[lelanthran]

> I say you're trolling because even if it were entirely a corporate Red Hat project, Red Hat still wouldn't owe anyone any features. They would still be the "volunteers" in that case. Insisting anyone meet some threshold of features for a random free product they give away is leaning heavily into toxic entitlement.

Negative feedback when removing existing features is not "trolling", nor "toxic entitlement".

In fact, it's expected, when you remove a much used, much loved feature, that you're going to get criticism for doing so, even more so when there is strong indication that there will be no replacement for that feature now or in the future.

Gnome has been steadily dropping features and then attacking anyone who complains (much like you are doing so).

Mostly the gnome supporters imply that the complainers are just plain stupid (don't know any better, are ignorant, have poor habits, etc): from https://www.osnews.com/story/7344/opinion-why-users-blame-th...

> Browser-mode file browsers hide the lack of thought and organisation in the filesystem structure; spatial ones do not.

> And now, when the time to ressurect the spatial ideas has finally come, people accustomed to the bad interface design try to defend it only because for the past years they have been using it!

TBH, if I had time, I could compile a substantial list of similar insults from the Gnome devs themselves, when closing issues as "wontfix".

[QUrprUd1nCeicw]

You can criticize all you want, but I notice you neglected to share any of that actual criticism in your comment. Closing a bug as wontfix isn't an insult, please stop taking that personally. All open source projects reject bugs sometimes. Every project gets to determine their own threshold for what features they remove and what bugs they close as wontfix. All projects reject bugs. There's a comment from down thread about KDE developers doing exactly the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395682

But you also have to make sure your criticism is good. Just complaining that a feature was removed "because I was using it" is not a useful criticism. I learn nothing from reading that. You have to actually explain why you needed the feature, how you were using it, and why the newer options don't work for you.

>Mostly the gnome supporters imply that the complainers are just plain stupid

I don't see the author claiming anyone's stupid in that article. This is what the author says:

>it is just bad file organisation coupled with a bunch of old bad habits

And maybe on that note, you could consider that designers know a lot more about the habits of users than a random drive-by commenter, considering they study it for a living?

[lelanthran]

> Closing a bug as wontfix isn't an insult,

That's a strawman. I said "they attack people who provide feedback".

And whether you like it or not, feedback of the form "Hey, don't take that away, I'm still using it" is legitimate feedback. You wanna see their typical response?

From https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/3685#no1:

> I guess you have to decide if you are a GNOME app, an Ubuntu app, or an XFCE app unfortunately.

And that's one of their *good* responses. From my other link, you saw that their responses basically said that, even if users were using something, that way of doing things is only done by the ignorant.

> You have to actually explain why you needed the feature, how you were using it, and why the newer options don't work for you.

The posters in the link above explained all of that, and the response was still "No".

> I don't see the author claiming anyone's stupid in that article. This is what the author says:

>>it is just bad file organisation coupled with a bunch of old bad habits

The gnome dev literally said that any way other than their way had was because the users weren't thinking!

> Browser-mode file browsers hide the lack of thought and organisation in the filesystem structure; spatial ones do not.

I mean, they literally said that the users are not thinking if they prefer the old way.

There's a reason why gnome has fewer users than you'd expect given that is the default everywhere - even though it is the default, many user's still find it easier to simply switch.

> And maybe on that note, you could consider that designers know a lot more about the habits of users than a random drive-by commenter, considering they study it for a living?

If these designers knew that, they'd have more marketshare on Linux at least.

[QUrprUd1nCeicw]

Ok, sorry. I misquoted you. I should have said "isn't an attack" instead of "isn't an insult."

Still, the rest of my comment is still relevant even with that change. There's no "attacks" anywhere in anything you've quoted. That response about Ubuntu and XFCE is a factual statement. GNOME, Ubuntu and XFCE are all different platforms and they have different APIs. You can't expect GNOME to implement every XFCE feature just like you can't expect XFCE to implement every GNOME feature. And if you decide to do port to another OS like Windows or Mac, then you have to decide if you're going to use Linux APIs or Windows APIs, and so on. This is all very basic concepts. As an app developer you have to decide which of these APIs you're going to use. It's not "attacking" anyone to point out that truth. It's also not an "attack" for them to respond with a firm "no" response. If you want to get along with others you need to learn to accept that sometimes you'll receive "no" for an answer.

And no, "Hey, don't take that away, I'm still using it" isn't legitimate feedback. You need to actually explain why you need to use it that way and why another way isn't going to work for you. And even after that, you still need to be able to accept that your explanations could be bad or wrong and could get thrown out by the developers. You're not the one paying the cost to maintain that code so you don't get the final say on what gets thrown out and what doesn't. That's the entire point of open source. If you don't like this, then you start sharing some of the costs by maintaining the code, and then you can be the one who makes that decision. But it simply isn't an "attack" on you when someone else decides your feature is too expensive for them to work on anymore. You need to not take that so personally.

>The gnome dev literally said that any way other than their way had was because the users weren't thinking!

>I mean, they literally said that the users are not thinking if they prefer the old way.

No, it doesn't say anything like that anywhere in the article. That article isn't written by a GNOME developer either. If you're referring to something else, please show the direct quote where they said that.

>If these designers knew that, they'd have more marketshare on Linux at least.

There's no "marketshare" and no "market." This is an open source project being given away for free. I think what you meant is "mindshare." None of these projects are concerned with trying to dominate the mindshare, they all work together.