Re: [Usability]Re: Feedback on GNOME 2

Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, Jeff Waugh hath spake thusly:
> It's very simple: Tell us about *behaviours*. Options are not features, and
> are definitely not a primary concern.
> Example:
>   "GNOME 2 is completely unusable to me! Why can't I set the window raise
>   time out? Why have you taken everything out of it? I may as well just use
>   Windows or KDE, because GNOME it turning out just like them. In fact, I'm
>   going to install KDE right now. Disappointed, Example Poster A."

In my original post, you will note, I stated facts about behaviors,
and stated my opinion as to why those behaviors were undesireable.
This is what you just said you wanted, and it's what I have given you.
I have, in my opinion, in no way been offensive.  I have merely stated
facts as to how GNOME 2 now behaves, and stated my opinions about
those behaviors in a very matter-of-fact way.

Here, you have taken my carefully thought out post, in which I put
much effort to provide the GNOME development team good information
about what I consider to be misfeatures, and reduced it to the
ramblings of a whining crybaby.  I am very offended.

It would seem, Jeff, that the GNOME developers in general, and you
specifically as comes out in your posts, are only interested in
positive feedback, and have nothing but contempt for those who
disagree with your grand vision.  I can see that I have wasted my
time, and will do so no further after this post.

> I don't think that kindness and effort is unreasonable, especially
> if your goal is to ask someone to do something for you.

This also suggests that my post was unkind and produced with no
effort.  I think it should be clear that this is not the case.  It
also seems that you think I'm asking you to fix those things that I
reported.  I'm not.  It's quite clear from your posts and from the
archives that you have no intention of changing the things that I
believe ail GNOME.  Nevertheless, as a proponent, supporter, and
fellow developer of Free Software, I took my time to express my
dissatisfaction with a piece of software that I used to love, and to
provide feedback as to the nature of that dissatisfaction.  

Comments about investigating other options were included to make it
clear that anything you do or do not do to address the issues I raised
benefit me not in the slightest, as I have already decided that GNOME
is not for me.  It was also intended to head off the "if you don't
like the direction of GNOME, then GNOME is not for you" argument that
was prevalent in similar threads in the archives.  I agree with you;
GNOME is no longer for me.  Despite that, I thought it would be worth
my time to provide you with feedback.  I was clearly mistaken.

At some point hitherto, Jeff Waugh hath spake thusly:
> You're welcome to go ahead and note down every option in GNOME 1.4. It
> should take you about 6 months, taking employment/school and other factors
> into account. By then, we'll have GNOME 2.2 out, and 1.x will be even less
> relevant. :-)

Here again is a great example of the contempt you have for those users
who care to provide what you SHOULD view as constructive criticism.
We have only offered our opinions as to what would make GNOME better,
and your response has essentially been that we can feel free to note
every last bit of GNOME that we think could be improved; in the mean
time you'll happily ignore us and plow on.  Congratulations, you'll do
well as a developer in this society.

- -- 
Derek D. Martin
GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]