Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Apr 2011 17:50 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Gnome The day is finally here, the day that the GNOME team releases GNOME 3.0, the first major revision of the GNOME project since 2002. Little of GNOME 2.x is left in GNOME 3.0, and as such, you could call it GNOME's KDE4. We're living in fortunate times, what, with two wildly divergent open source desktops.
Order by: Score:
Sigh...
by cypress on Wed 6th Apr 2011 17:58 UTC
cypress
Member since:
2005-07-11

I hate what they did to my GNOME... In a world here user interfaces are standard (close buttons, taskbar, start menu), GNOME 3 will fail harder than KDE 4 did...

Reply Score: 12

RE: Sigh...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 6th Apr 2011 18:52 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I hate what they did to my GNOME... In a world here user interfaces are standard (close buttons, taskbar, start menu), GNOME 3 will fail harder than KDE 4 did...


I abandoned KDE forever since KDE 4 and I moved to GNOME... And now? Shall I have to abandon GNOME as well?
And then? Move to XFCE4 or forget Linux altogether?
My only regret is that my core i7 laptop PC was 999 Euro, whilst a core i7 MacBook Pro is 2499 Euro.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Sigh...
by danieldk on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Indeed. I switched mostly to OS X full time, but I still loved GNOME on a Linux machine that I use occasionally. The nicest thing about GNOME was that progress was evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. That day has now gone by. You can completely overhaul a user interface, but do it over the course of a few years.

At the very least OS X and Windows don't force a completely new UI down everyone's throats in a whim.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Sigh...
by phoenix on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Windows 3.11 --> Windows 95: drastically different UI.

Windows NT 3.x --> Windows NT 4.0: drastically different UI.

Windows 2K/9x --> Windows XP: drastically different UI.

Windows XP --> Windows 7: drastically different UI.

Same for their Office suites (Office 2.0 -> 6.0 -> 95 -> 2003 -> 2007).

Yeah, it's great that Microsoft doesn't foist radically different UIs onto it's users :roll-eyes: Especially considering how little benefit there actually is to the new interface(s) compared to the old.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Sigh...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually you're mistaken in regard to Win2K/9X and switch to later versions. UI!=GUI.

Apart from skinning there is no particular difference between Windows 95 and Windows XP in the way you interact with the Desktop. Windows 7 is merely minor differences on that particular implementation of the Desktop Metaphor.

There is also no particularly difference for earlier versions of MS Office. Not until 2007 does anything major happen, apart from the ever creasing number of menu items and toolbar buttons.

From a UI perspective there is very little difference on the first Mac and Windows 7 or XFCE - or even KDE4. The Gnome Shell deviates strongly, and is pushing me towards KDE4, since I don't mind giving up on GTK ;)

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Sigh...
by tylerdurden on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Other than the interface being completely different, the location and behavior of the main system components in the UI being fundamentally altered. Yeah, you're right there are "minor" differences across those windows versions.

Apparently, a GUI for some people only consists of "close window" functionality, and the location of the "start" button (which actually stops the machine, but who is really paying attention).

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Sigh...
by seanpk on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
seanpk Member since:
2009-11-17

indeed - between windows 95 and windows xp, the only time I noticed a difference was when I "moved backwards" and found some feature missing

MS really did do a good job evolving their UI across those releases

I found Vista and 7 to be a bigger step from XP, but not nearly as much as 3.1 to 95.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sigh...
by Neolander on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Actually you're mistaken in regard to Win2K/9X and switch to later versions. UI!=GUI.

Apart from skinning there is no particular difference between Windows 95 and Windows XP in the way you interact with the Desktop. Windows 7 is merely minor differences on that particular implementation of the Desktop Metaphor.

Ever heard of that thing which Windows Vista called its file explorer? Or the regular mutations of the Control Panel in NT?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Sigh...
by lucas_maximus on Thu 7th Apr 2011 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Most GUI elements in XP worked the same, Configuration Items were indeed different. However the amount of configuration in VISTA and 7 needed is far lower than Windows XP and lower.

Reorganising control panel items isn't "changing the UI".

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Sigh...
by danieldk on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95/NT4 was quite a change indeed. But I disagree on newer versions. I rarely use Windows, but the small amount of 'Windows UI knowledge' was effortlessly transferable between Windows versions.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Sigh...
by tylerdurden on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

And same could be said about this gnome transition.

So I fail to see why is it that what was good for the goose is now so awful for the gander.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Sigh...
by ralph on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Have you actually tried Gnome Shell?

It's really completely different from Gnome 2. This doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it certainly is a bigger change than even changing from Win95 to 7 would be.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

the NT4-->XP-->Vista/7 ui changes were not that drastic, not near as Gnome 2.x to Gnome 3, and to suggest otherwise is just trolling.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Sigh...
by Icaria on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

XP-Vista gave you a whole new HIG, 500 new widgets, a reworked graphical stack and a tonne of more obscure functionality and options. That's not necessarily a bad thing (although I have my complaints) but it was a radical departure, nonetheless.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 7th Apr 2011 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You have a very incorrect definition of the word radical. This is the first 2 definitions from dictionary.com:

rad·i·cal
   [rad-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2.
thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.

The changes in the Windows UI, over the years, do not meet this definition. The fundamental UI paradigm in Windows has not changed since Windows 95. None of the changes in Windows approach the changes in OS X, or of the massive fundamental changes being attempted with Gnome Shell or Unity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Sigh...
by Icaria on Thu 7th Apr 2011 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

You have a very incorrect definition of the word radical.
And you haven't demonstrated that my usage was incorrect; you've merely defined radical, good for you.

or of the massive fundamental changes being attempted with Gnome Shell
Right. They're introducing hardware accelerated compositing... or was that Vista. They've bumped the toolkit up a notch... oh, wait, Vista. They've shaken up the main menu and added search... like Vista did. They've fucked with the directory hierarchy in an effort to bring more robust database-like functionality to the desktop, like Vista (and taken further with 7). They've made invasive changes to the way applications look and behave, Vista. They've made major changes to the configuration dialogues, like Vista. They only thing they've done which is particularly unique was shake up users' work flows but then Win 7 was hot on Vista's heels to do that, too.

...approach the changes in OS X...or Unity
You're taking the piss, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sigh...
by Luminair on Thu 7th Apr 2011 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Windows 3.11 --> Windows 95: drastically different UI.

Windows NT 3.x --> Windows NT 4.0: drastically different UI.

Windows 2K/9x --> Windows XP: drastically different UI.

Windows XP --> Windows 7: drastically different UI.

Same for their Office suites (Office 2.0 -> 6.0 -> 95 -> 2003 -> 2007).

Yeah, it's great that Microsoft doesn't foist radically different UIs onto it's users :roll-eyes: Especially considering how little benefit there actually is to the new interface(s) compared to the old.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8K87H3T1UU#t=27s

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sigh...
by toblerone on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
toblerone Member since:
2008-12-11

There is a group of enthusiastic OS afficianados in Redmond. They have a promising little OS called Windows 7, gets updated regularily and starts to look promising, show them your support. Their website is www.microsoft.com, might be out of date though - so perhaps just google them ...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sigh...
by marcus0263 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

You don't have to use Gnome Shell, IMO it's going to be as successful as "New Coke". Anyway with Gnome Shell and Ubuntu also going with that crap "Unity" is many reason why to use Linux Mint. They have no plans on moving to either Gnome Shell or that crap interface Unity.

