3 ms·

>Does that explain it OK? No. The things you are saying are completely normal and expected, and I cannot see why you would be upset by that if you had been upd

>Does that explain it OK? No. The things you are saying are completely normal and expected, and I cannot see why you would be upset by that if you had been updating a Linux system (or any OS) for the years prior to that. Every OS has changed their UI, some have done it several times. Remember the initial switch to Windows 8, or MacOS X, or from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2? And even before that, how Linux distributions had frequently been switching between window managers or from GNOME to KDE and vice versa? It makes no sense to me to take issue with this one specific case. For a project that is trying to keep attracting new users, it is unreasonable to expect them to never change anything or never refactor the UI. The real WTF is using something like XFCE and expecting nothing to change for 20 or more years, that is totally out of the ordinary with any comparable retail tech product.

Nursie 4y ago
> No. The things you are saying are completely normal and expected They really aren't. > Remember the initial switch to Windows 8 Yes, it was terrible, people hated the change and that it was hard to make it work like the older versions, it's still famous for being horrible and unusable and MS basically rolled it back in the face of overwhelming criticism. (Windows 8 is actually a really good point of comparison here, I never claimed that only the gnome people have done this) > Linux distributions had frequently been switching between window managers or from GNOME to KDE and vice versa Yep, and you could always switch back and forth, easily. Gnome 3 was scorched earth. > The real WTF is using something like XFCE and expecting nothing to change for 20 or more years Yet here I am, and here most people on Windows are, and on OS X. MacOS X from 2001 is still recognisable today. Move the start button on Windows 11 to the left and you've basically got an evolved Win 95/NT 4. Evolutionary changes and improvements are great. People choosing to work differently is great. Designers exploring different ways of working, great. Wading in and hamfistedly breaking everything about how people work, then telling them they're wrong for wanting to keep working that way, is virtually never well received.
- Crysstalis 4y ago
  >They really aren't. Actually they are, I cannot name a single system that has not changed in some significant ways since the 90s, unless development has slowed to the point where it basically stopped and became a time capsule. >Yes, it was terrible, people hated the change and that it was hard to make it work like the older versions, it's still famous for being horrible and unusable and MS basically rolled it back in the face of overwhelming criticism. I think this is still a poor example to illustrate your point. They rolled back some aspects, other aspects were changed in Windows 10 and now again in Windows 11. >I never claimed that only the gnome people have done this Yes, my point was that they all do it. It makes no sense to fixate on GNOME doing this. >Yep, and you could always switch back and forth, easily. Gnome 3 was scorched earth. I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. You could always switch easily, even now there are many distros that offer GNOME as only an option, or do not really have GNOME as a supported option at all. Maybe you were using a distro that only supported one option, but it was always within their authority to do that just like they could decide to only offer KDE Plasma as an option. So this complaint still makes no sense to me. >Yet here I am, and here most people on Windows are, and on OS X. MacOS X from 2001 is still recognisable today. Move the start button on Windows 11 to the left and you've basically got an evolved Win 95/NT 4. Again that is describing one specific area, other things have been completely redone or rewritten. And I have spoken to some other people who were very bothered by that change and didn't like it. >Evolutionary changes and improvements are great. People choosing to work differently is great. Designers exploring different ways of working, great. Wading in and hamfistedly breaking everything about how people work, then telling them they're wrong for wanting to keep working that way, is virtually never well received. Just to clarify, it is very possible for a user to be wrong about something. If someone is telling you they are never wrong, that will virtually never be well received either. It is very hard for me to interpret this in a way other than that you're describing changes that don't bother you as "evolutionary" but ones that do bother you as "hamfisted". Try to be a little bit more objective about this, perhaps if you feel like it, go through a list of many changes across these and compare them. You might be surprised as to what you find.

Nursie 4y ago

> No. The things you are saying are completely normal and expected They really aren't. > Remember the initial switch to Windows 8 Yes, it was terrible, people hated the change and that it was hard to make it work like the older versions, it's still famous for being horrible and unusable and MS basically rolled it back in the face of overwhelming criticism. (Windows 8 is actually a really good point of comparison here, I never claimed that only the gnome people have done this) > Linux distributions had frequently been switching between window managers or from GNOME to KDE and vice versa Yep, and you could always switch back and forth, easily. Gnome 3 was scorched earth. > The real WTF is using something like XFCE and expecting nothing to change for 20 or more years Yet here I am, and here most people on Windows are, and on OS X. MacOS X from 2001 is still recognisable today. Move the start button on Windows 11 to the left and you've basically got an evolved Win 95/NT 4. Evolutionary changes and improvements are great. People choosing to work differently is great. Designers exploring different ways of working, great. Wading in and hamfistedly breaking everything about how people work, then telling them they're wrong for wanting to keep working that way, is virtually never well received.

Crysstalis 4y ago
>They really aren't. Actually they are, I cannot name a single system that has not changed in some significant ways since the 90s, unless development has slowed to the point where it basically stopped and became a time capsule. >Yes, it was terrible, people hated the change and that it was hard to make it work like the older versions, it's still famous for being horrible and unusable and MS basically rolled it back in the face of overwhelming criticism. I think this is still a poor example to illustrate your point. They rolled back some aspects, other aspects were changed in Windows 10 and now again in Windows 11. >I never claimed that only the gnome people have done this Yes, my point was that they all do it. It makes no sense to fixate on GNOME doing this. >Yep, and you could always switch back and forth, easily. Gnome 3 was scorched earth. I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. You could always switch easily, even now there are many distros that offer GNOME as only an option, or do not really have GNOME as a supported option at all. Maybe you were using a distro that only supported one option, but it was always within their authority to do that just like they could decide to only offer KDE Plasma as an option. So this complaint still makes no sense to me. >Yet here I am, and here most people on Windows are, and on OS X. MacOS X from 2001 is still recognisable today. Move the start button on Windows 11 to the left and you've basically got an evolved Win 95/NT 4. Again that is describing one specific area, other things have been completely redone or rewritten. And I have spoken to some other people who were very bothered by that change and didn't like it. >Evolutionary changes and improvements are great. People choosing to work differently is great. Designers exploring different ways of working, great. Wading in and hamfistedly breaking everything about how people work, then telling them they're wrong for wanting to keep working that way, is virtually never well received. Just to clarify, it is very possible for a user to be wrong about something. If someone is telling you they are never wrong, that will virtually never be well received either. It is very hard for me to interpret this in a way other than that you're describing changes that don't bother you as "evolutionary" but ones that do bother you as "hamfisted". Try to be a little bit more objective about this, perhaps if you feel like it, go through a list of many changes across these and compare them. You might be surprised as to what you find.