Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Designer Jon McCann: "More Optimistic About GNOME Than In a Long Time"

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the hoping-to-love-it-again dept.

GNOME 235

An anonymous reader writes "In an extensive interview with derStandard.at, GNOME designer Jon McCann shares his thoughts about all the criticism GNOME 3 currently faces and why he doesn't think at all that GNOME is in a crisis. He also talks about the current plans for GNOME OS and explains why he thinks that Linux distributions should rethink their purpose."

cancel ×

235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No, seriously (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093489)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Gnome 3 has issues, and the criticisim is legitimate. Why does it always have to look like that? At this point Windows 8 looks easier to customize than Gnome 3.

Re:No, seriously (3, Informative)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | about 2 years ago | (#41093583)

Bullshit, you've obviously never used Gnome 3. Extensions are as simple to install as going to extensions.gnome.org with epiphany and clicking switching the "off"-button to "on" for the desired extension. It's by far the easiest extension install I've ever seen.

Re:No, seriously (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093603)

Linus explains it better why these fabled extensions are horrendous:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/102150693225130002912/posts/UkoAaLDpF4i

Re:No, seriously (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 years ago | (#41093719)

The ostensible forks Cinammon and Mate and other re-works of gnome weren't done for fun and giggles. It's because lots of gnome 2.x users frankly thought that gnome 3 had a touch of hubris and the sort of ugliness that only "visionaries" can bring.

Linus has great points, but before he laid in on the problem, lots of us complained to deaf ears. And we moved on.

Re:No, seriously (0)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41093957)

I understand the rant: gonomee 2 was for techies-only, GNOME 3 not...

Re:No, seriously (5, Insightful)

gmack (197796) | about 2 years ago | (#41094437)

I understand the rant: gonomee 2 was for techies-only, GNOME 3 not...

It's exactly that sort of arrogance that has caused gnome 3 to be dropped from distros(even Debian is replacing it as default). The trouble with Gnome 3 is that they went off on a tangent in search of the "new" and forgot about the existing users.

Re:No, seriously (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094623)

mod parent up!

Re:No, seriously (2)

paulatz (744216) | about 2 years ago | (#41095545)

I understand the rant: gonomee 2 was for techies-only, GNOME 3 not...

you mean, gnome 3 is not even for techies?

Re:No, seriously (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094219)

Although Cinammon is an example of exactly how configurable Gnome 3 actually is. As for Linus, he's back to using Gnome 3.

Re:No, seriously (3, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 years ago | (#41094379)

I'm using Cinammon, too, but my teeth are grinding. KDE is starting to look attractive again, although she's put some weight on.

Re:No, seriously (1)

Rehdon (25434) | about 2 years ago | (#41094455)

I hear that Cinnamon version 1.5.2 will be out in the Romeo (unstable) repository soon, with lots of improvements. After that 1.6 will follow as a stable release. Sure, Cinnamon is a bit rough on the edges at the moment, but the devs look quite dedicated and the new versions look good.

Rehdon

Re:No, seriously (4, Informative)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094877)

I'm using Cinammon, too, but my teeth are grinding. KDE is starting to look attractive again, although she's put some weight on.

Actually, if you disable the desktop search function in the settings, KDE uses less resources than Gnome 3 (shell or cinnamon) or Unity. At least that is my experience.

Re:No, seriously (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093745)

I don't think gnome 3 is that bad, but the extensions are really basic. I wanted to enhance an existing one (which the author abandoned) by adding a simple feature that has been bugging me, but while the tools are there (Looking Glass), there's basically ZERO documentation on the objects and their available methods in the javascript runtime. There are a few basic tutorials out there and that's about it.
Surely, they could at least generate it.

Re:No, seriously (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093929)

Bullshit, you've obviously never used Gnome 3.

The mantra of the butthurt Unity/Metro/GNOME 3 fanbois. I hate to break it to you, but people actually have used GNOME 3 and despite you thinking its the greatest thing ever, other people can actually be allowed to disagree. And no it's not because these same people are "resistant to change".

Re:No, seriously (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094029)

... it's my mantra :P * from a happy user of GNOME 3, and using it to turn non-techies in to Linux World (up to now, some friends, 2 sisters, Mom and a brother)

Re:No, seriously (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 2 years ago | (#41094477)

I have to admit, I personally don't like Unity and only marginally like Gnome 3 more. I prefer Linux Mint running Mate

That being said, My mother and father in-law have been fighting over the use of their one computer; they're both addicted to facebook games. At my wife's request, about three weeks ago I gave my father in-law an old laptop that I thought was going to the junk heap. It was running Vista, The CD drive is buggered and there were problems with the screen. I put Ubuntu with Unity on it and set it up so he could go to facebook and play solitaire and sudoku. He hasn't had any problems with it yet and likes it more than the Windows XP machine because it boots up way faster and has what he wants in an easy to find place.

Now apparently my mother in-law wants me to put Ubuntu on their desktop because XP takes so long to boot up and they don't want to just go out and buy a new computer to play games on.

Re:No, seriously (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094707)

So true: hardware requirements of any mainstream linux distro is way more "comfortable" than of Windows Vista/7 :P

Re:No, seriously (2)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | about 2 years ago | (#41094431)

Unity is buggy and crashes all the time on my machine, Metro I've never used and don't really plan to (no Windows-machines), but Gnome 3 on Arch just works for me. The menu for things not in the favorites is a bit of a hassle but I always use the search so all I have to do is press super and type a few characters. I'm also not very fond of the new alt-tab (applications on alt-tab and windows within application on alt-key above tab) or the lack of a shutdown menu option, but those can be easily fixed with extensions.

