On 01/07/12 10:33, Alan Pope wrote: > On 01/07/12 10:26, Chris Liddell wrote: > >> Are you channelling the ghost of Steve Jobs? "There's our way, and >> there's the wrong way" is not an attitude I ever expected to find so >> openly espoused in the Unix world, and especially not in the Linux world. >> > > Just because GNOME 2 did it one way for years, doesn't make it the right > way. It just makes it the established way. The established way can still > be wrong.
What GNOME 2 did right, *eventually*, was allow a hell of a lot of the functionality to be configured by the user, should the user wish to do so. What I think GNOME 3, and each generation of the Ubuntu desktop (not just Unity, but going back several generations) have gotten wrong is progressively removing the ability for the user to change the look, feel and function of the user interface. The early releases of GNOME 2 had most of that configurability removed (compared to GNOME 1), and such was the outcry, it was gradually fed back in over subsequent releases. The argument I've seen cited for both GNOME 3 and Unity severely limiting the extent of the user's ability to change the look, feel and function of the environments is to pursue the idea of consistency across installs - every Unity driven box should be as usable for a random user as any other Unity driven box, same with GNOME 3. Sounds very laudable - except, if that's all we really wanted, why would we have moved away from Windows? Chris -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------
