- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux Desktop Flamewars: Is the News Media Too Negative?
Mr. Byfield wrote The GNOME 3 Meltdown (he is not responsible for the sensationalistic headline) and then followed it up with I've got some good news and some bad news. The GNOME piece discusses the reactions to GNOME 3, including Linus' famous snark, and the growing gap between users and developers. The second article reviews a discussion between Bruce and Aaron Seigo, in which Mr. Seigo claims that the tech press is too focused on the negative, and overlooks positive events. I invite you to read both articles as they are quite good. In the second article Mr. Byfield writes: Quoting:"Seigo begins by asking, "Is it useful to spend time concentrating on the negatives in FOSS when we have not only a tremendous number of positive events occurring but many detractors who are willing to do the negativity thing for us? Why do we reward failure and negative reactions with press coverage when thriving and positive efforts struggle for valuable attention?... These are two broad, sweeping generalizations. I mistrust broad, sweeping generalizations. Is the tech press too unbalanced towards the negative? One quick way to check is to do Web searches on "KDE4" and "Gnome 3." I found very few negative stories for either one in the first five pages of results. Most of them were positive, including this gem by Sam Varghese, who thinks the criticisms of GNOME 3 are over-the-top: Quoting:"After having finally taken a look at it yesterday - I looked at the Fedora and openSUSE live CDs - I'm beginning to wonder whether there is something seriously wrong with the FOSS community." It seems to me that Mr. Seigo is lumping news and reviews together with reader and user comments. They are not the same. He also appears to suggest that tech journalists should be careful and constructive with criticisms: Quoting:"It's not that Seigo wants FOSS media to avoid criticism. But he does suggest that criticism should be offered in "ways in which one can acknowledge a situation that gives various people a doorway through which to step" (that is, a way that doesn't make people defensive and maybe suggests constructive solutions)." Um. No. That is not the job of tech reporters. Journalists are neither cheerleaders nor advocates. The job of a tech reporter is to be as informed, honest and fair as possible. Our first obligation is to our readers. FOSS users are smart and can spot nonsense and hypocrisy a mile away, and once a journalist compromises his or her credibility it's a long haul to get it back. Unearned Sense of Entitlement Mr. Byfield, in The GNOME 3 Meltdown, has some useful insights on where user unhappiness and complaints come from: Quoting:"Today, free software is more popular than ever, but that does not mean that most users have a clear sense of the purposes and traditions behind the software they are using...Overlooking the fact that they have not paid for their software, they continue to act as though they have, becoming indignant and impatient over every problem and every delay in fixing it..." I've encountered the users-are-nuisances attitude many times, and it is true that some people are just plain obnoxious. Most projects have formal channels for bug reports, wish lists, and feedback, so users who really want to help know to use these. But this is not the core of the problem-- the reality is we're going to continue to experience a large and steady flow of users new to Linux and FOSS for years to come, so wise project leaders understand that they are going to have to continually educate new users for years to come. As for this "sense of entitlement", which is a favorite dismissal of user complaints, of course we have a sense of entitlement-- who the heck are developers writing software for? The KDE4 and GNOME teams in particular are famous for dismissing users who they like to brand as not contributors. This is a deadly attitude that does a project no good. Every bit of user feedback is a contribution. It's information, it's data that should be collected and analyzed. But it seems that KDE4 and GNOME are not interested in the experiences of their actual users, except perhaps the ones who offer unquestioning praise. Both GNOME 3 and KDE4 are top-down projects, and users are not part of the design and planning. It's self-defeating to not invite users to participate from the beginning, to not craft a roadmap based on actual user needs and experiences. It's even more self-defeating to treat users as nuisances, and then somehow expect them to magically become contributors. How many times must you kick a dog before it loves you? If users must pass some sort of contributor test in order to have a say, then what level of contributor is acceptable? Many experienced Linux users contribute to multiple projects-- money, bug reports, documentation, helping new users, artwork, code-- should they be considered as