Re:No, seriously (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41094581)

It is not how it looks, but how it works. It is designed around using a single application at a time, and it is no longer workflow based but application based. Some workflows are more than one application... And if you have two separate workflows with some web browsers in them, you can not split those workflows... In other words, it simply does not work the way some people work. And the devs just don't care about those people. That is fine, but they should not be surprised when we don't care about them either.

Re:No, seriously (5, Interesting)

kav2k (1545689) | about 2 years ago | (#41094951)

For me, it's not about what it is. It is about what it refuses to be.

Gnome 3 cut away a lot of sensible Gnome 2 functionality due to developers' own vision of what is right. And any pleas to bring it back are slammed.

Nautilus: a click on a filename does not put it into rename mode. Something Windows and OS X have, and Nautilus had. WONTFIX: it helps prevent user errors.
Nautilus: there are no more user-assignable emblems on files. WONTFIX: Come on, who uses THAT?
Gnome-screensaver: clearly, actually having a screensaver is preposterous. WONTFIX.

Those may seem like small gimmicks, but they pile on, and leave a sour taste by themselves. But the worst part is their treatment by the developer team. They don't want extensive configuration, they want the one and only paradigm of what is "right".

Re:No, seriously (1, Funny)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41093935)

For non-techies, the user friendliness of GNOME 3 is the greatest that I've ever seen!

Re:No, seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094193)

Yeah, except not!

Re:No, seriously (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094565)

AC? Why?

Re:No, seriously (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | about 2 years ago | (#41094593)

Not only non-techies, I find it very user-friendly simply because it gets out of my way. It's been a long time since I cared about customizing every little detail on my desktop, nowadays I just need to get shit done and for my workflow at least Gnome 3 works.

Re:No, seriously (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094799)

It's been a long time since I cared about customizing every little detail on my desktop, nowadays I just need to get shit done

I strongly agree with that (not the wallpaper I usually change anymore...)

Re:No, seriously (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094255)

Look like what? Unity is Gnome 3, Cinnamon is Gnome 3. Gnome-shell is Gnome 3. Gnome 3 is very customizable. Even using Gnome-shell, the plethora of extensions available show exactly how easy it is to customize.

The article answers your question, sort of. (2)

Medievalist (16032) | about 2 years ago | (#41095477)

Why does it always have to look like that?

From the article:

Our main target for GNOME3 is laptop use, which I think is by far the overwhelming majority of computing use today - in the non-mobile space. The second target is existing high-performance workstations.

So, basically, they are targeting laptops (which are losing ground to tablets) and expensive machines, ignoring the truly vast numbers of cheap desktop PCs that exist in nearly every home at this point. For the inevitable automotive analogy, it's like they're making car paint that only looks good on Priuses and Teslas.

If they are de-optimizing for over half the installed hardware base [pewresearch.org] it's unsurprising that they aren't satisfying end users.

butts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093499)

durr

Oh what a fucking surprise... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093547)

GNOME is the expression of its leaders. Fucking assholes governing an open source project gone down the drain.
At this point, nothing, nothing at ALL will save GNOME. We have to wait until the current generation of gnome-tards passes away. Bt then, some bits and pieces may be salvageable. The rest will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Re:Oh what a fucking surprise... (4, Insightful)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about 2 years ago | (#41093585)

yeah I kind of thought the same....we have a critisism that says "the gnome leadership doesn't listen to it's users" and it's users saying "wtf, I can't select the font size???", etc, etc, etc.

then you have an article by one of the gnome team says he's "super confident" about the project.

doesn't that kind of explain everything, in perfect clarity.....and prove the point beyond doubt that the gnome leadership don't in fact listen....

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093571)

Cheap PR with Meh content.

That is too bad. (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41093597)

Gnome 3 is a complete mess. and it's UI is not easier to use or more intuitive, its just trendy and "different" It is 5 years behind Gnome 2.x in usability and polish. A lot of the criticism for Gnome 3 is justified. The problem is knowing how the Gnome team works, they will ignore everyone and do what they want.

I have tried several times to use it and every time the same parts fall down. Luckily some smart people are picking up the abandoned 2.x line and forked it. So linux will continue to have a useable desktop instead of the wierd social experiments that are Gnome 3 and Unity.

Re:That is too bad. (5, Insightful)

taupter (139818) | about 2 years ago | (#41093807)

There is still KDE SC (try it), LXDE, Enlightenment, WindowMaker, etc. It is still useable. GNOME 3 and Unity are "oddities" we should ignore just as much as Windows 8.

Re:That is too bad. (0)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094047)

mod parent up

Re:That is too bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094661)

I would love WindowMaker, with a few enhancements:
-Gnome's alt-tab/alt-above-tab. Given WindowMakers *long* time excellent application grouping capability, it seems a good capability to have as an option
-Integration with window compositing. Mainly for the compiz scale with title search capability.
-Dockapp with Network Manager integration
-Better Xinerama operation (e.g. when I say 'open new window' in an app, it doesn't seem to consider currently active display and always puts it on the primary display)

  WindowMaker+GNstep applications get pretty damned close to what I want, but I find myself sorely missing those things when I try it.

give it a try first (3, Informative)

nten (709128) | about 2 years ago | (#41094961)

People should try it before they ignore it. It is not ill-suited to everyone. I think its a case of the gnome team thinking everyone works like they do. I use keyboard controls almost exclusively, with lots of windows open, mostly command lines. I start applications from a run box, or commandline, not menus. OSX came along and the spotlight/quicksilver method of starting apps was a big step forward, it would autocomplete the name of the application for me. Gnome 3 and unity are another step forward in that it will give me a nearest match if I mispell something, I can type either the visible name (like "files") or the application name "nautilus" and either works. Or natulius for that matter. Additionally its a single key press to start typing rather than two as in windows7 or osx. workspace key shortcuts haven't changed from gnome2 and the window tiling is sufficient, though usually I don't dock windows. I prefer gnome3 to unity for the shrinky window thing it does showing whats open (like osx).

