In my earlier post Antidevelopment, I defined the word I coined in that article as “any change made to the user experience that is not beneficial and serves only to limit or restrict what the user wants to do, especially in the field of customization.”

I have been quite vocal about Ubuntu and GNOME3 spiraling into antidevelopment. Yet, as I am often criticized, it is not fair to say that no development at all is going on! Ubuntu continues developing their desktop Unity, and GNOME3 continues developing whatever that is (that most distros, including Debian, are rapidly abandoning for something else)

So when does development actually translate to antidevelopment?

Simply put, when the development ignores the core values that its users, testers, and developers have been asking for.

So many things that have been broken on the Ubuntu and GNOME3 desktop for so long, and yet no one revisits these problems to fix them. I continually ask Canonical and GNOME to revisit these problems and fix them, but there is no response, or a completely negative response indicating they are still completely detached from their user base. Slightly usable does not mean it’s good; if it’s not 100% then it should be fixed!

The only ones who seem to care the users who write countless patches, extensions, and unsupported programs to fix little irritations here and there.

Simply the fact that Ubuntu Tweak, the GNOME Tweak Tool, and MyUnity programs exist and are downloaded so heavily shows that the users do want the ability to tweak. But these are poor substitutes for tweaking a desktop. In many cases (like with mouse cursors) those programs are not able to makes changes system-wide, even though advanced tweaking of system properties shows that no breakage occurs when something is applied system-wide. There simply is no substitute for a developer who uses common sense, and listens to its user base.

In complete defiance of anyone who actually liked having a screensaver, GNOME completely destroyed the gnome-screensaver. No screensavers, no controls, just a blank screen. Blank screen, blank mind, all is GNOME - I think I’m going to coin that phrase.

Is This Development?

So many things are broken with current and future Unity and GNOME versions that it begs the question, “what has been developed?”

On GNOME’s side, the latest line of programs being axed to their core is Nautilus. First they destroyed menus by removing categories, and hiding Shutdown/Restart. Then they began axing menus and customization in a wide arc of programs. In the grand GNOME tradition of menu destruction, there are no text menus in Nautilus 3.6, just iconified buttons that somehow manage to do less than their text counterparts did in 3.4 and earlier versions.

The changes made to Nautilus 3.6 were so radical that Canonical decided to freeze Nautilus packages at 3.4 or even seek a new file browser, and Mint developers called it “a catastrophe”. It takes amazing amounts of antidevelopment to make something that no one wants to use!

Nautilus was a beautiful program that for several years grew almost organically from the desires and needs of its users. I feel sorry for Nautilus, and will mourn its passing.

An Interesting View of Development

At this time I would like to expound upon what development is. To do this, I am going to establish ground rules.

1. Every successful desktop environment innovates for itself.
2. Every successful desktop environment listens to its users, and makes solutions tailored to what its users want.
3. Innovation usually starts at a core and expands outward from that core. 

This is what I feel primarily makes up successful development.

Despite the fact that #3 is listed last, it is possibly the most important because that is where GNOME and Unity have failed.

Innovation starts at a core. A weak core makes for a weak overall desktop environment. What kind of core have GNOME and Unity established for themselves?

GNOME’s core can be summed up this way: Make everything idiotically simple, and remove options and menus. Systematically they have removed menus, customization options, and preferences from numerous programs, despite outrage from both users and software companies.

Unity has a different core. Integration seems to be the common thread. When Unity was first premiered, it was designed to integrate user and programs in a new way. The Ubuntu Software Center was designed to integrate users and programs. Dash was designed to integrate users with their music, pictures, and programs. The Me menu was designed to integrate users with social networks. Ubuntu One was designed to integrate users with the cloud.

12.04 saw the integration of users with television with the release of Ubuntu TV.