contributors only to projects they directly support? How should they be identified, should we have worthiness tests and badges? It is asking for big trouble to force radical changes on users. (Duh!) The migration from GNOME 1.4 to 2.0 was needlessly painful, with 1.4 unceremoniously abandoned long before 2.x was usable. It never did achieve the wonderful flexibility and power of 1.4. This lesson was also lost on the KDE4 team, who dropped KDE3 just as carelessly. It's hard to believe that anyone would be surprised that taking away something that users love and rely on would create great unhappiness and criticism. Forced change doesn't work any better in FOSS than it does in the proprietary software world. Generally speaking FOSS development follows two tracks: a stable release for reliable production use, and alpha and beta releases for user testing. It's rather naively self-centered to act like your own project is the only one users should care about, and to try to force your entire user base to be alpha and beta testers. Ingo Molnar posted a wonderful comment on this that should be required reading for everyone in FOSS: Quoting:"I think what the KDE4 and Gnome3 folks are doing is that they have picked Apple (and to a lesser degree, Google) UI products as their role model. Civility We should mind our manners. Insults and name-calling don't win people over and don't solve problems. KDE and Gnome developers are targeted the most because of their popularity, and because user interfaces affect everything we do on a computer. And yet what is worse-- criticizing a problem rudely, or treating users with careless disregard? That doesn't win people over either. LXer regular Skelband notes that: Quoting:...if you contribute work for a software eco-system like KDE or GNOME, you also take on a mantle of social responsibility. What you do affects thousands, maybe millions of people. That is not something you do lightly. Mr. Molnar notes that when the Gnome team migrated to Git it was handled differently: Quoting:"When they migrated to Git two years ago they took elaborate steps to ensure the quality of the end result to those hundreds of top contributors... So when it came to coddling developers no effort was spared, which reinforces the idea that users don't matter. Blame the Messenger For the most part the coverage of Unity, Gnome 3, and KDE4 has been positive, focusing on features and howtos. Negative stories are mainly of the "some users hate it" variety, which is not the same as a negative review. The great majority of negative commentary is in reader and user feedback. In my occasionally-humble opinion, if there is a problem here it's not in the media coverage. |
|
|
Comments (32)
Proper Assignment of the Blame Warranted?
I enjoyed this article in combination with the earlier discussion:
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/32137/
I also have noted another interesting aspect being raised constantly which is the difficulty of the actual users getting their feedback into the Gnome and KDE projects. Others have noted that the only way you get to affect either project is by joining it as a developer (I can't even write software) or by filing bug reports. But what do you do when what you want to say is NOT a bug at all, but how the entire "bugless" package operates ? In other words, its basic philosophy of operation. That isn't a bug at all ~ it's a perception of whether the software works when applying it to daily use or is simple to operate and satisfies user requirements.
And that is something I have said in the earlier thread. KDE4 works and works well for me ~ if I push it back into a standard KDE3.5 format. It's great, no argument. As long as I can do that, KDE4 remains a very viable DE for my personal daily use. I've given up knocking KDE4 - you get nowhere and there is no way you can get that feedback to the teams, so I've become pragmatic and forced the darn thing to work for me...but I always have the niggling feeling I should not have to work so hard to get it there. I make the serious suggestion that both DE's should, in their new formats, have a single selection which allows the user to select the previous default in which they were previously comfy......and then have the options of adding the new "swinging and dancing" items as and when they want them. To some extent, this does occur in KDE4 with "Folder View"......so why not call the darn thing "KDE3.5 mode" or something similar just to help people like me ?
I also often wonder if the Gnome and KDE groups have a person who reviews "user gripes" in these blogs and articles and feeds them back to the developer teams. It is where the nitty gritty of daily use and frustration appears and where most genuine feedback emerges, and without paying due recognition to these "feedback sources", I think both groups are falling down on their care for the ultimate users. I'd guess it probably doesn't happen, but I think it should.