If you mostly start apps from the commandline instead of menus or quickbars, gnome3 is for you so give it a try. They should have realized though that not everyone works that way and made it more flexible.

Re:That is too bad. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093837)

Swap your first two "its"/"it's". "Picked up", not "are picking up". "Usable", not "useable". "Weird', not "wierd".

Re:That is too bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094533)

Did you read your own post? It looks like a description of itself.

Re:That is too bad. (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094377)

Gnome 3 is a complete mess. and it's UI is not easier to use or more intuitive, its just trendy and "different" It is 5 years behind Gnome 2.x in usability and polish. A lot of the criticism for Gnome 3 is justified. The problem is knowing how the Gnome team works, they will ignore everyone and do what they want.

I have tried several times to use it and every time the same parts fall down. Luckily some smart people are picking up the abandoned 2.x line and forked it. So linux will continue to have a useable desktop instead of the wierd social experiments that are Gnome 3 and Unity.

Is it more accurate to say that "the gnome-shell UI is not easier to use or more intuitive", or "the gnome-shell UI is not easier to use or more intuitive for the way I work?"

I would definitely agree with system administrators and hard core programmers taking the latter explanation. On the other hand, for a regular desktop user who maybe has two or three apps open at most, the UI probably is easier and more intuitive. At least that is what the various groups that have actually done tests on the UI have come to the conclusion.

For normal and new users, Gnome 3/gnome-shell seems to be quite intuitive and popular. For geeks, it does not. Then again, geeks tend to have the skills to modify it to the way they want.

What I don't understand with all of the complaints about not being able to customize the UI in gnome-shell, why people flock to XFCE. It really isn't that customizable, either. KDE would seem to be the customizers first choice of desktop, but the numbers don't show people fleeing from Gnome to KDE.

Re:That is too bad. (2)

gtirloni (1531285) | about 2 years ago | (#41094611)

What numbers?

Re:That is too bad. (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094893)

What numbers?

Google is your friend with the answer to that question

Re:That is too bad. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41094681)

I would definitely agree with system administrators and hard core programmers taking the latter explanation. On the other hand, for a regular desktop user who maybe has two or three apps open at most, the UI probably is easier and more intuitive. At least that is what the various groups that have actually done tests on the UI have come to the conclusion.

Also network admins, accountants, graphic designers, business annalists, and anybody working with multiple sets of data. Essentially, anyone that can benefit from dual monitors.

Re:That is too bad. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41094931)

Like office workers. I have several here that have dual monitor setups. The sales people as well...

Re:That is too bad. (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094935)

I would definitely agree with system administrators and hard core programmers taking the latter explanation. On the other hand, for a regular desktop user who maybe has two or three apps open at most, the UI probably is easier and more intuitive. At least that is what the various groups that have actually done tests on the UI have come to the conclusion.

Also network admins, accountants, graphic designers, business annalists, and anybody working with multiple sets of data. Essentially, anyone that can benefit from dual monitors.

Is the problem then with Gnome 3 + gnome-shell or is it that multiple screens are not working correctly, yet? If the latter, hasn't that been a problem for some time, even prior to Gnome 3?

Re:That is too bad. (2, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41095043)

No the problem is that it is really single task oriented. It takes extra work to have multiple windows and to divide things by workflow as opposed to application. It may come as a shock to the Gnome devs, but not every web browser should be grouped together under one workflow.

He's learned from experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093609)

He's spent so much time using his MacBook and OS X that he now realizes the mistakes of GNOME and why OS X is successful.

Gnome Distortion Field (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093625)

Copying the worst aspects of apple.

heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093653)

ask gnome designer if he thinks gnome 3 is good. ?? what is this ars?

Unity (1, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 2 years ago | (#41093661)

At least perception-wise, Unity is the best thing that has ever happened to Gnome. I'd still rather use KDE over Gnome, but any real PC/laptop desktop on a PC/laptop is better than Unity. I tried Unity for about 2 hours and have no interest in ever looking at it again. Worst case of an O/S getting in the way of getting anything done.... evvarr.

Re:Unity (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 2 years ago | (#41093795)

Should have previewed first. Meant to say Gnome 2. I definitely DIDN'T mean Gnome 3 is better than Unity. Gah!

Re:Unity (1)

rvw (755107) | about 2 years ago | (#41094041)

Should have previewed first. Meant to say Gnome 2. I definitely DIDN'T mean Gnome 3 is better than Unity. Gah!

You're the real thing! You don't even read your own post before posting. Is this Slashdot 3.0?

Re:Unity (0)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094093)

but I think Gnome 3 is better than Unity, by a large margin

Re:Unity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094819)

At least with Unity I don't have go load a bunch of amatuerish extensions to reverse gnome3's crappy design decisions just to get my desktop back to a state that fits my workflow. There's only 3 things that I do (turn off global menus, turn off overlay scrollbars, and reverse the min,max,close button layout) after an install of Ubuntu that make me good to go. And if you look at the recent GnomeOS design blueprints, you can see some of the ideas that Ubuntu has that is now being incorporated into Gnome3, including a flipping the option for Suspend and Power-off in the usermenu. That's right, Gnome3 fans, you made all of those long, tortured posts defending the designer's stupid decision to hide the Power-off option by default for nothing! The designer's finally addressed a long standing complaint and reversed their design, but being the arrogant pricks that they are, you'll never hear a mea culpa from them.

Re:Unity (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094993)

and posting as AC why?

We've always been at war with EastAsia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093665)

Quick.... Don't let the screen see you voicing dissent against Big Brother. Gnome3 has always been the natural and perfect evolution of the Gnome architecture.