In 12.10 sees the release of Unity 6.0 which has the Dash being designed to integrate users even more with their news (BBC, CNN, Yahoo, Google News, Yandex News, Google Reader, Reddit, NewsBlur), their mail (GMail, Yahoo! Mail, QQ Mail, Windows Live Mail, Mail RU), their social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, VK.com, LinkedIn, Tumblr), their games (Cut the Rope, Angry Birds, Lord of Ultima, Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances), their office apps (Google Docs, and Google Calendar), their music (last.fm, libre.fm, Pandora, Grooveshark, Hulu, Rdio, YouTube, Ubuntu One Music), and more!

As you can see, GNOME and Unity have radically different cores. So you’re probably wondering why I bash them with equal intensity.

I realized why when I read the Linux Mint blog article. When discussing the core of its Cinnamon environment, it said: “The file manager isn’t just a file browser, it defines how the user interacts with filesystems, documents, and the visible desktop. It’s a core part of any desktop and it’s important it properly integrates with it… KDE built Dolphin as a central piece of KDE. Xfce and LXDE rely on Thunar and PCManFM… it’s probably only a matter of time before Unity gets its own file manager (patching/freezing Nautilus was the right decision but it’s only a good decision if it’s a temporary one, long term they’ll need to make their own file manager if they don’t want to chose between breaking Unity or Shell.”

Now, I realize why I bash Unity and GNOME equally. Both seem to have forgotten that the central core of an operating system, the one integral program that should not be forgotten, is the file browser.

Users don’t necessarily need to be integrated with the web, or have an interface so simple it borders on the idiotic. They need to be integrated with their files. That should be the core.

It’s no secret that I hate GNOME. What might surprise you is that I love the idea behind the GNOME3 desktop; it’s just the implementation that frustrates me. GNOME has managed to dumb down so much of their desktop and pen the user with so many frustrating limits that I would rather use a different environment than be aggravated with GNOME.

I could never get into Debian, because every ISO image people insisted were amazing, that I just had to try, ran GNOME3. This was perhaps the most limiting factor to my trying and liking Debian.

Imagine my shock when I read that GNOME is no longer the default desktop of Debian!? Now the default desktop is XFCE! They aren’t even using GDM as the default log-in manager anymore, swapping that out for LightDM.

Considering the fact that GNOME3 has practically been Debian’s flagship desktop since the beginning of GNOME3, I find it amazing that Debian has done this. The reasons for doing this are “complex and subjective” but it appears that Debian was looking for a desktop environment that would fit on a CD, something which GNOME cannot do.

I think they made a good choice. Now they have XFCE, which is a desktop environment designed for productivity, which loads and executes applications fast, while conserving system resources (a bunch of qualifiers I could never say about GNOME).

Perhaps I should try Debian again.

(#debian-gnome @ irc.oftc.net)

So this is what GNOME developers worry about!

Apparently there’s a rogue developer named “panthera” who is hated by some of his fellow developers. He destabilizes Debian GNOME just before package freeze dates. There are technical issues with his code. He shuts down repositories just to annoy people. And he refuses to work with anyone. And despite being told about his deficiencies, he hasn’t improved; it’s actually gotten worse.

So, why hasn’t this apparent GNOME problem been fixed? The answer is included in the chat I copied.

GNOME is social club, so all the problems are argued on a social basis. There is no formal process for kicking out a rogue developer who causes problems felt by both developers and users.

However, this is not what disturbs me the most.

I stopped using GNOME a while ago. I was researching GNOME for a technical write-up, and I was trying to determine if GNOME had (like other Linux distros) an official help and support chatroom. It turns out there is. According to GNOME website this is the “Official Debian GNOME channel”

This is official? I recorded this disturbing chat in the OFFICIAL channel. This is an open channel, where users meet developers to ask questions and get support for GNOME.

Apparently, with GNOME being a social club and all, and there being no formal process for developers to complain or air their differences about each other, conversations like this take place regardless of whether there are users watching or needing help.

Jonathan Riddell, who has been working on the Kubuntu for the last 7 years as its sole paid developer, announced back in February that Canonical would no longer provide financial support for Kubuntu after the release of Kubuntu 12.04.

