On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:25, Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It would be like releasing a new car and then telling the buyer that the > > tires that are included aren't good enough but that's okay because they > are > > free to go through the trouble of replacing them right after they take > > ownership. Modularity is not a feature; a good feature is a feature. > > You wouldn't be a very good car salesman then would you ? In fact people > loathe and hate the lock-ins wired into cars. Please do not be hyperbolic; we aren't locking anyone in to anything except, in this analogy, saying that putting a Hemi engine in a sub-compat is outside the scope of our design goals. > Plus of course the first > thing anyone does when they get into a car is umm > > Adjust the mirros > Adjust the seats > Adjust the music > Adjust the airconditioning > Adjust the satnav > Fit random personal objects (modularity) > ... > That's personalization, not customization, and is completely within the scope of will be implemented in GNOME 3: themes, backgrounds, localization, a11y, favorite launch items, etc. And has been said before, that's just the beginning: by 3.2 we hope to have a well-defined extension API so that even more *personalization* is possible. "I'd like to use a random bluetooth hands free", "sorry our car is only > available with our official hands free option" > > "radio", "ours only" > > "satnav", "ours only" > > "engine management", "ours only, DRM protected and we sued the other guys" > > "I need snow tyres", "sorry we don't support snow tyres, you don't need > them." > > "I added go faster stripes" "You've voided the warranty" > > The car market is such a mind-numbingly bad example, in fact it's the very > market whose abuse led the european union to pass legislation to limit > the power of "no reverse engineering" clauses, that later proved such a > good situation for software ! > Fine, pick another analogy then. You got my point and now you're just going off on a rant about cars. > > If a user has to do a bunch of customization after installing to get > > a tolerable desktop experience, we have failed at design. > > If the user can't then customise it to get a nice desktop experience to > suit their needs after that you've also failed. That of course cuts both > ways - it can have so much stuff you can't configure it. > You appear to have missed my point: if it's not a nice desktop experience to begin with, it's too late. We are working on *that*, not asking the user to do it for us. > The distros gather hardware info with permission from plenty of users so > they ought to be able to answer "what percentage of our users can run > this stuff". "Anything newer than 5 years old." Though we started saying that last Spring so it's going to be 6 years old by the time we release this Spring--which is longer than I've kept any computer. > Not sure if they have enough data to do "what portion of our > users desktops can be seamlessly migrated - ie all the equivalents for > each applet exist and the settings can be mapped" > None, and that's a completely unrealistic expectation. We don't change the UI paradigm and expect things to behave as they always have; that would be by its very definition be the same paradigm.
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