I also have noted another interesting aspect being raised constantly which is the difficulty of the actual users getting their feedback into the Gnome and KDE projects. Others have noted that the only way you get to affect either project is by joining it as a developer (I can't even write software) or by filing bug reports. But what do you do when what you want to say is NOT a bug at all, but how the entire "bugless" package operates ? In other words, its basic philosophy of operation. That isn't a bug at all ~ it's a perception of whether the software works when applying it to daily use or is simple to operate and satisfies user requirements.
And that is something I have said in the earlier thread. KDE4 works and works well for me ~ if I push it back into a standard KDE3.5 format. It's great, no argument. As long as I can do that, KDE4 remains a very viable DE for my personal daily use. I've given up knocking KDE4 - you get nowhere and there is no way you can get that feedback to the teams, so I've become pragmatic and forced the darn thing to work for me...but I always have the niggling feeling I should not have to work so hard to get it there. I make the serious suggestion that both DE's should, in their new formats, have a single selection which allows the user to select the previous default in which they were previously comfy......and then have the options of adding the new "swinging and dancing" items as and when they want them. To some extent, this does occur in KDE4 with "Folder View"......so why not call the darn thing "KDE3.5 mode" or something similar just to help people like me ?
I also often wonder if the Gnome and KDE groups have a person who reviews "user gripes" in these blogs and articles and feeds them back to the developer teams. It is where the nitty gritty of daily use and frustration appears and where most genuine feedback emerges, and without paying due recognition to these "feedback sources", I think both groups are falling down on their care for the ultimate users. I'd guess it probably doesn't happen, but I think it should.
Not too terribly long ago, but still a while, I decided I wasn't going to get used to KDE 4.x and switched to Gnome. I got used to it before long, to my surprise. But I may not get used to the next iteration.
I am not a developer; I flunked coding some time ago. But who do developers listen too. We engage in many absolutist statements, many "shoulds" and "should nots". To what end?
Developers can engage in self defeating behavior; they can deny or ignore their social responsibility. They can and do things other than what we think they should.
We will likely suffer frustration, or worse if we make a living with FOSS. Even so, developers can run their projects right into the ground and we can't do much to stop them.
I don't have insight into the psyches of the developers, to know what their goals are and whether they are naive or delusional (but they may be both, either or neither). Who do they see as their users and do they think said users will just follow them like an Apple pied piper?
Again, who do the developers listen to and what are they saying to them. Who has some leverage. Without these things it doesn't matter what should be; it remains how it is.
If I have no way of knowing what drummer these developers march to, I have no way of getting into step with them and then to influence their direction. If there is no way to influence them, then our news is moot, whether too negative or not.
Although FOSS could become extinct, I rather expect someone will fill the gap, fork a project or begin something new. Of course, that doesn't make it any less painful.
I am not a developer; I flunked coding some time ago. But who do developers listen too. We engage in many absolutist statements, many "shoulds" and "should nots". To what end?
Developers can engage in self defeating behavior; they can deny or ignore their social responsibility. They can and do things other than what we think they should.
We will likely suffer frustration, or worse if we make a living with FOSS. Even so, developers can run their projects right into the ground and we can't do much to stop them.
I don't have insight into the psyches of the developers, to know what their goals are and whether they are naive or delusional (but they may be both, either or neither). Who do they see as their users and do they think said users will just follow them like an Apple pied piper?
Again, who do the developers listen to and what are they saying to them. Who has some leverage. Without these things it doesn't matter what should be; it remains how it is.
If I have no way of knowing what drummer these developers march to, I have no way of getting into step with them and then to influence their direction. If there is no way to influence them, then our news is moot, whether too negative or not.
Although FOSS could become extinct, I rather expect someone will fill the gap, fork a project or begin something new. Of course, that doesn't make it any less painful.
@kenholmz: Exactly right, I think. Developers are ALSO users, especially in the FOSS ecosystem. If there is ENOUGH user interest in a particular feature, there will eventually be enough of them that are also developers who are willing to work on it. Praise or non-development assistance (good bug reporting, documentation, etc.) from non-developer users will encourage more developers to join in the project.
