All your criticisms would apply if Linux were a corporate project with top down control.

But Linux isn't.


I'm well aware of the development model used by Linux. News flash, it's exactly that model that I'm criticizing. You fail to see the big picture, simply because you want to view the *nix ecosystem as the Linux ecosystem. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Have you ever stopped for a moment to think about every other *nix that lives in this environment? You want to complain about the other *nix derivatives, as if Linux isn't the newcomer. People like you want to change stander *nix software to suit Linux, as if that software didn't exist long before Linux. Here's the meat & potatoes of the matter -Linux's crappy development process poison's the well for everyone else!

In fact, you seem to think that waterfall development model is either in use, or should be in use, with Linux.


I'm saying that people who can't properly design subsystems have no business writing code.

You're right that it isn't rocket science. Because to build rockets, you have top down control of every aspect of designing and building a rocket. Large, open source, software systems are not built like that, and your rant shows you to be completely ignorant of these matters.


First, rocket science isn't about building rockets, it's about understanding & designing rockets. The people who could be considered rocket scientist don't normally build the rockets themselves -I should know, I spent a large bulk of my career maintaining rockets & missiles. Even for the ones who do build rockets, the most important part is the understanding what you're trying to accomplish & actually using a design process to achieve that goal. In addition, the Linux way of development isn't the only way to develop software -if you've been around for longer than a decade, then you'd already know this. The fact that I've been contrasting Linux's way with the BSD way shows that I know exactly what I'm talking about. Now, you just said that open source development doesn't work that way. But I know of 3 BSDs who's development model, in fact, DOES work that way. What exactly do you think we've been talking about this whole time??? You're constantly trying to call people ignorant, while prominently displaying your ignorance.

Reply Parent Score: 2