Of couse a designer for GNOME is going to think that Gnome3 is a wonderful UI. Otherwise he'd be admitting that his UI design is a steaming turd and that he should stop being paid.

2 cents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093705)

1) methinks the non-adoption speaks for itself!
thank god this is all open-source and gnome 2
can continue a better life forked -> mate!!!
2) i predict gnome 3 will fail simply because, using IT to
develop gnome 3 itself is prolly a pain in the A..s
3) why does the desktop have to look like a freaking webpage?

Re:2 cents (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094165)

1) methinks the non-adoption speaks for itself!

What non-adoption? By geeks?

It's the default DE on Fedora (and not on Ubuntu because of Unity)...

Re:2 cents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094911)

1. And Fedora usage is going down at a rate which has started to worry Redhat...
2. Being the default does not necessarily translate into being used.
3. Who the fuck uses Redhat, other than geeks? Not that I agree with the assessment that Gnome3 is suitable for geeks, at all. Fanboys and sycophants, maybe.

Nice try otherwise, apologist.

Re:2 cents (0)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41095231)

Fedora is the distro I use now in my friends Desktops, because of GNOME 3 - I used to install Ubuntu in that cases, but Unity thing made move on (I've used Linux Mint 12 after left Ubuntu, but it dropped GNOME 3 [that was the reason to me to choose that distro]) - Now I'm not thinking in moving back: it's far more simple to maintain these than Ubuntu (I live in Brazil: the presto pluguin for yum, that reduces greatly the download sizes of updates, was very welcome), and it has bleeding edge software


* why you post as AC?

Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093711)

...at some point we took a step back and asked ourselves: Are the problems people are having still the same? And really they weren't.

Yeah, now they need a desktop again.

Given that Gnome is ugly and nobody needs it (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41093741)

I would say this guy is overly optimistic. From the one experiment I did with Gnome (and another with KDE), I conclude that classical Window Managers are vastly superior in basically every aspect. And many are non-moving targets because they are finished, i.e. configure them to you needs once, use them like that for decades. My fvwm configuration needed one revision in the last 20 years, when fwvm2 came out.

ORLY? (1)

taupter (139818) | about 2 years ago | (#41093749)

The designer of an interface despised by the majority of its (ex) users (who are jumping the ship in droves) says he's right and the world should bend over and get some more of his wisdom. Ok, he's gentle and says he wants the UI experience he devised used by the people who is still unaware of it. It it seems like a turd, smells like one and is warm like one, it's difficult to believe it is something else. And asking people to manipulate it will not make a lot of happy fa(e)ces.
But I don't believe he'll listen.
Changing for the sake of change doesn't aggregate anything to the user experience. People will not 2girls1cup with it.

Wow (3, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41093765)

Well OK here are the main points from the interview

1) He wants to move towards distributing Gnome more directly in particular to Windows.
2) He likes the fact that Gnome has clear direction. In his mind the crisis was when Gnome 2 started wrapping up and the Gnome developers didn't know what to do. While for the developers Gnome 3 has been full of direction
3) The Canonical divorce is continuing and Ubuntu will not be the testing platform going forward. Gnome OS is coming somewhat out of the desire to have a stable place to test Gnome.
4) He really believes the diversity of the open source eco system makes it impossible to support software.
5) He believes that the Gnome community is responding to the criticism they can extract, i.e. the constructive criticism. For example changes to the UI file movement and getting rid of the "copy and paste" applied to files.

Wow - But wait a minute (2)

Burz (138833) | about 2 years ago | (#41095087)

My definition of operating systems is basically two things: It's a well defined user experience and it's a well defined developer experience. So those are the two interfaces we need to provide and everything else is an implementation detail - down to the hardware.

I don't know if you saw Lennart's talk the other day, he said that we should let the user experience and the developer experience drive everything in the lower level stacks.

When I saw this, I thought: Wow, someone who *gets* it! The OS provides the common ground for app developers and their users. Not only that, he is willing to even make that dev/user distinction, which I think is a crucial position that many FOSS projects try to shirk.

But he doesn't seem to get what those positions imply: In particular, that you need a single organization driving its vision down into the lower stacks, achieving
sufficient vertical integration to make the user and developer experiences sane and interesting. In order to really get somewhere with this idea, they will need to fork their entire stack and take charge of it the way Google has with Android.

He also doesn't make a distinction between system developer and app developer. IMO, this is also a common and necessary distinction that FOSS system devs tend to shirk. Blurring these distinctions does no one any real service, because it robs you of opportunities to keep asking the question, "Does X feature or Y implementation technique hinder or facilitate a user who wants to try programming... who might become an app developer for this platform someday?" Counting on your audio stack devs to design the next 'Garage Band' is kind of pointless -- it rarely works. You need to entice lots of people who would love programming but will never give a rats a** about tweaking system code.

What the lack of distinctions also does is create an attitude of indifference about system oddities and shortcomings... The old "If you don't like it fix it yourself" cop out (which I think Gnome has more of than any other DE). You attract almost no one that way.

All in all, the conceptual step displayed in this article may be good, but I think too little too late. He's discovering only part of what Jobs and Gates knew in the 1980s.

Re #4) I think he has a point. I used to support commercial software on Linux desktops and its much more difficult to get anywhere with the user unless they are the type of user that you can just tell them to drop to CLI. Even so, it was a GUI app and that is where Linux distros are the most chaotic.

Re #5) In the 8+ years I've been giving constructive criticism in forums like this and in bugtrackers, I've never seen a DE project implement a suggestion I've made. Mozilla and other projects have, including some proprietary products, but the DE projects IMHO are among the worst of them. They start by repudiating the defacto definition of an OS as including a GUI (to them the OS is a text environment that only provides programming interfaces, and their project is just a bit of high-calorie icing on top). From there it goes downhill.

