5 ms·

Lets get real here! Just because they didn't fix your favourite bug does not mean the whole project sucks. The maintainer isn't interested in making it configu

by i386 13y ago

Lets get real here! Just because they didn't fix your favourite bug does not mean the whole project sucks. The maintainer isn't interested in making it configurable (and from reading the thread, I agree, it just moves the problem elsewhere) and there has to be another way to fix it. I am sure the maintainer would be reasonable about accepting a different solution. Be the change you seek - get annoyed, fork the repo, apply a fix and propose a patch. EDIT: The issue appears to be open and not marked as won't fix.

jeremysmyth 13y ago
The maintainer isn't interested in making it configurable (and from reading the thread, I agree, it just moves the problem elsewhere) Since I started using Linux, I've constantly bumped up against problems in other operating systems where I've wanted to take control of a particular tiny niggling detail and make that decision myself. Linux has consistently allowed me to do that, with a plethora of hidden configuration settings. Put simply, the design philosophy of many features of Linux distributions and environments allows me to decide what I want my system to do. Sure, it's moving the problem elsewhere, but it puts the solution to that problem in my hands. If I want 2% step, then it's my problem if that's too many steps. If I want 15%, then it's my problem if it's too large a jump. Either way, it's my decision and I can't complain if it's my configuration. Gnome 3 removed a lot of my ability to screw up my own system in ways that make me happy. This decision is typical of that philosophy (for better or for worse) and is another incremental design decision that keeps me from using Gnome 3.
- dagw 13y ago
  There are dozens of options on Linux for people who love to tweak every little detail of the setup, do we really need yet another one? I for one am glad someone is trying, for better or worse, a different approach, if only to see how it might work out. In fact I'd love to see Gnome 3 go even further and go from being 'just' a desktop environment to a fully fledged Linux based desktop operating system, dictating the whole stack from kernel and file system on up. I imagine there are some pretty cool things you can try on the desktop level if you can exercise that sort of control.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    I think we can see how it's working out. Badly.
  - jeremysmyth 13y ago
    There are dozens of options on Linux for people who love to tweak every little detail of the setup Only dozens? I've over 16000 files ending in rc, cnf, conf, cfg, ini, config, and that's not counting additional compile-time configurations available to me. A quick sampling of those files shows that many of them contain 10-20 options. do we really need yet another one Depends who "we" is. The people in OP's linked thread clearly do. I haven't touched the vast majority of the thousands of options available to me, because I'm happy with the defaults. My definition of "user-friendly" includes super-technical users who want to fine-tune their system to their needs. Fortunately, my system allows me to do that for most settings I feel competent and opinionated enough to change.
    - dagw 13y ago
      Only dozens? I mean dozens of desktop options, not dozens of config options. If configuring all those things is important to you, then perhaps Gnome 3 is not for you, and that's totally OK. You even admit to not using Gnome 3 and have found something that works better. Not all desktops need to have the same design philosophy, in fact I think it's a good thing that they don't.
    - dfc 13y ago
      Only dozens? I've over 16000 files ending in rc, cnf, conf, cfg, ini, config, With all due respect I have to say "bullshit." What command did you use to come up with that figure? root@ronin:/tmp# tree -ifa / > /tmp/hn.bs root@ronin:/tmp# cat hn.bs |grep -v src\$ |grep -v /bin/ |grep -v -- "-"\>|grep -vi backup | grep -v dfc/linux-kernel |grep -v /samurai | wc 2513 2540 128342 That is just a cursory attempt to eliminate false positives.
      - jeremysmyth 13y ago
        Even with your more rigorous method than my handwavey one, I think it's fair to say you made my point even more than I did ;) (substitute "16000" in my post with "2513" from yours, and see if it changes my meaning one iota).
- johnny22 13y ago
  different strokes for different folks. This is exactly why i've been using gnome 3
- i386 13y ago
  Fork it, patch it and provide your own package if you really want the extra options. I did it with network manager for years due to shitty acmel wifi driver timing issues and when the drivers got fixed I stopped using my patches. No one will stop you patching. The maintainer is doing the, well, maintainable thing - saying no to something that shouldn't be the job of the software at that level.
deong 13y ago
No, but a consistent policy of ideology over pragmatics probably is reason enough to say that a project "sucks". The saying goes, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." GNOME as a whole has precisely the opposite take on things, even when consistently the perfect doesn't yet exist. Seemingly every decision is coming down to someone saying "the right thing to do is for the system to just know what the user should want with no input required from them", which might be an admirable goal, but one that's not attainable, and the second best option isn't "have the system do something no one wants with no input required from them."
chris_wot 13y ago
"As per discussion earlier in the bug. I'm not making this configurable. Please find a way to use dB information from the sound card to provide a decent default. Swapping a hard-coded number for another one isn't going to fix it, and neither is a hidden configuration option." [1] Didn't a number of people say that the sound card can't always give the dB levels? 1. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650371#c43 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650371#c43
- hrjet 13y ago
  Exactly; and for all intents and purposes this amounts to a wont-fix, although it is still marked as "new".