Give it a shot

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sigh...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't have to use Gnome Shell, IMO it's going to be as successful as "New Coke". Anyway with Gnome Shell and Ubuntu also going with that crap "Unity" is many reason why to use Linux Mint. They have no plans on moving to either Gnome Shell or that crap interface Unity.

Give it a shot


For that matter I am planning to use Debian Stable for a while. But after that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sigh...
by porcel on Thu 7th Apr 2011 09:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

KDE4 is amazingly beautiful and easy to use.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Sigh...
by Alexander on Thu 7th Apr 2011 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
Alexander Member since:
2011-03-19

KDE4 is amazingly beautiful and easy to use.

OK

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Sigh...
by pepa on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

I feared that gnome-panel would be unmaintained in the near future, but apparently it will be available as an option. (?)
Also, it is possible to use the Desktop as a... desktop, I mean, you can put files on it that you are working on (as I do extensively).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sigh...
by Lennie on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

XFCE4 is now pretty high on my list, almost at the top.

I just did a little experiment and an XFCE4 install can look mostly like GNOME in about 20 minutes of tweaking.

I might go back to Debian on the desktop, in that case with XFCE4 if I don't like what GNOME or Ubuntu come up with.

And Thunar is much faster than Nautilus anyway. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sigh...
by seanpk on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
seanpk Member since:
2009-11-17

Xfce has been my main work desktop for 2 years. It is great - I'm still using the 4.6 at work, but have tried 4.8 - which is even better.

With distro refreshes starting to pick up Xfce 4.8, it is a great time to give it a spin!

Or better yet, look at what Mint has done:
http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1725
You get a debian testing base, with whatever Xfce version is there + all the Mint-ism.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sigh...
by v_bobok on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
v_bobok Member since:
2008-08-01

Delicious hackintosh. On i7 it might even work... kinda.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Sigh...
by Anonymous Penguin on Thu 7th Apr 2011 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Delicious hackintosh. On i7 it might even work... kinda.

I am an administrator of the largest hackintosh forum and, believe me, hackintoshing a laptop is not a great idea. That is because, contrary to desktops, you can't choose the most compatible parts one by one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sigh...
by lemur2 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I hate what they did to my GNOME... In a world here user interfaces are standard (close buttons, taskbar, start menu), GNOME 3 will fail harder than KDE 4 did...
I abandoned KDE forever since KDE 4 and I moved to GNOME... And now? Shall I have to abandon GNOME as well? And then? Move to XFCE4 or forget Linux altogether? My only regret is that my core i7 laptop PC was 999 Euro, whilst a core i7 MacBook Pro is 2499 Euro. "

You could try a move back to KDE. KDE 4.6 is the best current desktop system out there, bar none. The one and only problem was KDE 4.0 wasn't ready for ordinary users, the developers said so, but distributions shipped it anyway. KDE has recovered from that fiasco ages ago now.

Such a shame if you won't even give the best desktop system available to you right now a try. Your loss, though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sigh...
by Aragorn992 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

The one and only problem was KDE 4.0 wasn't ready for ordinary users, the developers said so, but distributions shipped it anyway.


I've seen that argument used alot in the past few weeks. If it wasn't ready for ordinary users then why did they call it KDE 4.0 and not KDE 4.0 BETA?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sigh...
by lucas_maximus on Thu 7th Apr 2011 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Windows 7 and MacOSX are better ... it is purely subjective topic. If he doesn't like it ... he doesn't like it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sigh...
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I abandoned KDE forever since KDE 4 and I moved to GNOME... And now? Shall I have to abandon GNOME as well?
And then? Move to XFCE4 or forget Linux altogether?
My only regret is that my core i7 laptop PC was 999 Euro, whilst a core i7 MacBook Pro is 2499 Euro.


The one thing that always confused me with the open source world is that they'll strike a perfect idea and then completely f--k it within a few releases. GNOME 2.x in my books is a great desktop and if GNOME 3.x was merely some refactoring underneath components with GTK+/GLIB/ATK given an overhauling, speed improvements, refinement in the interface for better consistency and improving the individual applications that make up GNOME it would be a strong 3.x upgrade. What have we got with GNOME 3.x? it as though those who were designing simply decided to be different for the sake of being different - "its a big number revision we better do something that shows things have really changed!".

Mac OS X and Windows haven't stagnated, the developers at said companies have realised they're onto a good thing and now in the process of refining and smoothing out the rough edges - why couldn't GNOME developers do the same thing? GNOME is already a good desktop, why was the time wasted in re-inventing the wheel when it could have been better spent on improving the bundled applications for starters.

As for the MacBook Pro - I learned long ago you purchase what works for you and if it means you pay a few extra dollars for something that allows you to keep your sanity then so be it. Btw, price for price comparisons are meaningless - if you were in New Zealand I'd take you down to Dick Smiths and show you the obvious problem with saying, "but the MacBook Pro is more expensive!" without actually having a look at the device and using it. Going off on a tangent, two things that come to mind for example are battery life and build quality - how many of these i7's are chocked full of desktop components with a giant screen which are little more than 'desktop replacements' rather than being actual laptops - when I purchase a laptop I want to use it for 5+ hours on battery rather than being told that I should be satisfied with a 2-3 hour battery life. The build quality is also important - go through the local big box store and check out the amount of cheap plastic garbage being sold and a tonne of bling clipped on to give the appearance that it less cheap looking than it really is.

Edited 2011-04-07 04:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Sigh...
by tuma324 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

"I abandoned KDE forever since KDE 4 and I moved to GNOME... And now? Shall I have to abandon GNOME as well?
And then? Move to XFCE4 or forget Linux altogether?
My only regret is that my core i7 laptop PC was 999 Euro, whilst a core i7 MacBook Pro is 2499 Euro.


The one thing that always confused me with the open source world is that they'll strike a perfect idea and then completely f--k it within a few releases. GNOME 2.x in my books is a great desktop and if GNOME 3.x was merely some refactoring underneath components with GTK+/GLIB/ATK given an overhauling, speed improvements, refinement in the interface for better consistency and improving the individual applications that make up GNOME it would be a strong 3.x upgrade. What have we got with GNOME 3.x? it as though those who were designing simply decided to be different for the sake of being different - "its a big number revision we better do something that shows things have really changed!".
"

The GNOME 2.x interface is dated, GNOME 3 provides a new and innovative interface.


Mac OS X and Windows haven't stagnated, the developers at said companies have realised they're onto a good thing and now in the process of refining and smoothing out the rough edges - why couldn't GNOME developers do the same thing?


Because GNOME is not Mac OS X or Windows. In a few years you will probably realize that moving forward with the GUI is also important.

Learn to adapt yourself to changes, it's not that hard, it will only do you good.

Edited 2011-04-07 07:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sigh...
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The GNOME 2.x interface is dated, GNOME 3 provides a new and innovative interface.


But how is it 'dated'? I never said that it should remain static, as I implied in the prior post the primary focus should be on the backend with the UI keeping the same but with some refinements. The GNOME way of doing things work, sure the new preferences in GNOME 3.0 is really nice but it could have been achieved without the need of GNOME shell appearing. Personally I would have sooner seen the move to the 'global menu' idea that was floated at one point than seeing the GNOME shell but then again since I don't use GNOME my opinion doesn't really count for much at the end of the day.

Because GNOME is not Mac OS X or Windows. In a few years you will probably realize that moving forward with the GUI is also important.

Learn to adapt yourself to changes, it's not that hard, it will only do you good.


