4 ms·

> Pulse Audio, Unity, Gnome 3, systemd (along with anything else Poettering has touched) are evil because they're new. At least for Unity and Gnome 3 (includin

by nisa 12y ago

> Pulse Audio, Unity, Gnome 3, systemd (along with anything else Poettering has touched) are evil because they're new. At least for Unity and Gnome 3 (including GTK3) I'd rather say: Great ideas but they're evil because they are badly designed, full of bugs that don't get fixed due to complexity, constant API changes, almost no documentation or only wrong and outdated documentation and a lack of flexibility that annoys even the casual Desktop user. Nobody is against progress - most people love to use OS X as a UNIX GUI these days... it's not perfect but it's not that bug ridden mess GNOME became.

coldtea 12y ago
>Nobody is against progress You'd be surprised. Just listen to the arguments against giving Linux a more logical directory setup (somewhat like OS X's).
- sesqu 12y ago
  Change is not the same as progress. A lot of people are against change, for reasons both good and bad. I'm not familiar with the arguments over directory setup, but I'd almost bet money on them centering around tradition. Personally, I think the various flavors of directory setup are already so divergent that tradition no longer holds massive value, but that's not something to be proud of.
- the_solution 12y ago
  How is OSX's directory setup more logical than the traditional Unix one? Be careful not to confuse your familiarity with one system with it's inherent qualities. I have switched between BSD an Linux as my main desktop OS a few times and had this "damn, this is so much clearer in x" feeling in both directions.
bsder 12y ago
> Great ideas but ... The problem is the comparison point. When original Gtk/Gnome came out, it was a WAY worse BPOS than Unity or Gnome 3 are today. The trick was that when Gtk/Gnome came out there was no existing solution. So, even a bad one was okay. The problem is that the new solution is competing against an existing solution that has more than a decade of development behind it. It would take a Herculean effort to win that comparison.
- gfour 12y ago
  > The trick was that when Gtk/Gnome came out there was no existing solution. So, even a bad one was okay. There were existing solutions, e.g. Motif or Athena widgets if you wanted a GUI library, or FVWM if you wanted a desktop environment. Of course, GTK/GNOME was a significant improvement.
  - bsder 12y ago
    Mogrief was a non-starter due to license. Lesstif was a pile of fail forever. Athena widgets? Are you trolling me? See Xfig for an example of how bad those are. Qt and Gtk were a breath of fresh air. And Qt got everybody's dander up due to 1) license and 2) C++ requirement. So, Gtk basically stepped into a vacuum.

by nisa 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>Nobody is against progress You'd be surprised. Just listen to the arguments against giving Linux a more logical directory setup (somewhat like OS X's).

sesqu 12y ago
Change is not the same as progress. A lot of people are against change, for reasons both good and bad. I'm not familiar with the arguments over directory setup, but I'd almost bet money on them centering around tradition. Personally, I think the various flavors of directory setup are already so divergent that tradition no longer holds massive value, but that's not something to be proud of.
the_solution 12y ago
How is OSX's directory setup more logical than the traditional Unix one? Be careful not to confuse your familiarity with one system with it's inherent qualities. I have switched between BSD an Linux as my main desktop OS a few times and had this "damn, this is so much clearer in x" feeling in both directions.

bsder 12y ago

> Great ideas but ... The problem is the comparison point. When original Gtk/Gnome came out, it was a WAY worse BPOS than Unity or Gnome 3 are today. The trick was that when Gtk/Gnome came out there was no existing solution. So, even a bad one was okay. The problem is that the new solution is competing against an existing solution that has more than a decade of development behind it. It would take a Herculean effort to win that comparison.

gfour 12y ago
> The trick was that when Gtk/Gnome came out there was no existing solution. So, even a bad one was okay. There were existing solutions, e.g. Motif or Athena widgets if you wanted a GUI library, or FVWM if you wanted a desktop environment. Of course, GTK/GNOME was a significant improvement.
- bsder 12y ago
  Mogrief was a non-starter due to license. Lesstif was a pile of fail forever. Athena widgets? Are you trolling me? See Xfig for an example of how bad those are. Qt and Gtk were a breath of fresh air. And Qt got everybody's dander up due to 1) license and 2) C++ requirement. So, Gtk basically stepped into a vacuum.