Developers listen to the bug reports, which in the main are filed by other developers.
However what they probably don'tlisten to, even if filed as a bug report are things like "I can't the top bar auto hide." or "I can't reposition the top bar" or "when I'm using 2 monitors stacked vertically there's a top bar on both monitors", or "it takes a lot longer to find applications with the new "menu System", can we have the old menu system back"
However what they probably don'tlisten to, even if filed as a bug report are things like "I can't the top bar auto hide." or "I can't reposition the top bar" or "when I'm using 2 monitors stacked vertically there's a top bar on both monitors", or "it takes a lot longer to find applications with the new "menu System", can we have the old menu system back"
"If there is ENOUGH user interest in a particular feature, there will eventually be enough of them that are also developers who are willing to work on it."
Not necessarily true. When the developers say, "We will NOT include such and such feature, so don't bother asking," most people...don't ask.
Not necessarily true. When the developers say, "We will NOT include such and such feature, so don't bother asking," most people...don't ask.
Disconnect
It strikes me (and I have no evidence to back this up), that it is easy to radically change the UI experience of millions of people if you do not have to justify it their faces.
It's kinda like when people send emails and post things to their <insert social media site>, things that they would never say to someone directly.
I used to work for a software house that required you to do the installation for the customer of software that you were responsible for and demonstrate it. That way, if you messed up, you got the flack. So, you made sure that it worked, it was what the customer wanted and the bugs were gone.
Imagine that you were the guy or guys that came up with the Gnome Shell idea and it was your job to justify its existence to thousands of people, to their face. That might give you cause to pause, as it were. It's all very well talking up these things to the converted at a conference or mail group. It's a very different prospect preaching to the non-converts and convincing them that that you are right and they are wrong.
Even now, we get the defensive and disparaging posturing from the people in charge. They are still justifying their actions to 3rd parties (reporters/critics). In some respects there is a big problem here that what they do doesn't affect their pay check at the end of the month. That's a big focuser :D
It's kinda like when people send emails and post things to their <insert social media site>, things that they would never say to someone directly.
I used to work for a software house that required you to do the installation for the customer of software that you were responsible for and demonstrate it. That way, if you messed up, you got the flack. So, you made sure that it worked, it was what the customer wanted and the bugs were gone.
Imagine that you were the guy or guys that came up with the Gnome Shell idea and it was your job to justify its existence to thousands of people, to their face. That might give you cause to pause, as it were. It's all very well talking up these things to the converted at a conference or mail group. It's a very different prospect preaching to the non-converts and convincing them that that you are right and they are wrong.
Even now, we get the defensive and disparaging posturing from the people in charge. They are still justifying their actions to 3rd parties (reporters/critics). In some respects there is a big problem here that what they do doesn't affect their pay check at the end of the month. That's a big focuser :D
Quoting:As for this "sense of entitlement", which is a favorite dismissal of user complaints, of course we have a sense of entitlement-- who the heck are developers writing software for?
Given that they appear to find the coments from users tiresome, one does wonder.
Quoting:The KDE4 and GNOME teams in particular are famous for dismissing users who they like to brand as not contributors.
How does one contribute to a project when the horse has, so to speak, bolted. When clearly the project has moved in a direction from which it appears there can be no return, and ay bug report would be considered invalid, in any case, as it does not address an actual issue related to the direction of the project.
Quoting:This is a deadly attitude that does a project no good. Every bit of user feedback is a contribution. It's information, it's data that should be collected and analyzed. But it seems that KDE4 and GNOME are not interested in the experiences of their actual users, except perhaps the ones who offer unquestioning praise.