I suggest you look through Macrumors at the wailing and gnashing of teeth when it comes to people complaining about some pretty trivial changes that have appeared in Mac OS X Lion. I'm not complaining about these changes, I think change is good if done for the right reasons but one has to realise that for the vast majority of people they have never learned the fundamental conceptual underpinnings of a UI thus any slight change to the UI throws them off.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Sigh...
by tuma324 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

"The GNOME 2.x interface is dated, GNOME 3 provides a new and innovative interface.


But how is it 'dated'? I never said that it should remain static, as I implied in the prior post the primary focus should be on the backend with the UI keeping the same but with some refinements. The GNOME way of doing things work, sure the new preferences in GNOME 3.0 is really nice but it could have been achieved without the need of GNOME shell appearing. Personally I would have sooner seen the move to the 'global menu' idea that was floated at one point than seeing the GNOME shell but then again since I don't use GNOME my opinion doesn't really count for much at the end of the day.

Because GNOME is not Mac OS X or Windows. In a few years you will probably realize that moving forward with the GUI is also important.

Learn to adapt yourself to changes, it's not that hard, it will only do you good.


I suggest you look through Macrumors at the wailing and gnashing of teeth when it comes to people complaining about some pretty trivial changes that have appeared in Mac OS X Lion. I'm not complaining about these changes, I think change is good if done for the right reasons but one has to realise that for the vast majority of people they have never learned the fundamental conceptual underpinnings of a UI thus any slight change to the UI throws them off.
"

Incremental development and changes is nice as you say, but there has to be a point where you have to say "Let's recreate this desktop and make it 1000 times better." or whatever they said. And then start from scratch, looking for the future, and write something more beautiful than before with strong foundations for the present and future, something that doesn't look just beautiful but something that is easy to maintain and something that performs better in every way.

How is that a bad thing? It has to be done sooner or later, we can't just make incremental and little tweaks to a desktop that is showing its age when the competition (KDE4, Windows, Mac OS X) look much better in just every aspect of their GUI.

I think the GNOME team did a great job with GNOME 3, and things like that is what we need on Linux, people who are brave enough to say "We can do better than this and we will do it.". and I believe that's good, competition and innovation is good, it will only benefit the users in the long run, and I hope Desktop Linux continues with that path, I hope running the major DEs on Wayland is the next thing.

I understand that it might be annoying for some users to have to relearn the Desktop, but I don't think it'll be that hard, I mean, it's not that different and it's not that bad if you think about it, it just depends how you look at it.

Edited 2011-04-07 21:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sigh...
by fran on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Initially getting used to a new interface will be hard.
After getting used it I think the majority will love it and see its benefits.

Digressing a bit, but I want to use an example of a recent experience I had.

Few weeks back I worked on an Apple for the first time.
This is at client that uses a combination of Apple and Windows computers. (Apple's for the managers and Windows for the staff)
He needed to run a new program that requires pararels in order to run it.
He decided against it and use one of the other Windows computers for this specific task. (In a previous conversation I recalled him saying that Macs are easier to use.) This necessitated me to train him on how to work on a windows computer effectively.

While I trained him I managed to change his view on Windows being hard to use in about 15 minutes.
I showed him how to use Windows explorer, get to the control panel and see the options and most importantly to him how to add shortcuts to frequently used folders on his desktop and/or pin this to taskbar for quick access.
I still however am having problems convincing him to switch the Firebird email since they used Live mail in which you can’t create subfolders (Which they really need)

What I'm getting at..Take 30 minutes learn the new interface. This will only leave repetition to drill in the new way of working.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sigh...
by sdeber on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06

It is not the matter of getting used to a new way of doing things. Gnome-shell has something physically missing. Say when you have a lot of windows open, how would you navigate among them? Either use alt-tab or go to Activities first. Either way involves extra steps.
What sucks more is that the global picture of opened windows will not present itself unless you do extra clicking. Why does it bug me? because I want to check the windows list with my eyes ONLY, not my eyes and my hands together.

Edited 2011-04-06 20:00 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Sigh...
by jonnjonzzn on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
jonnjonzzn Member since:
2010-01-18

I believe that's exactly the point of this interface design. Focus on a single task or few tasks. Minimize clutter and visual distraction.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sigh...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I believe that's exactly the point of this interface design. Focus on a single task or few tasks. Minimize clutter and visual distraction.

...and make it more difficult to efficiently use multitasking.

Yeah, great idea during a time when processors fly and computers have tons of memory available for just about anything its user might want to do, and then sone. Problem is, GNOME is about 15-25 years too late. This kind of thing would have been *great* ages ago...

Hardware takes us several steps forward and continues to improve... while GNOME tries to take us decades back in functionality.

Sounds like something Microsoft or Apple would do... but they have a reason: Microsoft can sell a more functional, more expensive license to those who want more features and power (ie. Starter -> Home Premium or Professional), while Apple is trying to sell shiny white overpriced hardware to computer-illiterate users and going for the lowest common denominator is the way to do it.

GNOME... I'm not sure what they're trying to prove, given that they're throwing away just about everything when it comes to modern UI design. They sure can't be trying to steal Mac OS X users through ease of use and familiarity as they were often accused of in the past, since GNOME 3 doesn't act anything like Mac OS X (let alone anything else).

That said, I am interested to try Gnome Shell again (tried it before very briefly, wasn't too impressed then) and see it evolve. Hopefully it pulls a KDE4 and steadily improves while diminishing all of its shortcomings... but if Gnome 2 was any indication, it's more likely to diminish more functionality.

Yeah, I'm prepared to be modded straight down to hell for this. Fire away.

Edited 2011-04-06 22:57 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Sigh...
by Mystilleef on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Unfortunately, the reality is that humans aren't good at multitasking. Actually, we're terrible at it. Thus it's prudent to design interfaces and workflows with a single-tasking bent as opposed to multitasking one. This is something GNOME Shell actually got right from a cognitive design perspective!

There are many studies that show that we are terrible at multitasking. Google is your friend. Here's a link to one of them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794

Edited 2011-04-06 23:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Sigh...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Despite what the studies might say, not *everyone* is utterly incapable of multitasking. Some people are actually more productive with it. Are those people supposed to stoop down to the majority's level? If so, why even buy computers with gigabytes of RAM? And tabbed browsing? Get rid of that too--can't have too many Web pages on your mind, now. Might as well go back to 512MB-1GB, tops, if we're going to throw effective multi-tasking out the window. It's a good thing GNOME has tons of competition.

Edited 2011-04-06 23:21 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Sigh...
by Mystilleef on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Most people are capable of multitasking. They're just bad at it. For
example, people are very capable of talking on the phone and driving.
However, the chances of an accident increases dramatically when they do
that. Add 2 more activities such as eating and brushing your hair and
then chances of having an accident becomes certain.

Can people talk on the phone, eat, brush their hair and drive at the
same time? Yes. How well will they perform all these tasks? Not too well.
Should people do this? No. Why? People are not good at multitasking.

There's an increasing consensus in the Nueroscientific community that
multitasking actually decreases productivity and not the other way
round. This is due to the expense of context switching and the energy
spent refocusing (entering into a state of flow) when switching to the
new tasks. And also due to the fact that the brain can't multitask as
far as we know.

You are better off readjusting your workflow to eliminate multitasking.
Multitasking is cool for computers (hence more ram and cpu power is
welcome, plus new software can't get enough of them), but not for us
humans.

The whole point of GNOME Shell is to reduce multitasking so you don't
have to switch focus too often. That's why, for example, instant
messaging is baked into the Shell. As more apps adopt this design
philosophy, hopefully in the near future switching back and forth to
different apps will become irrelevant. So also will starring at the
task bar.