Options are a good thing (1, Insightful)

trickstyhobbit (2713163) | about 2 years ago | (#41093799)

I use XFCE myself, and largely because I'm not a fan of Gnome 3 because it's not easy to multitask, but I think for many many users (my wife, my parents, most of my friends), Gnome 3 is what they are looking for. It has a nice, easy to use launcher, it gives most of the screen to what you are using, and it looks sleek and modern. I think it could probably go a long way to bring GNU/Linux to a greater market share. That is reason for optimism, at least for the less ridiculous users.

Re:Options are a good thing (0)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#41094201)

mod parent up (I wish I had mod points now...)

Re:Options are a good thing (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094507)

I use XFCE myself, and largely because I'm not a fan of Gnome 3 because it's not easy to multitask, but I think for many many users (my wife, my parents, most of my friends), Gnome 3 is what they are looking for. It has a nice, easy to use launcher, it gives most of the screen to what you are using, and it looks sleek and modern. I think it could probably go a long way to bring GNU/Linux to a greater market share. That is reason for optimism, at least for the less ridiculous users.

I think that is the point. Gnome 3 was designed to appeal to the 99% of the world population that isn't already using Linux. That is where the growth will be. Gnome 2 pretty much dominated the linux desktop but could it attract new users? Canonical took the same approach with Unity. The choice is to try an remain a niche market catering to existing users or try and remain relevant by attracting new users.

The workflow of gnome-shell and Unity do not fit the needs of every linux desktop user. Then again, neither did Gnome 2. Both the gnome developers and Canonical developers have chosen to seek growth markets and those markets are from the people not currently using linux.

Re:Options are a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094957)

largely because I'm not a fan of Gnome 3 because it's not easy to multitask,

That's because it's designed to be a tablet desktop, despite all protestations to the contrary.

Re:Options are a good thing (1)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41095143)

Ideally they should make it work for both newbies and power users, though that's very difficult. Just like fish in a small tank stop growing, these users will never even think of what should be possible to do with a computer. In the other hand, it's probably better than Windows for multitasking.

Well that confirms it (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41093869)

The GNOME people aren't listening. They thought when they had something people were happy and comfortable with that they "lacked direction" so they got together and decided on a direction. So once they got to a point where people were happy and comfortable, they somehow thought it meant it was time for change.

I think this is where the problem has begun. In my mind there are few acceptable reasons for change:

1. A brick wall has been hit while going one direction and the previous goal is not achievable
2. A crisis of compatibility or usability has occurred where the current way of doing things is no longer acceptable, applicable or useful
3. People are moving away from GNOME because something better has their attention
4. People are moving away from GNOME because the development team isn't responding to them

There may be more, but those are just the first few that occur to me. Of those only #4 is applicable and that is only because they decided to change and not listen to the people using GNOME. They caused #4 and persist in it.

GNOME developers are completely out of touch. They created change for the sake of change and that is a very bad reason for change when people are depending on keeping things as they are.

The article/interview parallels what GNOME has done with Mac OSX and Windows. Mac OSX changes were... not completely necessary but also not completely alienating to the user from an interface standpoint. Microsoft's changes are perfect examples of end user rejection and how the users affect the marketplace. Shame on you, GNOME team, for not noticing this. No one has accepted Vista. Windows 7 has been accepted because there is no more Windows XP. And Windows 8? Developers are shying away from developing for it. Microsoft at least acknowledges that it is screwing up and has reversed some of the things that have offended developers with regard to Windows 8. We see none of that from GNOME... yet...

Re:Well that confirms it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094177)

They thought when they had something people were happy and comfortable with that they "lacked direction" so they got together and decided on a direction. So once they got to a point where people were happy and comfortable, they somehow thought it meant it was time for change.

This hits the nail squarely on the head, and seems to me to be one of the biggest flaws of the FOSS community (and I say that as somebody with ACCEPT_LICENCES="-* @FREE" in his /etc/make.conf). Maturity is confused with stagnation, especially in user-visible applications. Look at Slackware changing its version number overnight (albeit as a joking nod to this very situation) and the laughable Firefox release schedule. People in the FOSS community are deathly afraid of being branded as "That guy who released something once, then left it for bitrot."

This also speaks to me of the danger of forming a huge team to work on a project that may not necessarily need one. From my perspective, Gnome 2 was becoming finalized. It wasn't necessarily something I would rave about to my friends, but wasn't something I would complain about (except for this four year, unfixed bug [launchpad.net] ). It had reached a plateau of reliability that most software should strive for. But you can't tell the entire Gnome desktop team "Great job, now get out except for Jim and Mike, you two stay on for bugfixes." A team of such evident drive as Gnome's has to be pointed somewhere - even if going anywhere at all is the wrong decision.

Re:Well that confirms it (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41094821)

They created change for the sake of change and that is a very bad reason for change when people are depending on keeping things as they are.

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

What should have happened, after Gnome 2 was released and was really darn good, is that Gnome should have downshifted into maintenance mode. The features were quite sufficient for their purpose, and the focus should have switched to just making things faster and slightly more awesome.

Here's the ideal software development lifecycle:
1. Ideation and design: Somebody has a good idea for a piece of software. It solves a problem, it's an entertaining game, it's a potentially valuable utility.
2. Initial development: Developers work on it, and get a prototype out there that achieves the initial goal in a very simplified way.
3. Feature growth: Users like it, so the project grows. Developers continue to add features and improve the user experience to improve the value of the tool to users.
4. Maintenance: Users are now quite happy with the results feature-wise. Developers focus now on making things more robust, stable, flexible, fast, etc pushing out bugs and handling strange edge cases.
5. Completed: Users are now quite happy with the results, and the tool works without any significant maintenance.