In many cases the only place where users can contribute aything positive (negative in the eyes of the developers) is as comments in response to reviews that, in many cases appear to be either rather superficial, or seem based on use cases that don't reflect the use cases of those commenting, I know that I have not yet come across any review that is even remotely close to my use cases. And lets not forget those commenting are more tha likely the tip of the iceberge. I know from experience that there are many non technical users, people I support and those I meet on line on Social forums who find the breaking changes confusing, but they don't comment on blogs either positively or negatively, these people are never going to meet the criteria the developers appear to require.
Something I should point out is that when both the KDE4 and GNOME3 initial design descriptions were released in blogs and, in the case of GNOME 3 the initial screen shots and early Alphas, I was was very positive about both of them, and argued against people who stated opinions that were negative, It was only later, in both cases when it became clear that the designs were breaking changes that ignored pre existing use cases that I became "negative".
Blame
Ah you guys, it's been my experience that there's plenty of negativity from all sides. Users alone are not the problem. That's too simplistic. Many times a negative media comment, review of a product, and the resulting 'users' being blamed for their reaction. Developers are coddled. Much is made about the fact that many current or former developers wind up writing reviews in the media. Assigning blame to the 'users' is just plain wrong, I can't
tell you how many times I have read a'glowing' review about a product/service only to discover how wrong that review was. And an equal amount of negative reviews proved to be wrong as well. So you media types need to understand that "users' are always right about these things. They are the ones who pay for them.. And if we didn't
read your stuff, you'd be back in the unemployment line. As for opinions themselves, their like, well you know, everybody's got one.
For some yes.
Evidently, because sites like this one usually won't publish my posts.
I've never seen any Articles from you, perhaps you could try posting them yourself, as Ken Hess Does, rather than waiting for someone to find your stories and post the appropriate links.
Works for me.
usacomputertec works for you?
Then you should use your connections to get his/her posts published.
Then you should use your connections to get his/her posts published.
harmful criticism
tuxchick: this is a very nice article. i must have been to busy that week that i missed it. only discovered it now because someone else commented on it. since this topic is still relevant i'd like to add a comment. (and i think you are following the discussions so i hope you will see it)
"Man has been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization"
that includes journalists. your first obligation is not to your readers but to civilization as a whole.
how can we do it? seigo's suggestion is one way.
seigo is not suggesting that you should be a cheerleader or advocate, but he is suggesting that your criticism should not make people defensive. i think that is a key element here.
writing in that way is not nonsense and it does not make you a hypocrite.
greetings, eMBee.
tuxchick wrote:Quoting: "It's not that Seigo wants FOSS media to avoid criticism. But he does suggest that criticism should be offered in "ways in which one can acknowledge a situation that gives various people a doorway through which to step" (that is, a way that doesn't make people defensive and maybe suggests constructive solutions)."Um. No. That is not the job of tech reporters. Journalists are neither cheerleaders nor advocates. The job of a tech reporter is to be as informed, honest and fair as possible. Our first obligation is to our readers. FOSS users are smart and can spot nonsense and hypocrisy a mile away
"Man has been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization"
that includes journalists. your first obligation is not to your readers but to civilization as a whole.
how can we do it? seigo's suggestion is one way.
seigo is not suggesting that you should be a cheerleader or advocate, but he is suggesting that your criticism should not make people defensive. i think that is a key element here.
writing in that way is not nonsense and it does not make you a hypocrite.
greetings, eMBee.
Quoting: but he is suggesting that your criticism should not make people defensive
That's an impossible standard to meet:
1. Some people will be defensive no matter what you say. 2. Harsh criticism is sometimes appropriate, and few people take harsh criticism well.
Siego doesn't want criticism at all. He, like everybody else, wants back pats.
> ...your first obligation is not to your readers but to civilization as a whole.
That's complete and total bull. Your first obligation is to your own conscience.