This link shows articles and studies that show how multitasking is bad
for productivity.

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=multit...

Edited 2011-04-06 23:38 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Sigh...
by cmost on Thu 7th Apr 2011 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Despite what the studies might say, not *everyone* is utterly incapable of multitasking. Some people are actually more productive with it. Are those people supposed to stoop down to the majority's level? If so, why even buy computers with gigabytes of RAM? And tabbed browsing? Get rid of that too--can't have too many Web pages on your mind, now. Might as well go back to 512MB-1GB, tops, if we're going to throw effective multi-tasking out the window. It's a good thing GNOME has tons of competition.


I hate to break the news to you bud, but no matter how much you might think you excel at multi-tasking, it's utterly impossible for a human being to multi-task. Period. Sorry. While you might be able to efficiently switch between tasks, you're incapable of true multi-tasking, as is everyone. I only wish I could convince others, like the ones hurtling down the expressway at 80 mph while yapping on a smartphone, of this fact.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Sigh...
by Sauron on Thu 7th Apr 2011 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Unfortunately, the reality is that humans aren't good at multitasking. Actually, we're terrible at it. Thus it's prudent to design interfaces and workflows with a single-tasking bent as opposed to multitasking one. This is something GNOME Shell actually got right from a cognitive design perspective!

There are many studies that show that we are terrible at multitasking. Google is your friend. Here's a link to one of them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794


Sorry but not everyone is bad at multitasking. I and many millions of others was multitasking just fine 20 years ago on the old Commodore Amiga. Now they want to make Gnome hard to multitask or even incapable of doing this? This is a couple of decades step backward at least! Thankfully we have KDE, XFCE and E17 to fall back on. Gnome is now unusable for me personaly, would even prefer using Workbench 1.2 off floppy disks again than Gnome in this state!

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Sigh...
by Mystilleef on Thu 7th Apr 2011 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Your misinformed. Multitasking is well and alive in GNOME 3. After all, it runs on Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Sigh...
by orestes on Thu 7th Apr 2011 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a rather pretentious assumption for any designer to force on the userbase.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Sigh...
by pepa on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

Exactly because we are so bad at multitasking, it will be helpful to have a list of things that you're working on available for viewing at all times. I have read that gnome-panel will keep being available in Gnome 3 (?) which provides exactly that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Sigh...
by Mystilleef on Thu 7th Apr 2011 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

A list of running applications are available for viewing at all times in GNOME 3. The only difference is that in GNOME 3 the list of applications are __not__ competing for your attention and focus. Nobody cares what applications are running in the background when they have __work__ to do.

The GNOME panels are only available in fallback mode in GNOME 3.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Sigh...
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Sounds like something Microsoft or Apple would do... but they have a reason: Microsoft can sell a more functional, more expensive license to those who want more features and power (ie. Starter -> Home Premium or Professional), while Apple is trying to sell shiny white overpriced hardware to computer-illiterate users and going for the lowest common denominator is the way to do it.


Wow, such blinding ignorance is mind boggling, and I've been on this website for just over 9 years (prior to the existing registration system that exists today). If you don't mind sunshine, us Mac users aren't all 'computer-illiterate users' who are simply attracted to 'shiny white overpriced hardware' (as your post implied) - some of us have IT backgrounds with many other users knowing how to use a computer and have indepth knowledge but no longer wish to play 'nurse' to their computer. Some of us are actually happy not to worry about our computers because some of us have other stuff in our lives to focus on rather than to be constantly nursing something that should take care of itself.

Btw, I have earned by Linux/*BSD/Solaris stripes and if you want to use those operating systems then all power to you but don't come on this forum all high and mighty thinking that pushes you up to the totem pole of prestige any more than other people who have been posting on this website since it first opened.

Edited 2011-04-07 04:47 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Sigh...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Wow, such blinding ignorance is mind boggling, and I've been on this website for just over 9 years (prior to the existing registration system that exists today). If you don't mind sunshine, us Mac users aren't all 'computer-illiterate users' who are simply attracted to 'shiny white overpriced hardware' (as your post implied) - some of us have IT backgrounds with many other users knowing how to use a computer and have indepth knowledge but no longer wish to play 'nurse' to their computer. Some of us are actually happy not to worry about our computers because some of us have other stuff in our lives to focus on rather than to be constantly nursing something that should take care of itself.

I didn't say that *all* Mac users actually *are* computer-illiterate--I implied that those are the people Apple primarily markets to. Obviously there are exceptions (when aren't there?), and different types of people get Macs (Leo Laporte likes them, and he's certainly not computer-illiterate), but you can't deny that Apple tries its hardest to dumb things down and make a walled garden where things get done *their* way or not at all, all in an effort to make it as "user-friendly" as possible.

If I were to brew a craft beer and advertise it with rainbow-colored zebras, I'm sure some male beer connoisseurs would try it too, not just the women its advertising material (including logos) might be expected to attract. Just look at Delirium Tremens with its pink elephants (case in point: I need to try that one...).

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Sigh...
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't say that *all* Mac users actually *are* computer-illiterate--I implied that those are the people Apple primarily markets to.


Microsoft does that too but they bank on their entrenchment within the enterprise to carry them through into the consumer desktop - "gotta have at home what I have at work" is the mentality of so many who would consider an alternative but believe if it isn't the same as work then all hell will break loose.

Obviously there are exceptions (when aren't there?), and different types of people get Macs (Leo Laporte likes them, and he's certainly not computer-illiterate), but you can't deny that Apple tries its hardest to dumb things down and make a walled garden where things get done *their* way or not at all, all in an effort to make it as "user-friendly" as possible.


What is so bad about the AppStore - you can install load applications on your computer today and into the future without relying on it (no, I don't indulge in the fantasies 1984 like conspiracies that Apple will turn it into an iOS device) and I like the fact that with the AppStore they tell developers that they're not allowed to use private API's or rely on external libraries that are not bundled with their applications. Far too often I've had applications break because some dim bulb at said software company thought it would be cool to use a private API because they were too lazy to implement said functionality themselves. If it means that the AppStore forces software companies to bundle everything they need in a self contained application then I'd sooner have that than the mess that exists- especially when it comes to Adobe and their ability to sprawl shit from one end of the hard disk another (the only thing worse than the uninstaller from Adobe is one from Symantec to uninstall Norton Anti-Virus).

If I were to brew a craft beer and advertise it with rainbow-colored zebras, I'm sure some male beer connoisseurs would try it too, not just the women its advertising material (including logos) might be expected to attract. Just look at Delirium Tremens with its pink elephants (case in point: I need to try that one...).


*shrugs* But I'm sure the vast majority would buy one and keep buying one if it tasted good - no one would keep purchasing a beer that tastes horrible if the only satisfaction is viewing the logo on the front. In the case of the Mac the 'look' might pull in the customer but something has to keep them there beyond just 'teh shiny' and Apple knows that if their product isn't up to what customers demand then they'll simply decide to go with another vendor. Those people tell others of their negative experience and their over all sales drop. If we were talking about 'mindless purchasing' then common sense would dictate that the path of least resistance (purchase a Windows computer) would have the largest number of informed people due to their non-interest in any alternatives ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sigh...
by grat on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I believe that's exactly the point of this interface design. Focus on a single task or few tasks. Minimize clutter and visual distraction.


My 6 virtual desktops with a viewport of 2560x1024 allows me to minimize clutter, avoid distraction, and jump to any running application with no more than two clicks on the taskbar.

And then for comic relief, I can move the mouse to one corner, and show all my active windows on my current screen.

