Re: [Edu-sig] Learn to Program in Ten Years
In a message of Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:40:28 EST, Arthur writes:
Wonder what determines one's taste here. My preference for Gnome is a strong one.
Huge factor: we think Gnome is _really_ _really_ _ugly_. Now why either a) you don't or b) you don't care is one of those _really hard_ questions about cultural differences, that is very hard to answer. The other thing is, of course, that around here, if you want Gnome, you have to ask for it. KDE is what comes up, everywhere. Plenty of people are unaware there is a choice. This cuts two ways -- consulting in the USA, I kept being stopped by people who wanted to know 'what is that window system you are using?' They had never seen it before ... One place I consulted to, 2 days after I started, set out a new policy. 'All people must use Gnome'. I don't think that was in reaction to the amount of work lost in 2 days as it seemed everybody in the office wanted to see KDE, but I could be wrong. At any rate, I cared enough about it -- and things were wrong at that place in enough other ways, that I said 'This isn't going to work out. See you. ' Laura
Art
On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 00:56 +0100, Laura Creighton wrote:
In a message of Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:40:28 EST, Arthur writes:
Wonder what determines one's taste here. My preference for Gnome is a strong one.
Huge factor: we think Gnome is _really_ _really_ _ugly_. Now why either a) you don't or b) you don't care is one of those _really hard_ questions about cultural differences, that is very hard to answer.
I think I do care, and I think that the fact that ubuntu has what I consider to be a very pleasing look and fell to be a good part of why I am enthusiastic about it. That, and finding the Synaptic Package Manager and apt-get providing a solution to many of the issues I had trouble dealing with in other desktops I had tried. Its swell, to coin a technical term. But much of this might in fact have more to do with the aesthetic strengths of the ubuntu folks, more than anything inherent in the tools themselves. But it could be a more Gnu aesthetic that I am in fact responding to. So in that way not totally unrelated. If so, that is still an aesthetic issue, to me. I don't have a political preference. Art
Huge factor: we think Gnome is _really_ _really_ _ugly_. Now why either a) you don't or b) you don't care is one of those _really hard_ questions about cultural differences, that is very hard to answer.
I just booted Ubuntu (demo CD) for the first time. Picked up a free copy at Free Geek on Xmas Eve. The demo failed on TMU for some reason, but fired up on 2nd try (fail safe mode) on the Compaq (laptop Presario). I don't have any problem with the basic look and feel. The graphics are pleasing enough. What I find is: once I get acclimated to a system, what's important is functionality. Cosmetics matter, but eventually take a back seat to getting work done -- unless the work itself runs up against the desktop aesthetics in some way, I'm not hugely likely to complain. Variety is the spice of life. I have no really strong prejudice in favor of either KDE or Gnome. For HomeStreet (a client getting an xtreme makeover -- going from Windows to Linux), we went with KDE (we being Free Geek, a local Debian shop). But at the police station, it's RedHat 9 running Gnome on Fedora. I don't have much problem with that. I think Gnome is ahead of KDE in some ways and vice versa. What USAers tend to consider optimal is: competition. We *want* alternative desktops to compete for hearts and minds, because as would-be users, we stand to gain from the rivalry. That may sound primitive, but from experience we know that monopolies breed laziness and lousy service, which in operating systems translates to all kinds of problems, potentially serious ones (not just cosmetic). Kirby
participants (3)
-
Arthur -
Kirby Urner -
Laura Creighton