That's complete and total bull. Your first obligation is to your own conscience.
dinotrac: just because it seems impossible, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
if someone can't take any criticism, then i don't criticize them. i can still encourage them and gently suggest improvements. of course there are those that won't listen to anything, but as long as that person doesn't cause trouble that i need to deal with, i'd ignore them if necessary.
if we want to build a global society we need to be inclusive of everyone. therefore my actions try to avoid making anyone feel excluded...
greetings, eMBee.
if someone can't take any criticism, then i don't criticize them. i can still encourage them and gently suggest improvements. of course there are those that won't listen to anything, but as long as that person doesn't cause trouble that i need to deal with, i'd ignore them if necessary.
if we want to build a global society we need to be inclusive of everyone. therefore my actions try to avoid making anyone feel excluded...
greetings, eMBee.
@mbaehrlxer -
No, we shouldn't try. To worry about making somebody defensive is to give up on the pretense of criticism.
Now --
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be civil, and take advantage of opportunities to be encouraging and constructive, etc, but...
there is no useful purpose served by playing Pollyanna.
No, we shouldn't try. To worry about making somebody defensive is to give up on the pretense of criticism.
Now --
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be civil, and take advantage of opportunities to be encouraging and constructive, etc, but...
there is no useful purpose served by playing Pollyanna.
dinotrac: my english fails me, can you please explain what "pretense of criticism" is supposed to mean?
greetings, eMBee.
greetings, eMBee.
@mbaehrlxer -
More a matter of my english failing me.
I was trying to say that being overly concerned with making people defensive will turn efforts at criticism into a pretense.
More a matter of my english failing me.
I was trying to say that being overly concerned with making people defensive will turn efforts at criticism into a pretense.
I think that you're all doing a great job, and your opinions are all wonderful.
dinotrac: thanks, now i get it. i am not sure i agree with the pretense part but i do agree that being overly concerned with making people defensive then this will affect what you say. however, i believe the right approach is to tune the criticism to the person. that is, if i know that a person gets easily defensive then i just avoid that. likewise if i don't know and get a defensive response then i back off and apologize and reword my comment (or stay silent).
getting a defensive response is just one aspect though there are other negative responses like feeling hurt, etc that should be treated similarly.
the point is to establish a positive relationship with this person. of course this requires to listen to each other.
if i can not establish a positive relationship with someone then i rather not establish a relationship at all, meaning i stay silent.
greetings, eMBee.
getting a defensive response is just one aspect though there are other negative responses like feeling hurt, etc that should be treated similarly.
the point is to establish a positive relationship with this person. of course this requires to listen to each other.
if i can not establish a positive relationship with someone then i rather not establish a relationship at all, meaning i stay silent.
greetings, eMBee.
I think that you're all doing a great job, and your opinions are all wonderful -- especially eMBee's.
I apologize if I have offended anyone by me giving eMBee extra praise.
I apologize if I have offended anyone by me giving eMBee extra praise.
@cb -
eMBee is putting forth a perfectly valid and sensible approach for personal interactions. Nothing wrong with that.
It's important, however, to realize that we all venture into arenas that go beyond that.
One non-FOSS, non-KDE example that comes to mind is the employment relationship. We certainly hope that our bosses won't be cruel, but a boss who avoids criticism in order to spare an employee's feelings is simply setting that employee up to fail and, ultimately, if times get tough, to be fired.
Sometimes criticism is appropriate, even necessary, regardless of how the recipient takes it. Again, there is no need, nor excuse, for cruelty. On the other hand, dishonesty and avoidance are simply veneers on an inherent cruelty in the form of opportunity lost.
eMBee is putting forth a perfectly valid and sensible approach for personal interactions. Nothing wrong with that.
It's important, however, to realize that we all venture into arenas that go beyond that.
One non-FOSS, non-KDE example that comes to mind is the employment relationship. We certainly hope that our bosses won't be cruel, but a boss who avoids criticism in order to spare an employee's feelings is simply setting that employee up to fail and, ultimately, if times get tough, to be fired.
Sometimes criticism is appropriate, even necessary, regardless of how the recipient takes it. Again, there is no need, nor excuse, for cruelty. On the other hand, dishonesty and avoidance are simply veneers on an inherent cruelty in the form of opportunity lost.
