Re: My first impression and goodbye

[Dave Glowacki <dglo SSEC WISC EDU>]

> Dave Glowacki wrote:
> > 
> > > > I guess I'll try kde next and see what the difference is.
> > >
> > > "If Netscape doesn't get it's act together, I'm switching to Explorer!"
> > > Been there, heard that, didn't give a crap about it before.
> > 
> > "You're a whiny newbie, I don't give a crap about you."
> > Been there, heard that, didn't like that attitude before.
> > Y'all are courting average users now, not technophilic teenagers
> > with the time and skills needed to track down why a program isn't
> > working.
> 
> I was simply stating that implying that he would switch to KDE was *not*
> the way to get answers. And given the general tone of the message, that
> isn't that far fetched of a motive.

Hmmm ... we got different readings from the same message then.  I
didn't get a sense of hostility, only one of mild frustration.
Again, he *said* he'd be back for Gnome 2.0, but he was going to *TRY*
KDE.

> > > Threatening to switch doesn't make it work better, and posting helpful
> > > error messages, backtraces, etc. will definately get you farther than
> > > the incongruous bitching you did post.
> > 
> > I didn't see him threatening to switch ... he did say he'd try Gnome 2.0.
> > >From his perspective as an average user, Gnome just isn't usable.
> > 
> > He's absolutely correct that a 1.0 version of a program should be at
> > least functional.  Most new users will give up LONG before this guy did.
> 
> Only Gnome-core and Gnome-libs are v.1.0 everything else is still in
> development. Gmc, E, E-conf, Control-Center, everything. Use at your own
> risk. Period.

Most people probably heard about Gnome through the press release.
The press release (at http://www.gnome.org/news/pr-gnome-1.0.shtml)
points to http://www.gnome.org/getting-gnome-1.0.shtml, which points to
http://www.gnome.org/gnome-1.0-rpms.shtml, which points to the older
http://www.gnome.org/start/, which *FINALLY* leads to the "Gnome 1.0
Documents" section, under which we find "GNOME RPM Installation for
RedHat 5.2" at http://www.gnome.org/start/getting_rh.phtml

Listed on that page are the *requirements* to run Gnome (which we
can assume is Gnome 1.0, since it's a "Gnome 1.0 Document"):

	gmc-4.5.23-1.i386.rpm 
	enlightenment-0.15.0-36.i386.rpm
	enlightenment-conf-0.14-3.i386.rpm 
	control-center-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm

If they're "Use at your own risk", why are they "required to run Gnome"?
If they're still in development, why is gmc at version 4.5.23 and
control-center at version 1.0.1?

Also available in the "Gnome 1.0 Documents" section is a link to the
Gnome User's Guide, chapter 5 of which concerns "The GNOME File Manager".
Nowhere in chapter 5 do we find the words "use at your own risk".

before telling users they shouldn't have tried to use gmc, etc. you
should probably get the web site changed so it doesn't tell them
they're *required* to use those programs.

> > You gave him workarounds for his problems, but if Gnome is to work
> > for the average user it needs these problems to be fixed, and those
> > who try to call attention to these problems shouldn't be told to
> > keep quiet.
> 
> I didn't tell him to keep quiet, I told him to post *more* info, rather
> than just "it bombs" reworded 20 times.

No, you told him to post error messages, backtraces, etc. and that his
concerns were just "incongruous bitching".  Denigrating problem reports
is no way to build a userbase.

> And nearly all the problems he
> encountered aren't Gnome-core or Gnome-libs related. Most were E and
> Gmc, neither of which are finished yet.

But which, again, are required to run Gnome 1.0 (or so the web site
leads one to believe)