And article on OMGUbuntu! explains further that the decision boils down to business. Riddell in the Kubuntu article above did say, “it has not taken over the world commercially and shows no immediate signs of doing so…”

While this shake up does not spell the end of Kubuntu it does shift the way it is supported. Canonical will, from Kubuntu 12.10 onwards, provide backing for the KDE flavour in the same way as it does Xubuntu, Edbuntu, and Lubuntu – with infrastructure and resources rather than money.

Second Class?

Here’s what I think about Canonical’s retarded decision. Oops, I just said it. It’s retarded.

Here’s why I think this…

The OMGUbuntu article mentioned an interesting perspective which I feel is valid: “Many voices within the KDE/Kubuntu community have long charged that Kubuntu has been a ‘second class citizen’ to Ubuntu, an accusation that has always been at odds with Canonical’s financial support of the project.”

Kubuntu users cry, “We’re second-class citizens to Ubuntu!”

Canonical replies, “But we’re supporting the project financially!” And on the surface the financial support appears to be the end of the argument.

But is this cry of reduced citizenship really been at odds with the financial support? I think not. Kubuntu users gave it a fair assessment, and it has always been correct.

Canonical had one paid developer working on Kubuntu, the developer mentioned above, Jonathan Riddell. ONE DEVELOPER! And you expected him to take over the world by himself, how?

If you look on LinkedIn, you can see that the number of paid employees Canonical has is around 1000. According to this article 63% or more of those employees are developers for Ubuntu. That means that, at the lowest point, Ubuntu has at least 500 PAID DEVELOPERS! And for the other 37%? Marketing, mostly.

Is it any wonder why Kubuntu didn’t make any money? Canonical was treating it as second-class even when it was giving it’s one token developer a salary. From the numbers it is clear that Canonical only has eyes for Ubuntu.

So why wouldn’t Kubuntu feel mistreated? Why wouldn’t Kubuntu users feel that their interests were second-class? Canonical apparently thought of them as second-class, otherwise it would have hired more developers for that project.

Now, mind you, I’m not faulting Canonical’s business acumen here. Canonical is right to not throw money at something that doesn’t provide a return. That is basic business sense. What I am finding fault with is your logic. And in your logic you started treating Kubuntu as second-class and maintained that perspective all the way to the end…

What Support?

So, now that Kubuntu has been reduced both in thought and action to second-class, Canonical makes another retarded claim. Essentially they say, “We won’t leave you poor second-class citizens”

What they specifically said was, We are going to treat “Kubuntu in the same way as the other community flavors such as Edubuntu, Lubuntu, and Xubuntu, and support the projects with infrastructure.”

You mean the infrastructure that you’re currently pitting entirely to Ubuntu?

The reason why many users switched to Kubuntu in the first place was probably similar to the reason why I switched to Kubuntu. It’s probably best summed up by the KDE charter: “We have a strong focus on finding innovative solutions to old and new problems, creating a vibrant, open atmosphere for experimentation.”

Another way to express this is, “I went with Kubuntu because of all the things that the user is restricted from doing on Ubuntu.”

So, now… Canonical says they are going to support Kubuntu with infrastructure. In other words, there will be no apparent support. Rather, just like things are progressing in Xubuntu, Edubuntu, and Lubuntu, things slowly stop working with increasing regularity as Canonical’s favorite child, Ubuntu, breaks things.

Kubuntu Users Unite!

It’s time for Kubuntu users to step forward!

It was actually time for that for the past seven years, but now it is especially needed. To ensure that Kubuntu remains a strong presence in the Linux community, users are needed to step forward. There are plenty of places to volunteer! Pick one!

1. Development
2. Testing
3. Documentation
4. Support
5. Bug squad
6. Or simply forming Kubuntu chapters in your local community.

Kubuntu should not be forgotten!

When I asked several people why they liked GNOME3 or GNOME-Shell, the most common answer was “the extensions system that allows you to customize your desktop.” GNOME3 simply wouldn’t be popular without the extensions system that allows developers to write and publish desktop extensions.

