I thought the last paragraph of the main article was interesting. They admit that they chose to default to xorg over wayland in the distro because it worked better without hardware acceleration. Now they're ranting that their users are using xorg?
At work I have deprecated many older software components in favor of implementing newer, less painful to maintain ones. Lots of other software engineers use those components, so a big part of it is documentation or training. Rather than harp on the flaws of the old thing, I try to objectively present the lessons learned from it, with an emphasis on all the good aspects of the original that carried forward into the replacement. That generally makes the transition smoother, especially for getting buy-in from the folk that were involved with developing the original implementation. I also wouldn't tell someone not to use an existing component that works, unless I have a concrete recommendation for a better alternative.
At work I have deprecated many older software components in favor of implementing newer, less painful to maintain ones.
That's great, but know that you're optimizing your QoL over the users'. If and when that new shiny thing becomes an objective improvement of the user experience, only then will users share your joy of switching to something easier to maintain. Just don't expect, or even worse, force users to switch just because it makes life easier for you.
I also wouldn't tell someone not to use an existing component that works, unless I have a concrete recommendation for a better alternative.
Yes, this is key. And precisely what the person in TFA is failing to do. UX >>> DX, always.
I work on embedded systems that are rarely user facing, so ease of maintenance tends to directly improve the customer's experience for the overall system.
Comments
I thought the last paragraph of the main article was interesting. They admit that they chose to default to xorg over wayland in the distro because it worked better without hardware acceleration. Now they're ranting that their users are using xorg?
At work I have deprecated many older software components in favor of implementing newer, less painful to maintain ones. Lots of other software engineers use those components, so a big part of it is documentation or training. Rather than harp on the flaws of the old thing, I try to objectively present the lessons learned from it, with an emphasis on all the good aspects of the original that carried forward into the replacement. That generally makes the transition smoother, especially for getting buy-in from the folk that were involved with developing the original implementation. I also wouldn't tell someone not to use an existing component that works, unless I have a concrete recommendation for a better alternative.
That's great, but know that you're optimizing your QoL over the users'. If and when that new shiny thing becomes an objective improvement of the user experience, only then will users share your joy of switching to something easier to maintain. Just don't expect, or even worse, force users to switch just because it makes life easier for you.
Yes, this is key. And precisely what the person in TFA is failing to do. UX >>> DX, always.
I work on embedded systems that are rarely user facing, so ease of maintenance tends to directly improve the customer's experience for the overall system.