On Sunday 01 July 2012 10:45:56 Chris Liddell wrote: > 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.
But it was Gnome 2 which removed all that configurability in the first place. Gnome < 1, when it was designed with Englightenment in mind, was incredibly configurable. Far more so than Gnome has ever been since then. KDE has kept the configuration options (KDE 4 was originally a broken mess, but it has improved a lot since when it was first released), which was why I moved to KDE pretty much entirely since KDE 3. -- Be seeing you, Games: http://www.glendale.org.uk/ Sam. Posts: http://www.google.com/profiles/samuel.penn -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------