I want a desktop that works for me... not a desktop that I have to learn to work for.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sigh...
by SlackerJack on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:16 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

GNOME 3 is in no way like the KDE4.0 release was. For one, GNOME 3 has printing, bluetooth, network manager and other needs stuff on it's release.

People seem to have it in their head that every new Linux DE release will fail and people will not like it. This is a mind set problem by users and doesn't do Linux any good at all when trying to innovate the desktop.

Well done to the GNOME team for an excellent release. I am very happy with it and it's very usable.

Edited 2011-04-06 20:29 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Sigh...
by sramkrishna on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
sramkrishna Member since:
2007-06-25

Read the GNOME Journal article on the design. I think you'll find it very interesting (http://www.gnomejournal.org/)

But GNOME 3 is the first unixy desktop that actually subsumes printing, network, bluetooth, services all under one consistent interface.

Which of course, you can also all access using extensions.

Reply Score: 1

The Torpedo of IT Truth Tour
by fretinator on Wed 6th Apr 2011 18:15 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Experts tell us users do not need maximize or minimize buttons.

2. Experts also tell us that menu's are a waste of time.

3. Users tell the experts - screw you!

Reply Score: 28

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Can't mod you up, so I'll just say Thank you, very much ;)

Reply Score: 2

Tested it for a few hours
by No it isnt on Wed 6th Apr 2011 18:15 UTC
No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

I thought it was pretty good for a .0 release, at least one with such a radical departure from the previous version. Some things do need to be fixed, especially in the GUI, as the whole Gnome Shell simply uses too much space. For instance, instead of getting an app menu by the push of a button, you now get a exposé-like effect when pushing the pointer up into the top right corner, and from there you can get applications icons covering the entire screen instead of a simple menu. Naturally, this means you have to look over a much bigger area. Oh, and to change to a different app folder, you have to go all the way over to the right side of the screen and choose eg. Internet or Graphics.

The biggest problem for me was that it broke audio entirely, and after a while I got fed up trying to fix it, and switched back to KDE.

It's less flaky than KDE 4.0, less bloated than OS X 10.0 and Windows Vista, but a more radical change. Just for that, I think it's a decent start.

Oh, and despite some design tweaks needing to be made, it's not at all difficult to use. The launcher, especially, is just too spacious.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Tested it for a few hours
by orestes on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:03 UTC in reply to "Tested it for a few hours"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to give the Gnome team some credit here. They actually learned from their own 2.0 release and KDE 4.0 in that they've been replacing key components in Gnome 2.x with the new 3.0 libraries for quite some time now.

Now the question is whether distros will also have learned and show restraint in running out to make it the default desktop till it's fully ready

Edited 2011-04-06 19:04 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Tested it for a few hours
by vivainio on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Tested it for a few hours"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

They actually learned from their own 2.0 release and KDE 4.0 in that they've been replacing key components in Gnome 2.x with the new 3.0 libraries for quite some time now.


To be fair to KDE4, difference b/w gtk2 and gtk3 are nowhere even close to difference b/w Qt3 and Qt4.

Reply Score: 12

RE[3]: Tested it for a few hours
by orestes on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tested it for a few hours"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Which is why the KDE team should've known better than to push a beta quality release into the mainstream before the associated apps had a chance to properly catch up.

The Gnome team went for continuity and as smooth a transition as possible incrementally updating during the entire lifespan of the 2.x series and pruning out old code before finally switching a good portion of the 2.x releases over to the new libraries. You end up in a position where it's entirely feasible to support Gnome Classic in parallel with Gnome-shell for a long time to come, should the market prove to prefer it that way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Tested it for a few hours
by lemur2 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tested it for a few hours"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Which is why the KDE team should've known better than to push a beta quality release into the mainstream before the associated apps had a chance to properly catch up.


The KDE team didn't do that, the various distributions did. The KDE team said they wanted people to try KDE 4.0, in order to get feedback. They did not say they wanted people to use KDE 4.0 as their primary desktop ... it wasn't ready for that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Tested it for a few hours
by orestes on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Tested it for a few hours"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

They deliberately released admittedly beta quality code as a point zero release and then tried to justify it by attempting to redefine the standard expectations of what a point zero release is for the sake of getting wider testing. I'll agree that the distros were partially to blame for pushing it as a replacement for 3.x so early, but they aren't solely to blame by a long shot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Tested it for a few hours
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Tested it for a few hours"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They deliberately released admittedly beta quality code as a point zero release and then tried to justify it by attempting to redefine the standard expectations of what a point zero release is for the sake of getting wider testing. I'll agree that the distros were partially to blame for pushing it as a replacement for 3.x so early, but they aren't solely to blame by a long shot.


Personally I found what KDE 4.0 no better or worse than Apple with Mac OS X 10.0 when it was first released where Apple offered machines with OS 9 and dual boot configurations, free upgrade to 10.1 for those who took the plunge first. At some point you have to get the software out there, it is hardly the fault of KDE developers if distributions ignore the advice and decide to make it a default desktop.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

10.1 was a free upgrade for customers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Tested it for a few hours
by yokem55 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tested it for a few hours"
yokem55 Member since:
2005-07-06

In late 2007, the kde folks were facing a number of chicken and egg problems that were only going to get resolved by making a release.
Internally, there was tension between the parts of KDE4 that were mature and stable (kdegames, the libs, kdebase outside of kwin & plasma) that were itching to get their work out while kwin's compositing and plasma were quite late in becoming usable and there were still other devs going on and on with blue sky work.

Kwin & plasma were needing big improvements & bug fixes in drivers and the rest of the X graphics stack, and those issues weren't going to get resolved until there were at least some users putting pressure on upstream.

So a release was scheduled, and timeline set. The schedule was pushed back twice, and plasma was still in a really, really, rough state, but once it was barely functional (launch apps, show a taskbar & half broken system tray, draw a clock, etc), they released.

Then, in the midst of all this, as a result of poor communication, several distros planning their spring releases felt the need to pick up 4.0 and drop maintenance 3.5, and by the time it was clear that 4.0 was in poor shape, it was too late to change back.

Then prior to the 4.1 release, to take advantage of some important new features in Qt, plasma was heavily reworked in a way that broke most of the widgets, and by the time 4.1 was released in July, it wasn't in much better shape.

Was it a mess? Yes. Was it the end of the world? No. Did it burn some users? Yes. Did it attract a whole bunch of new developers hacking on the code. Yep - and that is partly why KDE is in a much more mature state now.

Edited 2011-04-06 23:22 UTC

Reply Score: 5

mgraesslin Member since:
2011-04-07

I just want to correct one point: KWin was not in an unstable change in 4.0 or needed a release badly. It is true that OpenGL compositing support was new, but disabled by default. KWin did not start to enable compositing by default before 4.2.

So the KWin the user of 4.0 had was the same rock stable, feature rich window manager as used from 3.5.

Reply Score: 3

Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

The whole drawing, theme, and input system in gtk3 was overhauled. That's huge! Almost as huge as the change from qt3 to qt4. The changes open possibilities for real animation and composite framework something that was almost impossible in gtk2.

Edited 2011-04-06 20:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Tested it for a few hours
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 05:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tested it for a few hours"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The whole drawing, theme, and input system in gtk3 was overhauled. That's huge! Almost as huge as the change from qt3 to qt4. The changes open possibilities for real animation and composite framework something that was almost impossible in gtk2.


But at the same time GTK+3 is a whole lot more source compatible than qt3 to qt4 was - as long as you followed the GTK+ 'general rule of thumb' your application might need a tweak here and there but it would pale in comparison to what the transition from qt3 to qt4 required.

