Speaking about lock-in, and forcing stuff on users. And also as a general comment towards the "new stuff broke my computer!" issue that I see flaring up all the time.
Originally Posted by Larian
Yes, I remember the outrage. I also remember that things got fixed pretty quick and is now a non-issue. Personally I had zero issues.
Of course things change. But that doesn't mean that things have to break. Do you know why there was such backlash against PulseAudio a couple of years ago? Because Canonical forced it on Ubuntu users and it didn't work. It just wasn't in any shape for use, and it replaced a system (effectively), which worked perfectly for most users. On top of all of that, it was a nightmare to remove from your computer if you wanted to install a new sound system like OSS or Jack. And let's not forget that one of the packages that went away when you uninstalled PulseAudio was Ubuntu Desktop.
I don't remember seeing some kind of exodus. Do you know if there were ever any proof that Ubuntu actually lost people? To me it seems like Ubuntu has only ever grown.
But why? Why on earth should this have even been an issue? It was arm-twisting fuckery that doubtless led more than one person to move away from Ubuntu. There was a reason that people wrote all kinds of articles on methods for getting rid of the bloody thing.
Considering that PA is universally adopted by all the major distributions, I think we can with certainty say that even if the initial adoption was rough, it has been a success.
And I can see this as a problem at institutions where users do not manage their own machine and are not following the Linux desktop development closely (or at all). Where I work, there was a few "stuff looks different" comments, and then everyone just kept working. Some installed extensions for features they missed. No problems at all.
Maybe so. But you make light of my central point - it's not cool to offer an update that radically and fundamentally makes ninja changes to someone's computer. Why couldn't Canonical have left GNOME2 in place and installed their Unity DE alongside it? I've got several DE choices on this machine right now, and they all work nice and happy with one another. But that was a bridge too far for Canonical. GNOME3 with fallback mode was what you got with the upgrade (and you had to dig for fallback mode!), and your GNOME2 desktop was GONE. No confirmation dialogs during the upgrade, no pop-up windows, no nothing. Just poof.
My bet is that 100% (or close to) of people who complain about this "forced upgrade" and GNOME3 in genereal, yourself included, knew very well that GNOME3 would be completely different.
I agree that a notice would have been nice. But, see above.
So no, it's not progress that I'm having the problem with. It's the arbitrary alteration of the fundamental way my system works that rubs. Users should be given both notice and a choice of such radical alterations to their workflow before the first byte is installed. Especially if it's something as ubiquitous as a desktop environment.
Everything that I have seen that has been "pushed" on people have worked. For most people, and for most scenarios. Better QA from the distributions would of course be awesome, but given the heterogenous nature of Linux setups, I guess that is more or less impossible,
And maybe Canonical should quit pushing shit out the door before it works.