In theory vs practice, practice always wins -- at least in theory.
dinotrac: i also agree with what you say. the boss example is something i meant with "long as that person doesn't cause trouble that i need to deal with". but as a boss i also have the opportunity to establish a positive relationship before i need to criticize, and then offer the criticism in a setting where noone else can hear it so that comments remain private. these things don't necessarily apply to a journalist writing an article.
greetings, eMBee.
greetings, eMBee.
@emBee:
A journalist has a different problem. The nature of the job means you can't shrink away from criticism and still call yourself a journalist. You can be civil and respectful, but you can't shrink away.
A journalist has a different problem. The nature of the job means you can't shrink away from criticism and still call yourself a journalist. You can be civil and respectful, but you can't shrink away.
dinotrac: well, i disagree with that. this may be the expectation of journalism today, but i believe that if we really are to achieve a better society then journalism will have to change as well.
as it is, journalism today is doing a lot of harm. maybe even more harm than good. that said, the kind of criticism that we are discussing here is probably just a marginal problem compared to the blunders that are happening in say the yellow press or elsewhere.
greetings, eMBee.
as it is, journalism today is doing a lot of harm. maybe even more harm than good. that said, the kind of criticism that we are discussing here is probably just a marginal problem compared to the blunders that are happening in say the yellow press or elsewhere.
greetings, eMBee.
Journalism that is afraid to criticize isn't good for much. It is, in fact, no longer journalism. It's advertising.
>... as it is, journalism today is doing a lot of harm. maybe even more harm than good.
Oh, I can agree with that. But somehow I doubt we agree about the details. And since discussing those details would inevitably lead to a TOS violation, I'll refrain.
Oh, I can agree with that. But somehow I doubt we agree about the details. And since discussing those details would inevitably lead to a TOS violation, I'll refrain.
Good analysis
The key problem is well identified. The developers have no serious mechanism for assessing the needs and desires of users.
This seems like a failure of the FOSS community. Developers are famously non-communicative and cliquey. That is the culture of hacking. It has a very good side in that technical development can occur without clueless people stuffing it up.
On the other hand such a culture is by its very nature top down. Thing is though gnome and kde long ago achieved an interface that was eminently usable. Now they are bored and want another challenge. Tablet development seems to be that opportunity of interesting hacking with a commercial angle. Trouble is the loyal base of linux are not tablet users in the main but old fogeys (like me) stuck behind a keyboard and mouse.
I think the developers ought to not forget the loyal old fogeys who made their software popular in the first place. I am considering a tablet at present and I have to say a tablet with unity or gnome shell just does not appeal compared to android and iOS.
In my opinion the desktop is with us for much longer than people think. How do I know this? I asked my 20 year old daughter that's how.
Her view is "I have an iphone and a macbook so why would I want an ipad?"
This seems like a failure of the FOSS community. Developers are famously non-communicative and cliquey. That is the culture of hacking. It has a very good side in that technical development can occur without clueless people stuffing it up.
On the other hand such a culture is by its very nature top down. Thing is though gnome and kde long ago achieved an interface that was eminently usable. Now they are bored and want another challenge. Tablet development seems to be that opportunity of interesting hacking with a commercial angle. Trouble is the loyal base of linux are not tablet users in the main but old fogeys (like me) stuck behind a keyboard and mouse.
I think the developers ought to not forget the loyal old fogeys who made their software popular in the first place. I am considering a tablet at present and I have to say a tablet with unity or gnome shell just does not appeal compared to android and iOS.
In my opinion the desktop is with us for much longer than people think. How do I know this? I asked my 20 year old daughter that's how.
Her view is "I have an iphone and a macbook so why would I want an ipad?"
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Perhaps the overriding proportion of due blame for the negative state of affairs for Unity, Gnome 3, and KDE4 may ultimately rest upon the Canonical, Gnome, and KDE decision-makers in their respective developer "communities"??
Also see the current and appropriate LXer thread 'Thankyou Carla' found at http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/32137/