The trouble is, this is also in order from most glamorous to least glamorous. Whoever who does step 1 will often end up in the role of BDFL, or at the very least will be treated as a visionary. The people who do step 2 can become well-known among developers (e.g. Alan Cox), and get to work on the cutting edge, and all the excitement of the new project. By the time you get to step 3, you can only have the satisfaction of adding a new feature that the world enjoys. And step 4 is typically painful, difficult, relatively unnoticed, and unrewarded. Which means that the few things that have ever made it to step 5 are typically small but very handy utility programs like dc.

Hence the story with Gnome 3: They decided to go back to step 1 rather than continue on with step 4 and 5.

GNOME has no future (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#41093915)

GNOME create a free software desktop, users dont like, GNOME claims its the users that are the problem.
Distributions create forks of GNOME to give users what they want, GNOME claims distributions are the problem.

The problem is the disconnect, the failure to consider other peoples views, and the single mindedness and self belief that they are right.

I dont think there is no solution to this problem, because to write free software in this capitalistic world you have to have that almost delusion self belief and single mindedness.

The only thing "outsiders" can do is tell GNOME developers that the work they selflessly donate to the cause is bad, which is not going ot motivate them to work better or harder.

Fork is the only way.

Had my doubts but now I'm certain... (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | about 2 years ago | (#41093917)

GNOME is doomed as a desktop environment and we should move on. The level of naive optimism in this interview is shocking... totally out of touch with reality.

Re:Had my doubts but now I'm certain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094601)

Yes of course ... as somebody who probably contributes fuck all and knows nothing about the project can assess ... honestly the shit people spout about is staggering ...

Re:Had my doubts but now I'm certain... (2)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#41094621)

I agree w/ this. Guys like the Libre-Linux crowd and OBSD use GNOME 3 in the fallback mode. Most of the BSDs are yet to move there - they may just prefer KDE or other DEs. Debian has abandoned GNOME for LXDE, and Mint for Cinnamon. In the meantime, on the Qt side, for those who think KDE has too many bells & whistles or is too much of a resource hog, there is Razor-qt as well.

GNOME's purpose for existing was gone once

  1. Qt became dual licensed under LGPL and QPL
  2. GNOME dropped its major goals of being a Networked Object Model Environment along the lines of GNUSTEP (which indeed could have been a better GNU challenger to KDE) and other goals like Opendoc, Bonobo and other such standards that were supposed to make application development a breeze

I prefer the Qt side's approach to this - KDE for a fully functional UX w/ different target implementations for laptops, tablets and phones on one hand, and Razor-qt for a lightweight version of the same thing. Particularly good is the projects' attempt to create various applications that can be used as building blocks, like the parts of Calligra Suite, and so on

And that's exactly the problem with many projects. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093937)

He is more optimistic while the entire world is complaining. It really surprises me how blindfolded and stubborn my fellow programmers can be. I'm actively supporting an open source project, and it is amazing how often bug reports -typically feature or usability requests- get turned down.

You want to make a successful UI? Clone Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#41093961)

Or hellz, XP.

Make it look and work as close as possible, out of the box. No dicking around, no "Yehbut, we can improve it just a little bit here, maybe a dab there, a sprinkling over that wa- ah, we'll fix that in the next version".

My wife will use it. My mother will use it. My employer might even take a look at it.

Stop with your new paradigm fantasies. The desktop isn't broke (until Windows 8). Quit trying to fix it.

Re:You want to make a successful UI? Clone Windows (3, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#41095033)

This is one thing the ReactOS guys should do. Have different 'themes' from various Windows versions, all of which can be used for the OS. Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, NT 4.0, maybe even NT 3.5. Let the users select which one they want, and enable that during installation. Or even from the display panel.

The real Gnome 3 problem (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#41094005)

For years, using Linux was something for the advanced users who enjoyed having to dig deep on occasion to make it all work. Then along came Ubuntu and turned the Linux desktop into something that was REALLY a lot easier to install, use and maintain then Windows and yes, even Mac. Can either of those two run from a CD with full access to the HD if something goes tits up? Do either of them have a full desktop available with browser and everything else during install?

Finally, Linux the desktop. WORKED.

And then the Gnome 3 team said "nah, it doesn't, we know better how you should work". And they released a badly tested, badly thought out and badly documented product way to early and with no training to get people used to the new interface or any motivation for wanting to get used to the new interface.

It is like me forcing you to sit upside down on the toilet, with no training or handy handholds all for the pleasure of crapping on your face. Whatever secret benefit it might give, you are not going to be in the mood to find out right?

It is the same with Windows Metro. WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO FIX? What was missing in the classic desktop user design that is being fixed in by either Unity, Gnome 3 or Metro?

People are perfectly willing to change for a well known UI if there is a really good reason to do so. Who here still uses rotary dialing on their phone? Touch keys WERE a massive improvement, not just more accurate but also less stressful on your finger if had to dial a lot. The mobile phones and indeed the rise of OSX has shown that people are not stuck to the classic desktop, as MS thought judging by their early attempts at a phone OS.

But for the desktop, the desktop design, just works well enough. Gnome 3 made its introduction even worse by not being very well put together and doing it while things like Nautilus were still horrid pieces of buggy crash prone slow as molasses software. They then threw out all the good bits all the improvements others had made to make Gnome 2.0 workable and made something nobody wanted instead.

But all is good. Hello? You have been ditched left and right by distro's. Mint rose as a distro from nothing just because they offered people non-gnome3 despite their insistence of screwing up google searches.

The Iraqi minister of looking silly couldn't do a better job of dis-information. Gnome 3.0 has not been ditched by all users. Gnome 2.0 fork is NOT eating our lunch.