Reply Score: 2

Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

gtk3 is completely incompatible with gtk2 source or otherwise.

Edit:

Well you may have a point. But developers who maintain an application larger than "Hello World" would definitely have their work cut out for them.

I can't remember the details of the changes needed to port from QT3 to QT4, but I do know for most gtk developers (especially the ones that use the language bindings, there are lots of them these days) would definitely need to do a rewrite of their apps.

Migration Guide:
http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html

Edited 2011-04-07 05:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Tested it for a few hours
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Tested it for a few hours"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

gtk3 is completely incompatible with gtk2 source or otherwise.

Edit:

Well you may have a point. But developers who maintain an application larger than "Hello World" would definitely have their work cut out for them.

I can't remember the details of the changes needed to port from QT3 to QT4, but I do know for most gtk developers (especially the ones that use the language bindings, there are lots of them these days) would definitely need to do a rewrite of their apps.

Migration Guide:
http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html


I kind of wonder where OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice fits into the equation given that there is a degree of GTK+/GNOME integration but how much of a PITA is it going to be with the migration from gtk2 to gtk3. I've always wondered to what extent is the open source world better off stripping off the abstraction layer from OpenOffice.org/lIbreOffice in favour of replacing it with native front ends as to have the best native experience rather than the half baked pseudo integration that exists today.

IIRC a lot of the applications have already done the preparation work mentioned in the documentation with the last part of the migration being pretty straight forward. Although I am seeing GNOME and many open source projects becoming more and more 'Linux centric' with the lack of contributions by non-Linux developers (why isn't there a native FreeBSD backend to the GNOME features that hook back into the system?) but in the long run if it means consolidation where Linux becomes a strong number 3 competitor in the desktop world then hopefully it'll translate into more vendors will to consider providing software on said platform.

With that being said, others have pointed out that GNOME 3.x has become more of a a complete platform for developers to aim against with the desktop abstracting things such as Bluetooth and printing which should mean application writers aim for the GNOME desktop and the GNOME desktop API's take care of the rest. If GNOME keep working down this road then I see in the long term third parties seeing it as a viable environment to target.

Edited 2011-04-07 05:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

I share your sentiment on LibreOffice. I'd much prefer it be split into a backend and frontend and have each community design the frontend in their native widgets (Qt, Gtk, Windows, Quartz, etc). The frontend should of course should be designed to an accepted specification. How well this will work in practice is open for debate. I know old school unix apps back in the day used to be designed with multiple toolkits/interfaces (especially the command line interface) in mind. It wasn't hard find an application with a cli, motif, tcl/tk, gtk, gtk2 and qt interface. Maybe it's time to resurrect that culture. LibreOffice's emulation layer will eventually be ported to GTK3 but GTK2 isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm sad the BSDs are second class citizens in the free desktop ecology. I don't think their marginalization is intentional. The reality is that it takes resources to port and maintain projects to multiple platforms. At the moment the resources and momentum are skewed towards Linux. The developers have held their end of the bargain. They've worked hard to make free software available. It's now left to the community and corporations to provide funding and/or resources to make sure the software runs on ALL free software platforms. At the very least, the BSD community if they are interested in GNOME should find a way to influence the decisions in the GNOME project.

What constitutes a GNOME 3 application is not solidified. Heck GNOME 3 isn't even solidified. What we're really celebrating today is GNOME Shell and the vision that GNOME 3 might become. A lot of so called "GNOME libraries" have been pushed into GTK3. So today, if you wrote a GTK3 application you can easily get away by calling it a GNOME 3 application. I think eventually what will make an application a "real" GNOME 3 application is how well it integrates into and interacts with GNOME Shell.

From a technical perspective you can have a look at what the GNOME Platform consist of. http://developer.gnome.org/

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

This is far from "complete rewrite needed":

"Thankfully, most of the changes are not hard to adapt to and there are a number of steps that you can take to prepare your GTK+ 2.x application for the switch to GTK+ 3. After that, there's a small number of adjustments that you may have to do when you actually switch your application to build against GTK+ 3."

Reply Score: 3

RE: Tested it for a few hours
by BluenoseJake on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:10 UTC in reply to "Tested it for a few hours"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You do know that Vista and OS X are whole operating systems, and by that measure, they includes various services, a kernel, and other components that Gnome, being just a DE, does not supply, so of course they are more "bloated" then Gnome.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Tested it for a few hours
by No it isnt on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Tested it for a few hours"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

"Of course"? Of course not. Gnome depends on a bunch of operating system services to run. I never claimed to run Gnome with no operating system. Your nitpicking is uninteresting and stupid.

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It's not nitpicking, it's a serious statement, you can't compare a DE to an entire OS, it just doesn't work that way, you can't even compare Gnome to Gnome on different FOSS operating systems, because Gnome on BSD is going to be a hell of a lot less "bloated" then on Debian, which would be more bloated than on Debian.

This whole site is based on nitpicking, you better get used to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Tested it for a few hours
by Fusion on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:30 UTC in reply to "Tested it for a few hours"
Fusion Member since:
2005-07-18

I thought it was pretty good for a .0 release,

Absolutely agreed here! The GNOME 3.0 release is, by far, more stable and usable than my experience with OSX 10.0 and KDE 4.0...and certainly more pleasing than Windows VISTA was. One really cannot fairly compare GNOME 3.0 against KDE 4.6, OSX 10.6/7, or Win7 (basically Vista "done right")... every desktop *.0 release has significant usability issues... but based on its introduction, the GNOME 3.0 is a good start and strongly positions the platform to be great in the long-term.

The biggest problem for me was that it broke audio entirely, and after a while I got fed up trying to fix it, and switched back to KDE.

That may not be a GNOME-specific problem. Audio stacks are a bit convoluted in Linux, so unless the distro was tailored specifically for GNOME 3, you might find some quirky behavior. I could be wrong.

Some things do need to be fixed, especially in the GUI, as the whole Gnome Shell simply uses too much space.

This is/was my gut reaction as well... reflecting further, however, I think the designers might have done this intentionally. The overall shell design seems to lend itself very well towards tablet and touch-based hardware. I wonder if that (sort of "future thinking") drove this layout. [Though, they probably shouldn't bet the farm on one style. I would have preferred UI elements that adapt to the system being used---standard desktop, Tablet, portable, phone, etc.]

Overall though, component integration is well-delivered; UI is consistent; and notifications are really unobtrusive but usable. Window "snap" functionality is useful (wouldn't mind having keybindings defaulted for this though), and the type-driven app/doc finding functionality brings GNOME more on-par with Win7 & KDE4's app menu and OSX's spotlight.

The biggest hurdle is change: people, by default, tend to not like change. Sometimes benefits are less apparent simply because we're accustomed to working a specific way. And I'm guessing that, in areas where users are unable to adapt, the desktop will be changed to fill that usability gap. Time will provide those fixes... Gnome2.x,KDE4.x, and every major commercial desktop have thoroughly demonstrated that.

Come to think of it, especially with its "just type"-like actions, GNOME 3.0 sorta makes me feel like I'm working on an over-sized Palm Pre/WebOS. haha... so GNOME 3 is like a new cell phone---usability feels rigid at first because I'm used to my old phone; there's a different (but better) UI, and it's full of tricks and cool features that I'll discover over time. I think GNOME 3 will grow on me.

I'm definitely looking forward to see how user feedback, dev enhancements, and new infrastructural implementations land in future releases. I can't wait for 3.1, 3.2, and so on!

