On 20/06/11 13:06, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:49:03PM +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
On 20/06/11 12:26, Olav Vitters wrote:
You can disagree with that, but release wise there is nothing wrong
with how 3.0 was handled.
You are quite right I do disagree. In my opinion there is plenty
wrong with the way it was handled.
Could you expand on that? We're (speaking as a release-team person) open
to feedback, suggestions, criticism...
As I said earlier, I only found out that Gnome 3 was coming when it was
well into development. The developers should have firstly looked at
Gnome 2 and asked what is wrong with it, what do users what/need and
then come up with a draft design and thrown it open for discussion. If
this happened I never found it mentioned anywhere.
In my opinion Gnome 3 as standard is not fit for purpose as a desktop
for general use, I tried to use it, found that things that I have taken
for granted were seemingly not there or if they were there I had to
click the mouse several times and move all over the screen, and you call
this progress, I call it a mess.
I had to spend several hours on google to get a semi working desktop but
I am still not happy and will probably have to invest more time to put
right what the developers have messed up.
I can think of only one thing worse than Gnome 3, Unity - this forced me
to change distro, unity is far worse than Gnome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
gnome-list mailing list
gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
