thacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Thacker) writes: >> >Altogether, Gnome2 is a very unergonomic piece of software. Userfriendly >> >software should adapt to the user, but with Gnome2 the user has to adapt >> >to the software. This is caused by the refusal of Gnome2 developers to >> >allow configuration of their software and the frequent changes of the >> >user interface. >> > >> Any claim like this should probably start with a definition of user ;-). I think on my mother which was not very amused when the desktop had a completely different behavior after the Gnome2.4->2.6 upgrade. Or on me, who wants to use his ~/.Xmodmap and ~/.Xresources files and is stopped in this by the arrogance of the Gnome2 developers. >> I would imagine that someone who does, say, marketing, would never >> configure their desktop (for better or worse). > > Yes, and shipping a large combination of software with dramatically > different icons and keyboard shortcuts for the same tasks forces a > user to adapt to the software, and can hardly be considered user > friendly. 1. The default firefox icons are not "dramatically different" from the default Gnome2 icon theme 2. I do not care about the default setting as long as: - it can be configured - does not override current settings 3. What is the meaning of "different"? Different to what? Firefox is the only Gnome2 application I am using, so why am I forced to see these ugly icons? I do not know KDE, but I can imagine that people with this desktop environment will be shocked also when they see the current firefox icons; they probably do not match the KDE theme neither. Enrico
Attachment:
pgpndDpzvlPXc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