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Tested it for a few hours
by phoenix on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Tested it for a few hours"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

This is/was my gut reaction as well... reflecting further, however, I think the designers might have done this intentionally. The overall shell design seems to lend itself very well towards tablet and touch-based hardware. I wonder if that (sort of "future thinking") drove this layout. [Though, they probably shouldn't bet the farm on one style. I would have preferred UI elements that adapt to the system being used---standard desktop, Tablet, portable, phone, etc.]

Overall though, component integration is well-delivered; UI is consistent; and notifications are really unobtrusive but usable. Window "snap" functionality is useful (wouldn't mind having keybindings defaulted for this though), and the type-driven app/doc finding functionality brings GNOME more on-par with Win7 & KDE4's app menu and OSX's spotlight.


Actually, what you just described is pretty much exactly what plasma-netbook (the "small screen" desktop shell for KDE4).

Personally, and I haven't played with GNOME Shell much yet, plasma-netbook got things "more" right. Although, you do have to remove the default "launcher" bar and put back the default panel, taskbar, and systray to really make it useful.

I'm definitely looking forward to see how user feedback, dev enhancements, and new infrastructural implementations land in future releases. I can't wait for 3.1, 3.2, and so on!


Anyone tried GNOME 3.0 via an NFS-mounted / and /home? Does it work better than KDE4? Better/worse than KDE3? Better/worse than GNOME 2.x?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Tested it for a few hours
by No it isnt on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Tested it for a few hours"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

"The biggest problem for me was that it broke audio entirely, and after a while I got fed up trying to fix it, and switched back to KDE.

That may not be a GNOME-specific problem. Audio stacks are a bit convoluted in Linux, so unless the distro was tailored specifically for GNOME 3, you might find some quirky behavior. I could be wrong.
"

No, it was of course a PulseAudio problem. I don't think I had PulseAudio installed at all before, and used bare-bones ALSA, which never caused any trouble. When Pulse started on top of it, it seems to have muted one of the ALSA channels, and of course then the mixer didn't quite work and I couldn't see what was wrong. Or at least that's how it seemed after I uninstalled PulseAudio. I'll look into it some more when I reinstall it later. PulseAudio should be mature enough for general use now.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Tested it for a few hours
by Mystilleef on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "Tested it for a few hours"
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

When you are in the activities overview, just start typing the name of the application you want to launch. Typing will filter the available application icons to a manageable number and make it easier to launch the application. This is a not a smooth as it should and I'm surprised the devs didn't spend time ensuring this is less jerky than it currently is.

You should also add frequently launched application to the side dock to make launching easier.

You can also use <alt>F2 to launch applications if you don't want to switch to the activities overview mode. It's much faster. However, it doesn't have the autocompletion features that made the run dialog in GNOME3 so useful and powerful.

Your audio problems are most likely unrelated to GNOME Shell or GNOME. Your distribution probably failed to start the right audio services for GNOME.

Reply Score: 2

It's MY CHEESE!!!
by dc.ricardo on Wed 6th Apr 2011 19:49 UTC
dc.ricardo
Member since:
2009-06-02

Isn't Linux about innovation? Developers want to hear opinions. They don't mind rejections. At least, in the free World.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Hiev on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:04 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I love GNOME Shell, I love the performance, awesome .0 release.

Thank you GNOME developers and great work.

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...
by metalf8801 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:21 UTC in reply to "..."
metalf8801 Member since:
2010-03-22

Hiev can you give some more reasons why you love gnome 3.0?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Of course.

I like the way you can switch between applications, looks like some users are having problem getting use to it but it feels natural for me.

No need to minimize windows, I already did that since GNOME 2.28, I used compiz instead of the task bar, (I just dragged the mouse to the top-right corner to trigger expose and switch between applications).

Centralized menu, the way to launch applications it is easier and intuitive.

The way it leverages the power of virtual desktops is great, I thank to them because they reused what was already there w/o the need to reinvent the wheel.

It very stable and smooth for a .0 release, this way they show respect for their users instead of using us as guinea pigs.

The notifications system doesn't get in your way with unnecessary animations, it just goes what it has to do w/o distractions.

There are many more, I have a lot of hope for the next release, I tried Unity and is not for me, GNOME Shell is more close to they way I work.

Edited 2011-04-06 20:38 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by Mystilleef on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Very well said. The devil is in the details and the GNOME Shell folks worked magic with the details. Gone are the days windows popup and jump right in front of you when you're working.

The dynamic and automatic workspace creation is just genius. I'm using workspaces the way they are supposed to be used.

The new notification system is fantastic and out of the way again to eliminate distraction.

Animations are fast, smooth, classy and out of the way. I can't reproduce any window or visual tearing with my graphics driver. So kudos to the clutter and mutter devs for finally making this a reality.

It also helps that GNOME Shell is not a visually distracting eye sore unlike Unity, which I couldn't even use for more than hour because it crashed every time I blinked.

I don't like the top bar in GNOME Shell, it's a waste of space and provides very little utility to waste that much vertical spaces which is premium on laptops and mobile devices. I've suggested it should be a floating bar that should be intelligently hidden when apps are maximized or should just be moved completely to the activities overview.

Finally, it's stable. This is what shocked me the most actually. They did a fantastic job.

Edited 2011-04-06 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by korpenkraxar on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

Good points as well sir! I completely agree here too :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by korpenkraxar on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

Good points sir! I completely agree :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 10th Apr 2011 02:28 UTC in reply to "..."
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

I love GNOME Shell, I love the performance, awesome .0 release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlhyX-4qKI

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Mystilleef
by Mystilleef on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:22 UTC
Mystilleef
Member since:
2005-06-29

I thought I'd hate it at first. But I've used it for the past 2 months exclusively and I'm now very impressed. The polish, smoothness and the focus on providing a non-distracting environment is second to none. What's more, we can't say the Linux Desktop doesn't innovate anymore. GNOME Shell is unlike anything out there.

Kudos to the devs for this bold new direction I initially mocked in secret.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Mystilleef
by sramkrishna on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Mystilleef"
sramkrishna Member since:
2007-06-25

Thanks guys, it's great to see comments like this.

Reply Score: 1

Gnome
by k.g.stoyanov on Wed 6th Apr 2011 20:57 UTC
k.g.stoyanov
Member since:
2005-07-12

It looks they did the same shit, as someone did to kde 3 with 4..Well, being modern is not being confortable, i`m driving audi 80 and i dont care about new fashion cars - mine is good, fast and unbroakable! So, it seems, i have to go with lxde, or just XP..

Reply Score: 0

Very polished, very nice, but...
by doraemon on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:32 UTC
doraemon
Member since:
2008-04-06

I want a desktop environment in a desktop computer, not a mobile computing environment.

I tried the last betas, and I found the same problem again, and again, and again, and again, and ...: no way of fast switching between windows, and total discontrol about what programs are running at the same time.

Sorry, Alt+Tab is not known by ALL users - and is slow too -... Changing windows by using "Activities" is VERY slow. It may be the new GNOME vision, but I warn that somebody should give the developers a set of new glasses :-D.

No fast access dock, no taskbar, sudden notifications without a full system tray - some people use the tray with a reason, like checking network activity and computer resources usage -. Very good for mobile computing, very bad for a modern multitasking desktop.

So much bad press and flamewars against KDE at the 4.0 launch, and now GNOME people is doing things worse than KDE people then.

Meanwhile, angry users at GNOME's door ... :-D

Reply Score: 5

korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

The Gnome 3.0 release is nothing like the KDE 4.0 release.