by i386 13y ago

jeremysmyth 13y ago

The maintainer isn't interested in making it configurable (and from reading the thread, I agree, it just moves the problem elsewhere) Since I started using Linux, I've constantly bumped up against problems in other operating systems where I've wanted to take control of a particular tiny niggling detail and make that decision myself. Linux has consistently allowed me to do that, with a plethora of hidden configuration settings. Put simply, the design philosophy of many features of Linux distributions and environments allows me to decide what I want my system to do. Sure, it's moving the problem elsewhere, but it puts the solution to that problem in my hands. If I want 2% step, then it's my problem if that's too many steps. If I want 15%, then it's my problem if it's too large a jump. Either way, it's my decision and I can't complain if it's my configuration. Gnome 3 removed a lot of my ability to screw up my own system in ways that make me happy. This decision is typical of that philosophy (for better or for worse) and is another incremental design decision that keeps me from using Gnome 3.

dagw 13y ago
There are dozens of options on Linux for people who love to tweak every little detail of the setup, do we really need yet another one? I for one am glad someone is trying, for better or worse, a different approach, if only to see how it might work out. In fact I'd love to see Gnome 3 go even further and go from being 'just' a desktop environment to a fully fledged Linux based desktop operating system, dictating the whole stack from kernel and file system on up. I imagine there are some pretty cool things you can try on the desktop level if you can exercise that sort of control.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  I think we can see how it's working out. Badly.
- jeremysmyth 13y ago
  There are dozens of options on Linux for people who love to tweak every little detail of the setup Only dozens? I've over 16000 files ending in rc, cnf, conf, cfg, ini, config, and that's not counting additional compile-time configurations available to me. A quick sampling of those files shows that many of them contain 10-20 options. do we really need yet another one Depends who "we" is. The people in OP's linked thread clearly do. I haven't touched the vast majority of the thousands of options available to me, because I'm happy with the defaults. My definition of "user-friendly" includes super-technical users who want to fine-tune their system to their needs. Fortunately, my system allows me to do that for most settings I feel competent and opinionated enough to change.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Only dozens? I mean dozens of desktop options, not dozens of config options. If configuring all those things is important to you, then perhaps Gnome 3 is not for you, and that's totally OK. You even admit to not using Gnome 3 and have found something that works better. Not all desktops need to have the same design philosophy, in fact I think it's a good thing that they don't.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Only dozens? I've over 16000 files ending in rc, cnf, conf, cfg, ini, config, With all due respect I have to say "bullshit." What command did you use to come up with that figure? root@ronin:/tmp# tree -ifa / > /tmp/hn.bs root@ronin:/tmp# cat hn.bs |grep -v src\$ |grep -v /bin/ |grep -v -- "-"\>|grep -vi backup | grep -v dfc/linux-kernel |grep -v /samurai | wc 2513 2540 128342 That is just a cursory attempt to eliminate false positives.
    - jeremysmyth 13y ago
      Even with your more rigorous method than my handwavey one, I think it's fair to say you made my point even more than I did ;) (substitute "16000" in my post with "2513" from yours, and see if it changes my meaning one iota).
johnny22 13y ago
different strokes for different folks. This is exactly why i've been using gnome 3
i386 13y ago
Fork it, patch it and provide your own package if you really want the extra options. I did it with network manager for years due to shitty acmel wifi driver timing issues and when the drivers got fixed I stopped using my patches. No one will stop you patching. The maintainer is doing the, well, maintainable thing - saying no to something that shouldn't be the job of the software at that level.

deong 13y ago

No, but a consistent policy of ideology over pragmatics probably is reason enough to say that a project "sucks". The saying goes, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." GNOME as a whole has precisely the opposite take on things, even when consistently the perfect doesn't yet exist. Seemingly every decision is coming down to someone saying "the right thing to do is for the system to just know what the user should want with no input required from them", which might be an admirable goal, but one that's not attainable, and the second best option isn't "have the system do something no one wants with no input required from them."

chris_wot 13y ago

"As per discussion earlier in the bug. I'm not making this configurable. Please find a way to use dB information from the sound card to provide a decent default. Swapping a hard-coded number for another one isn't going to fix it, and neither is a hidden configuration option." [1] Didn't a number of people say that the sound card can't always give the dB levels? 1. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650371#c43 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650371#c43

hrjet 13y ago
Exactly; and for all intents and purposes this amounts to a wont-fix, although it is still marked as "new".