Customization is at the heart of every Linux desktop. A long time ago, when GNOME2.0 was the standard, customization was openly allowed on Linux systems, and everyone used that freedom in different ways. Everyone tweaked their desktop differently, and made it feel like $HOME in different ways.

But recently there have been changes in two major Linux desktops that seek to limit customization and development. I’m going to call it what it is… if it seeks to limit development, it’s antidevelopment!

Antidevelopment is any change made to the user experience that is not beneficial and serves only to limit or restrict what the user wants to do, especially in the field of customization.

I read an interesting post the other day from deviantART user half-left. He recently had a falling out with GNOME3 because of the same antidevelopment I’ve seen in GNOME3 and Ubuntu Unity.

half-left journaled it this way: “Apparently, GNOME upstream thinks their users don’t customize their desktop… because they are so detached from their user base.”

I would extend this to include both GNOME and Ubuntu Unity. GNOME3 and Ubuntu Unity seems to be completely detached from their user base. Why are they so detached from their users?

The GNOME team has made such puzzling changes in the past year that it is clear that they aren’t connected in any way, shape, or form to their users.

Mouse cursors? - You can’t change them and expect the change to stick. When I filed a bug about the problem with mouse cursors, I was told “Don’t change the mouse cursor. DMZ-White is good enough for every user. Problem solved.” That’s the solution! Don’t change anything; just stick with default… and there’s no problem.

Changing the mouse cursor can be more important than just the desire to tweak a new theme. What about users who have trouble seeing the DMZ-White cursor and need to change to a larger cursor? This could be considered a bug in Accessibility. Because mouse cursor changes have been ignored and largely removed by GNOME3 and Unity for the last 2 years, I claim that this is antidevelopment!

Screensaver? - What screensaver? Oh, the GNOME screensaver? There is no screensaver, anymore. For many years the GNOME screensaver was frustrating because it had no user controls to set screensaver properties. Now… all it does is blank the screen. There are no controls or screensavers left in the screensaver package! GNOME has apparently decided that its users don’t like using screensavers so they took all the controls out! This is antidevelopment!

Themes? - What themes? There are 5 themes provided in Ubuntu, and only 1 theme provided in GNOME. Only recently did Unity add the ability to change between the 5 themes that came installed on it. But no ways have been provided in either Unity or GNOME to import user themes. This is antidevelopment!

Extensions? - Ubuntu Unity does not support extensions at all, period!

GNOME3 maintains the veneer of supporting extensions, but once you start digging you realize the truth… GNOME3 extensions are barely supported at present. Many extensions only work with older versions of GNOME3. My favorite piece of evidence that GNOME isn’t supporting extensions is this: There is a website which explains how a user can make and submit an extension to GNOME, but it’s completely out of date! It explains how to make extensions for GNOME 3.0 and there’s a link to how to update the extension to 3.2… but, we aren’t using 3.2 any more! GNOME is at 3.4! And there is no documentation at present on how to update extensions to be compatible with the current version. Which means, every time GNOME updates, ALL the extensions break! This is antidevelopment!

One user explained the frustration this way to me on IRC: “I get the feeling that the so called gnome-developers do things in ‘their perspective’ rather than the ‘Gnome users’. The most important problem I see is that many of the other “modern” desktop environments are forks of GNOME…”

Another themer said: “…they even want to delete the applications categories selection. Pretty soon there will be nothing left in GNOME3 to theme.”

When you are too stuck up to listen to your users who are asking for the ability to customize their desktops, and you are actively developing the desktop in ways to limit the user experience… you are stuck in antidevelopment.

When it comes to changing themes and cursors… you can do more with Microsoft Windows than you can with GNOME3.

Microsoft listens to its users. Sometimes changes don’t come for years, but at least they listen. The same can’t be said for Ubuntu or GNOME3 though. They are currently stuck in antidevelopment.