Linus is right [ in my opinion ]. Isn’t there such a thing as usability, while not alienating those who want options? Check it out
Also I am a bit curious as to why some gnome guys don’t even want to discuss this. Linus would not have taken the time to voice his opinions if he clearly didn’t care about the project, and where does not discussing things leave us? Is that called “usability through obscurity“?
Jeff: “I think our current successes go a long way towards proving our position and ability to execute when it comes to usability and design (a position which you do not describe accurately, by the way). This discussion finished last year.” — Taco bell has “successes” but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t improve on the product (or bring back the grilled stuffed fajita burrito).
Related posts:
#1 by Ralesk on February 17, 2007 - 7:43 am
Certainly exciting
I wonder what happens next in this topic — I use KDE (and put up with some things like weird font support that locks up time to time randomly and severe issues with font substitution) for the exact reason that it’s more convenient because I can set it up the way I want (except the bloody middle-click-on-a-tab, which is still an obscure, hidden option that only affects Konqueror).
Meanwhile, GNOME brought back spatial browsing /and/ removed (or didn’t provide in the first place) the GUI option to turn that off. That is quite limiting, and it’s not as one single checkbox would make GNOME a scary software with ohmygod so many options (which, on the other hand, is something that’s true about KDE — it is rather intimidating on first sight!).
I remember how happy the BeOS community was for the patch that allowed a setting in Tracker to use the same window for every folder
#2 by Dean on February 17, 2007 - 10:22 am
Ralesk: the no spatial checkbox was still there in Edgy (GNOME 2.16) at least, when did it get removed?
#3 by SFA_AOK on February 17, 2007 - 12:42 pm
“Taco bell has “successes†but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t improve on the product”
Relating this to the KDE/Gnome debate: why should they “improve” something by making it into something it’s not? KDE has too many visible options and, as a result, too much clutter for my liking. Gnome is “cleaner” but doesn’t offer easy routed to tweaking. Is it so bad we have these (IMO) complementary approaches? I like the defaults Gnome chooses which means I don’t do much fiddling. I don’t want to. If I did, I’d choose KDE.
I don’t feel like I’m being treated like an idiot, I’m just happy that there’s a DE that chooses what I feel to be sane options*. And I’m happy for those who do want the options because they have KDE. I can only see slippery slopes in either direction: Gnome introduces more options, but KDE users are reluctant to switch because it doesn’t offer all the options they want so Gnome starts putting more in… eventually, Gnome has practically abandoned its philosophy. Either that or KDE starts removing options to be more like Gnome… and we get the same result from the other direction.
I think the choice we have at the moment is the best “medium” we’re going to get out of this. Make your choice as to what you want and enjoy, don’t complain that something you don’t use doesn’t behave how you want out of that project’s choice. It’s like complaining that my TV doesn’t work very well as a mobile phone.
Dean – I think Ralesk was talking about the initial Gnome release where spatial browsing was the default and changing it meant a trip to GConf. The Gnome team were slow to offer a visible checkbox to change from spatial browsing to “regular” browsing. But the option *has* been there for a while now…
* I’ll admit (full disclosure and all that) that I’ve actually been burnt by Gnome’s removal of options – I think the Gnome that shipped with Breezy allowed you to choose a subset of screensavers in a random selection; in later releases, this became “Choose a random screensaver from all screen savers or select one particular screensaver”
#4 by Jeff Waugh on February 17, 2007 - 12:51 pm
I think it’s pretty obvious that my comment did not suggest that GNOME is perfect. If Linus were right, GNOME wouldn’t have any users or developers.
Luckily, Linus does not represent 99% of the people out there who just want the computer to get the hell out of their way.
Pingback: Desktop Drama with Usability as a Talking Point at obso1337.org
#5 by James on February 17, 2007 - 11:21 pm
I’ve just come from a week of using KDE, and while I can appreciate the neat things it can do, I now appreciate more the simplicity that Gnome offers.
I’m not an idiot, I can use KDE. But I find it time consuming to scan through menus and control panels in Konq and Kopete looking for the option I want. Gnome offers default settings that better reflect the way I work.
I do agree that the Gnome could use some serious work, though. It’s currently one of the largest and slowest desktop environments on Linux. More options in some places are sorely needed. For example, the screensaver control panel is currently almost useless for lack of flexability.
#6 by oomu on February 18, 2007 - 1:17 am
I do not think Gnome is wrong.
I both everyday with linux to manage network and applications and I don’t care at all about “options” or to change my “interface”.
I just want a plain usable and simple interface.
you should understand I prefer the clean mac os X than the windows chaos or ever confusion in Kde/Linux.
if Gnome is simple and missing options so it’s a _good_ things.
I want tools to work, not tools to “customize”.
Linus is a marvelous engineer. not just an user of computers to do some works.
I’m totally convinced computer literate people like me and you are _UNABLE_ to understand how much computing interface are broken and weird for people.
The “pc” is simply Broken. the icons-mouses icons are became to much complicate. 1/3 of software are simply here to let work the other 2/3.
success of computers is not due to their interface, but to their uses and the need of the modern world. do not make the mistake to think the 1984 Mac was so “easy” for people and the windows’ success is the proof menu-icons-desktop are the Last Thing.
The only way to understand that is to work with people forced to use computers to do not computing works. (mathematics, economics, managements, hobbys, readings, musics and so on ).
we are stuck with that interface for a long way, yet. so please, do not try to complicate more. Understand the goal of gnome.
—
(I do not see how people can say gnome is “largest” and “slowlest”.. is people comparing gnome 2.16 and latest Kde 3.x ? )
#7 by sharms on February 18, 2007 - 7:39 am
Let me just ask: Are you saying that it is impossible to offer more features while maintaining the same level of usability? I am not saying it needs to be easy, but just keep the ability. Please prove how unreasonable I am so I can go to sleep sound at night knowing I am wrong.
#8 by Murray Cumming on February 18, 2007 - 11:55 am
> Are you saying that it is impossible to offer more features while maintaining the same
> level of usability?
It’s not impossible. But it’s very difficult, because software complexity is combinatorial., which is probably why nobody has achieved it yet, though they’ve thoroughly tried every last idea that random slashdotters think is their own sudden genius idea to cut through the problem.
So, given it’s difficulty, it’s not a priority compared to getting the default functionality working properly. This is yet another misunderstanding of someone’s differing priorities as a fundamental difference. It’s not, and it’s unfair to attack developers for making the difficult choices that we have the luxury of ignoring.
Note: Your blog loses the comments when you have to go back to fill in a missing field. Which shows how difficult it is to get even the most basic functionality right. I’d fix that before I added options, if given the choice.