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 590498
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I'm well aware of the development model used by Linux. News flash, it's exactly that model that I'm criticizing.


You're criticizing it for not being the waterfall model. Do you realize how stupid that is?

Here's the meat & potatoes of the matter -Linux's crappy development process poison's the well for everyone else!


It's everyone else's fault if they can't keep up.

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


The BSDs are free to design their own subsystems and get them adopted.

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.


Thank you for arguing my point.

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.


I never said it was the only way. I specifically said "large", and compared to the BSDs, Linux is very large.

I would also disagree that BSD "works". If it did work, then why can't it keep up with Linux? You blame Linux for breaking compatibility with things, but you don't ask why BSDs feels the need to make software portable from Linux to BSD. There is only one reason: people want software in userland that BSD doesn't provide. If the BSD process really works, they wouldn't have that problem, would they?

Reply Parent Score: 2