
Why GNOME 3.x sucks: A potentially hazardous bug is marked wont-fix - hrjet
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650371
======
i386
Lets get real here! Just because they didn't fix your favourite bug does not
mean the whole project sucks.

The maintainer isn't interested in making it configurable (and from reading
the thread, I agree, it just moves the problem elsewhere) and there has to be
another way to fix it. I am sure the maintainer would be reasonable about
accepting a different solution.

Be the change you seek - get annoyed, fork the repo, apply a fix and propose a
patch.

EDIT: The issue appears to be open and not marked as won't fix.

~~~
jeremysmyth
_The maintainer isn 't interested in making it configurable (and from reading
the thread, I agree, it just moves the problem elsewhere)_

Since I started using Linux, I've constantly bumped up against problems in
other operating systems where I've wanted to take control of a particular tiny
niggling detail and make that decision myself. Linux has consistently allowed
me to do that, with a plethora of hidden configuration settings.

Put simply, the design philosophy of _many features_ of Linux distributions
and environments allows _me_ to decide what I want my system to do. Sure, it's
moving the problem elsewhere, but it puts the solution to that problem in _my_
hands. If I want 2% step, then it's my problem if that's too many steps. If I
want 15%, then it's my problem if it's too large a jump. Either way, it's my
decision and I can't complain if it's my configuration.

Gnome 3 removed a lot of my ability to screw up my own system in ways that
make me happy. This decision is typical of that philosophy (for better or for
worse) and is another incremental design decision that keeps me from using
Gnome 3.

~~~
dagw
There are dozens of options on Linux for people who love to tweak every little
detail of the setup, do we really need yet another one? I for one am glad
someone is trying, for better or worse, a different approach, if only to see
how it might work out.

In fact I'd love to see Gnome 3 go even further and go from being 'just' a
desktop environment to a fully fledged Linux based desktop operating system,
dictating the whole stack from kernel and file system on up. I imagine there
are some pretty cool things you can try on the desktop level if you can
exercise that sort of control.

~~~
jeremysmyth
_There are dozens of options on Linux for people who love to tweak every
little detail of the setup_

Only dozens? I've over 16000 _files_ ending in rc, cnf, conf, cfg, ini,
config, and that's not counting additional compile-time configurations
available to me. A quick sampling of those files shows that many of them
contain 10-20 options.

 _do we really need yet another one_

Depends who "we" is. The people in OP's linked thread clearly do. I haven't
touched the vast majority of the thousands of options available to me, because
I'm happy with the defaults. My definition of "user-friendly" includes super-
technical users who want to fine-tune _their_ system to _their_ needs.
Fortunately, my system allows me to do that for most settings I feel competent
and opinionated enough to change.

~~~
dfc
_Only dozens? I 've over 16000 files ending in rc, cnf, conf, cfg, ini,
config,_

With all due respect I have to say "bullshit." What command did you use to
come up with that figure?

    
    
        root@ronin:/tmp# tree -ifa / > /tmp/hn.bs
        root@ronin:/tmp# cat hn.bs |grep -v src\$ |grep -v /bin/ |grep  -v -- "-"\>|grep -vi backup | grep -v dfc/linux-kernel |grep -v /samurai | wc
        2513    2540  128342
    

That is just a cursory attempt to eliminate false positives.

~~~
jeremysmyth
Even with your more rigorous method than my handwavey one, I think it's fair
to say you made my point even more than I did ;)

(substitute "16000" in my post with "2513" from yours, and see if it changes
my meaning one iota).

~~~
dfc
I think it makes your argument seem disingenuous and that certainly does not
help make your point.

------
lutusp
No one in the attached thread even mentioned the fact that volume settings
should increment in decibels, not percentages. One decibel is a volume change
so small as to be just perceptible to a typical human observer. The other
advantage of a decibel scale is that it increases exponentially, each step one
decibel, which means there are fewer total steps in a typical volume control
range than if percentages are used.

------
darklajid
So this thread is going to turn into a 'Blame Lennart' thread in 3, 2, 1 ...

(Cue "And now he's destroying the Unix Way™ with systemd" and '"Pulseaudio
ruined every installation I've ever made, it's the first thing to remove"
whining)

Gnome isn't favored around here, I get that. But random (yes, random to me. I
consider that bug irrelevant) 'the project sucks' headlines? That's really
low. Flagged.

Edit: Slighty more constructive:

    
    
        pactl set-sink-volume 0 +5%
    
        pactl set-sink-volume 0 -- -5%
    

There. Bind that to whatever keys/situations/occasions you'd like, replace the
5 with any other arbitrary number that feels better. Done. "Hazard" avoided.

~~~
hrjet
Thanks for the pactl tip. I was not aware of it.

I am not saying the problem is un-surmountable. And it is not just me I am
concerned about. Every person that I introduce to linux (via Ubuntu) is going
to face this problem. A simple setting could save many hours and ears.

I used "sucks" for the whole project because of many such dumbed-down
decisions that have been made in GNOME3. This one was just the last straw for
me. I could have probably avoided the word though.

------
choffee
I think that shows why Gnome 3 is good. They won't add another knob if that
needs tweaking. Somebody needs to fix the actual problem. Sounds to me like
there is an issue with the settings of some sound cards. If you sound card can
make your amp cut out a 6% then I don't think that is a software problem. Like
Network manager before it I think a lot of the sound problems point back to
drivers or hardware not reporting back correctly. This probably needs to be
tackled there.

~~~
hrjet
This is not a driver problem, nor a case of hardware not reporting back
correctly. The decibel information is not _available_ in many sound setups.
And it's never going to be available for these setups.

Even for setups where decibel information can be gathered / estimated by the
sound card, why should the volume increment be hard-coded? Shouldn't the user
get to decide that?

Also note that this setting was available in GNOME 2. Remove existing
functionality without providing an alternate doesn't make sense to me, given
that it is a potential health hazard!

------
chris_wot
Comment 32 is totally hilarious:

[https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650371#c32](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650371#c32)

------
voyou
YOUR UPDATE MURDERS CHILDREN

[https://xkcd.com/1172/](https://xkcd.com/1172/)

