Re: My first impression and goodbye

["James M. Cape" <jcape jcinteractive com>]

Dave Glowacki wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Perhaps I am simply reading too much into the message, but from my
experience, mentioning a competitor (BSD on a Linux list, HP-UX on a
Solaris list, IE on a Netscape list, etc.) along with a list of problems
one is experiencing is *nearly always* a veiled threat to ditch the
current "product" and use something else. Doing that only serves to
prevent some developers from paying attention to you in the future.

> > > > 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

I can't help that they are listed as requirements, but they most
certainly are not required.

> 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?

I cannot explain the control-center, I thought it was still at v.99.9 or
.8. Gmc is a Gnome frontend to the Midnight Commander, which was at
version 4.0.x or so when the effort to write said FE began. E has been
under development for a *very* long time. E.14 was released August of
last year AFAIK, and E.15 isn't ready yet.

> 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".

Again, I cannot explain this. The documents need to be updated to
explain that Gmc is not finished yet.

> 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.

I didn't make the website, nor to I maintain it. I can only state my
observations and opinions.

> > > 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.

I think posting what the problems he's having tell him is infinately
better than simply stating "I have a problem", and that does count as
"more info" the last time I checked. The former allows the problems to
be tracked down and fixed for Gnome 1.0.2 (or .3 or .4 or .5 or
.whatever), the latter simply says "I have a problem and I don't like
it". You tell me which gets the bugs fixed quicker. And you tell me
which sounds like incongruous bitching. :-)

> > 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)

Well, then the website should be fixed. In reality, E is simply the
default window manager. Starting Gnome via the "exec gnome-session"
standalone method doesn't launch a window manager if E isn't available,
which is why it is helpful to have E installed. The solution is to fire
up the Control-center and choose a Window Manager, then sit back and
watch it load. I personally can attest that yes, this does work.

    Jim Cape
    http://www.jcinteractive.com

    "All animals are equal, some animals
     are more equal than others."
         -- George Orwell, Animal Farm