Re:The real Gnome 3 problem (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41094801)

I guess if all of those advanced users who wanted Gnome 2 to be the end all of linux desktops had employed the gnome developers, then they would have what they want. But they didn't and so the gnome developers decided that they could always remain small and insignificant in the entire computing ecosphere (not just the advanced linux users, but all computer users) or they could develop an interface that others would find acceptable.

Face it, the advanced computer users market is pretty limited. If they are going to chose linux as an OS, they probably already had. The only growth for linux on the desktop are those people not using linux. The Gnome developers have chosen to redesign the UI to go after those users.

Mint didn't rise because they offered people non-gnome 3. Mint rose because they offered people non-Unity which started under Gnome 2. Then when Gnome 3 was introduced, they chose to embrace it by developing their own shell on top of it. If you run Mint with Cinnamon, you run the full Gnome 3 stack. The only objectionable part to pure vanilla Gnome 3 is the gnome-shell. And the gnome developers have produced two shells, but only the new paradigm even gets noticed. It's interesting how many people who don't like Gnome 3 with gnome-shell jump to another desktop environment instead of using the classic shell on top of Gnome 3. The classic shell is very similar to the old gnome 2.

Re:The real Gnome 3 problem (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#41095341)

The only growth for linux on the desktop are those people not using linux. The Gnome developers have chosen to redesign the UI to go after those users.

As much as I dislike Gnome 3, if there was one shred of evidence that non-Linux users would more readily embrace the OS due to it, I would be much more enthusiastic. All I've seen so far is a large segment of the community (including myself) alienated and little to no new users to show for it. If you have something that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.

The classic shell is very similar to the old gnome 2.

It might look something like Gnome 2 but it ain't Gnome 2. I admit I haven't tried it in a while but last I checked, it lacked customisability, plugins, etc. that made Gnome 2 what it was.

Re:The real Gnome 3 problem (3, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#41094959)

Ironically that's always what rubbed me the wrong way about Microsoft applications. They were always trying to impose their idea of how I should work on me. Take the most basic example; I'm a programmer, and very often want to type on a window that's partially obscured under another window. Most of the time I'm looking at a list of variables or an API document while I do that. This can be achieved in windows with a bit of work, but how to go about it seems to change in every release. Focus follows mouse without window raising has always been pretty close to the default option (or very easy to enable) on every X11 window manager I've ever worked on. Another good example is using LaTeX after spending a couple of hours trying to get your paragraphs and pages to work out correctly with Word.

So now the Gnome team comes along and tries to tell me they know better than I do how I should work. I think they'll find I'll say "Fuck you!" to them just as quickly as I did to Microsoft and Apple.

Re:The real Gnome 3 problem (0)

iserlohn (49556) | about 2 years ago | (#41094979)

Gnome 3 is the best thing that happened to the Linux desktop in recent years - the things that it fixed was the horrendous complexity that you get from using a traditional Window/Panel/Desktop metaphor. What I didn't like about Gnome 2 -

- The menu hierarchy was impossible to understand and modify.
- Panels were clumsy, and tended to take up a lot of space (especially double-height panels and top/bottom panels)
- Desktop is a directory - ends up with a lot of visible clutter after years of use - needs constant management
- Plugins are only constrained to applets and nautilus-extensions. Poor extensibility
- Window manager is old and busted - composite desktop an afterthought - why do I have to test out 3 different window managers?

And the list goes on and on.. Every single point above has been fixed in Gnome 3, so yes, I'm happy. But above all, Gnome 3 actually has a clue on how the desktop should work, and stick to the story. The windows pane and automatic virtual desktops is really intuitive and is my favorite feature. In fact, Gnome 3 is so good that a lot of those I know using Ubuntu use Gnome 3 instead of Unity.

Re:The real Gnome 3 problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41095061)

People are perfectly willing to change for a well known UI if there is a really good reason to do so. [...] The mobile phones

There's your good reason, change of form factors, aka tablets and smartphones. Suddenly the screen real estate is very limited. New goddamn paradigms are sorely needed. Of course we can debate whether we need this on the desktops (and laptops) as well. The diversity of the GNU/Linux desktop is an asset. Evolution does not work in a vacuum.

The real Gnome 3 problem is requiring 3D acceleration. Can't do that with free software on most hardware. But that's not a real problem since fortunately there are alternatives.

GNOME2 better than GNOME3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094057)

I don't want an iPad for a desktop. If I had wanted that I wouldn't have given away my iPad.

GNOME2 is a great desktop.... better than KDE3,4, or 17.

Re:GNOME2 better than GNOME3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094839)

That would be the iPad you never had.

Jeez, just read the comments. usual squabbling among the Freetards.

My distro is better than yours so there! And the level of arrogance is enough to shame an apple fanboy

Re:GNOME2 better than GNOME3 (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#41095157)

I disagree. I had both KDE 3.5 and GNOME 2.3. It was amazing what I could do in KDE 3.5. I could switch b/w 2 active accounts keeping them both logged in (although sound disappeared w/ the second session), This was particularly useful if I wanted to download a software, which I'd do under root, so that after it was installed, any of my user sessions could use it. I could set my desktop to any theme under the Kontrol Panel (I set one to be like CDE and another like OpenLook), and I could do wonders in Kontrol Panel. With GNOME 2.3, good luck getting much customization done - and GNOME 3 is apparently even worse. Of course, I've heard horror stories about KDE 4, particularly its activities and live services, which might make me pause. But the next time I get either a Linux or preferably PC-BSD on my laptop, I'd rather try out Razor-qt.

The troubling quotes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094155)

People are moving to other devices - they are just not as stuck to the desktop like they used to be.

read: traditional desktop use case *should* be discarded as an eventuality. He does later suggest they are still primarily focused on laptops, but the tone clearly suggests tablet as an inevitable primary focus area.

A lot of the Windows users we have been talking about, that could be potentially interested in our stuff, I don't know if they even have a way to get GNOME. So why aren't there devices out there shipping GNOME?

This sounds like a gross misunderstanding of the problem statement for those users. If you do have windows users wanting Gnome, the clear implication is they would want Gnome as a shell replacement, as a UI overhaul atop a platform that still runs typical Windows applications. He seems to think this means windows want a 'gnome os' to replace Windows entirely, but if *that* were acceptable they would just have installed a Linux.

The designs that we do target potentially everyone.

Problem being, that is not really feasible to do to everyone's satisfaction. Of those frustrated with Windows UI, it's usually because it is restrictive and attempts to do things like virtual desktops and alt-drag have a distinct tacked-on feel with some warts. On the other hand, MS intentionally limits that because 'common users' may be left with no visual cue as to where their application has gone after a desktop switch or accidentally alt-dragged a titlebar off screen.

I think there was a time when GNOME had kind of a crisis, we didn't know where we wanted to go, we were lacking goals and vision - that was the end of the GNOME2 cycle

Alternatively, one might have considered the job 'done' and worthy of being put into maintenance mode. However that's too boring, so the developers use the 'gnome' name to essentially create an entirely different interface, forcing those interested in maintaning a gnome 2 like experience to start changing names and all. 'Gnome 3' should have been a renamed project, and 'gnome 3' should have been a mostly straight port of gnome 2 experience to GTK 3.

Thanks Jon (2)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | about 2 years ago | (#41094285)

The KDE team really fucked up when they went from 3 to 4, sor your innovation for the Gnome project is the best thing that's happened to KDE in a long time.

Would everyone please stop whining about Gnome 3.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094311)

and just change to KDE, LXDE, XFCE, RazorQt, E17, Mate, openbox, fluxbox, fwvm or whatever floats your boat.
There are tons of alternatives. Try them and choose one.

Re:Would everyone please stop whining about Gnome (1)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#41095453)

Too bad they all suck too.

Call me back when someone makes a proper window manager that's as useable and as friendly as Windows (rather: Windows XP. Have to be more specific. Windows has gotten increasingly dumb and unuseable over time, too.)

CADT (1)

BlackCreek (1004083) | about 2 years ago | (#41094339)

http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html [jwz.org]

Such a beautiful and concise description of one of the greatest problems in the Linux desktop.

Gnome had no direction because it had arrived where it aimed: functional desktop that more or less corresponded to people's expectations and that let you run applications without getting in the way. Perhaps it was not sexy, but the Linux ceased being cool and sexy at some point in the last 10 years. OS X raised the desktop standards by delivering a fully working sane desktop pre-loaded with loads of mature and well executed applications. Linux has "pre-loaded" applications (through apt/yum) but not at the same quality level.

Adapt it for tablets and phones? Who on Earth would prefer a half baked mobile interface without any decent applications (and no expectation of API stability) over Android with its sane stable API and thousands apps? Ans: even less people than those running a Linux Desktop right now.

Delusional or paid by Apple (5, Interesting)

goruka (1721094) | about 2 years ago | (#41094469)

Either Gnome 3 developers are delusional, or being paid by Apple to screw the open source desktops on purpuse. How, otherwise, did Gnome and Ubuntu fall from the top, while on the peak of success?
Also, I can understand Ubuntu because the leader drops a lot of $$ on it, but Gnome? I would have thought Gnome was a community project influenced by the community, but if delusional people (and I mean delusional because they state they target laptops, yet make an OS for tablets) is running the project, something must have gone wrong somewhere.

Re:Delusional or paid by Apple (3, Insightful)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about 2 years ago | (#41095211)

...and I mean delusional because they state they target laptops, yet make an OS for tablets...

Oh don't worry, it does not work great on Tablets either...I tried...

Re:Delusional or paid by Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41095499)

I don't know where people get the idea that Gnome is a community project. It is Redhat sponsored project. Gnome websites are hosted on Redhat servers. The maintainers (and therefore, Gatekeepers of the Commits) of a lot of core Gnome, and GTK+, freedesktop, components are Redhat developers who are paid to work on those projects. Gnome is, first and foremost, a Redhat company project with some community involvement in the same way that Ubuntu (though not its spinoffs) is a Canonical company project with some community involvement. The problem with Gnome is that Redhat is dragging Gnome in a direction that primarily benefits Redhat to the exclusion of other distributions which seek to offer their users some choices different from the defaults that are mandated by Gnome. . GnomeOS is a Redhat attempt to maintain technological hegemony over the Linux desktop market. It's designed to be a Canonical (or any startup company that produces its own distro) killer.

You forgot the #goodluckwiththat tag :) (2)

Rehdon (25434) | about 2 years ago | (#41094475)

Subject says all XD

Rehdon

Wow - did I read that correctly? (2)

ak3ldama (554026) | about 2 years ago | (#41094835)

Essentially we were designing GNOME2 to be the free software version of a desktop computer system.

Our main target for GNOME3 is laptop use, which I think is by far the overwhelming majority of computing use today - in the non-mobile space.

I look at things a bit differently. I walk around the conference and I'm absolutely amazed by the energy we are seeing in the GNOME community right now. I am more optimistic about GNOME than I've been in a long time.

We have fewer people testing GNOME outside of the active contributors. And there are a number of reasons for that, but that's also why we have these discussions around making GNOME more easily testable.

So to paraphrase: We changed everything, new paradigm baby. Us developers love it, but it turns out the users just don't like it anymore and we lost all our testers. So now we feel we need to make it easier for us to test GNOME since we have to do it ourselves.

What's the deal with Red Hat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41095201)

I get that developers get bored when there's not a lot left to "innovate", but why is Red Hat sponsoring this bullshit?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>