KDE 4.0 latter was slow, unstable and not very functional. Gnome 3.0 is smooth, stable, nice looking and indeed very functional.

Can things in Gnome 3 be improved? Certainly!
Will they improve in upcoming releases? Certainly!
Will your favorite feature be implemented? Perhaps! Start by letting them know what you think and come up with constructive ideas :-)

For many of us, Gnome 3 presents a radical shift in window and notification management. I run a huge gkrellm panel with *a lot* continuously updated sensors and data, have 10-20 programs running at the same time and many chat sessions going. Having switched between Gnome Shell and KDE 4.6 for a while, I have come to realize I am probably one of those power users who really benefit from cutting back on UI elements to avoid distraction.

In KDE 4.6 I had pretty much given up on managing windows and workspaces and I was flooded by fairly useless notifications. I never found a Plasma theme that blended well with the Oxygen widgets.

I find Gnome 3 to fit my lazy UI management better. I tend to run more programs maximized and actually bother using workspaces. I would not say I am faster in locating arbitrary windows, but instead I am more focused on what I am doing and less distracted at little or no expense to fast task switching. Could I set up KDE to emulate some of this? Probably. Would I ever bother? No. Even if I did, I would not get the performance and automated workspace management that Gnome Shell provides.

I now have gkrellm running as a window below all other windows and switch to a free workspace to look at it when I need to. I realize I could have done this before as well, but when using Gnome Shell, I somehow stand less widgets and clutter and expect a calmer interface.

Overall I am very pleased with Gnome Shell. It has a level of smoothness to it that I have yet to experience in Kwin and Plasma. I think this is just the beginning in rethinking Desktop UIs and that other DEs will develop along these lines.

Edited 2011-04-07 09:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

pashar Member since:
2006-07-12

Gnome 3.0 is smooth, stable, nice looking and indeed very functional.

Yes, it looks nice, but it is absolutely not functional. It misses a lot of functionality I'm using daily with Gnome 2. There is no easy and fast way to see what apps are running. Access to menu is slow and absolutely inconvenient - move mouse to corner, then select applications, then try to find your application among all the icons - it is very confusing even computer-literate users.

Will your favorite feature be implemented? Perhaps! Start by letting them know what you think and come up with constructive ideas :-)

I have very constuctive idea: look at the long list of features removed and implement them all. Here are just few of them, for start:
1. Make panel configurable and movable
2. Bring back all those gnome applets
3. Make things confirurable.
4. Bring back launchers
5. Make normal fallback mode, which really has features of Gnome2, not the same useless interface, but also ugly.

Reply Score: 2

korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

There is no easy and fast way to see what apps are running.


For those who need it, I think it would be nice to provide the dash (?) or similar panel on the desktop and autohide it using some "intellihide" algorithm. AFAIK, there is already work on such a dock extension:

https://piecesoflint.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/how-to-tweak-gnome-3-t...

If such a solution is inadequate, I would suggest using one of the many fine separate panels available, such as Avant Window Navigator or similar.


Access to menu is slow and absolutely inconvenient - move mouse to corner, then select applications, then try to find your application among all the icons - it is very confusing even computer-literate users.


Nah, it can also be blazing fast. Hit Win/Meta/Mod4 key and you can start typing the name of the application even before you see the search window.

I have very constuctive idea: look at the long list of features removed and implement them all. Here are just few of them, for start:
1. Make panel configurable and movable
2. Bring back all those gnome applets
3. Make things confirurable.
4. Bring back launchers
5. Make normal fallback mode, which really has features of Gnome2, not the same useless interface, but also ugly.


Yeah I too wish that those dash icons were launchers that I could right click and configure the commands for. But this is a minor speed bump for me. If these are essential to you, I suggest you stick to Gnome 2 for the foreseeable future. I am sure it will be maintained for a while or perhaps even forked by those who care for it.

Reply Score: 2

AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"Yes, it looks nice, but it is absolutely not functional. It misses a lot of functionality I'm using daily with Gnome 2. There is no easy and fast way to see what apps are running."

Why would you need to? Why does it matter what apps are running? If you need to do something, you switch to the app that does that thing. Does it matter if the app is running at present or not? Do you need to know whether an app is running in order to decide what you want to do next? Then why is this information that's so useful the desktop should waste space to tell you about _all the time_?

Reply Score: 2

Xfce all the way !
by Caraibes on Wed 6th Apr 2011 21:47 UTC
Caraibes
Member since:
2007-08-06

I am using Xfce right now on my MacBook 2.1 (single-boot Lucid 64), and I am pleased with it...
I also have a Debian Squeeze Xfce Mac iBook G3 (single-boot as well).
I believe Xfce is the way to go.
I enjoy it with a classic KDE3 look, or win2k look, taskbar on the bottom, old-fashion icons on the desktop...
I guess the best combo would be Debian Stable/Testing with Xfce...
On some boxes, Ubuntu is needed, like my MacBook 2.1, who won't single-boot Debian for some unknown reason, so I stick to LTS release...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Xfce all the way !
by Soulbender on Thu 7th Apr 2011 05:02 UTC in reply to "Xfce all the way !"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Good for you. shame this isn't about how awesome XFCE is.

Reply Score: 1

It's ahead of it's time
by tuaris on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:14 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

The GNOME 3 Shell interface was designed for touchscreens, tablets, and "mind control". The ordinary desktop computer with the old standard keyboard and mouse input is not going to be efficient for this interface.

That said, I think their design decisions may have been a little too radical (and ahead of their time) for the vast majority.

I don't expect any tablets or smart phones to run a GNOME 3 desktop, and... I don't see touch input devices phasing out the mouse and keyboard on the desktop scene anytime in the next 3 or 4 years.

Like I've said many times before, my desktop computer is not a tablet, and thus it requires a GUI that is well suited for it. The traditional desktop metaphor works well for DESKTOP computers.

Reply Score: 5

RE: It's ahead of it's time
by Mystilleef on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:23 UTC in reply to "It's ahead of it's time"
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Does it work very well? Or are you just used to it? We are creatures of habit even when the habit is bad.

Reply Score: 0

Gnome3 is great, get used to it
by stabbyjones on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:03 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

Gnome2.32 isn't the same Gnome2.0 they released, it's a moving target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#Past_releases

I have been using gnome-shell from jhbuild/experimental in one form or another for about 18 months now (2.28?) and when it broke, using Gnome2 again was PAINFUL. Painful to the point of me avoiding my computer until i could fix it.

The Gnome Team have done really well creating an environment that is a pleasure to use. Anyone complaining it hasn't actually used it as a desktop longer than a week. Or is so resistant to change that they're just looking for things to complain about.

The fundamentals are all there. (Applications menu, quick launch, open windows list, window management, workspaces, favourite app shortcuts) They've just changed some concepts you have about how they work.

Gnome3 is clean simple and gives more focus to what you're actually using your computer for. It's by no means perfect but in it's current state it's already better than any Gnome2.x release.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by t3RRa
by t3RRa on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:08 UTC
t3RRa
Member since:
2005-11-22

Let me say this first, this comment contains only my thought/impression. Not to start flame war or anything.

Not a single person spotted so here it goes. As soon as I saw the UI on their website, I thought it somewhat very similar to Unity by Ubuntu team. (Given that this aims for similar set of devices than it is understandable since there should be boundary/limitation in human imagination)

And while watching the video on the website, I thought oh this and that features are already in KDE4 and Mac OS X.. I neither know nor want to track the history of each feature anyway so I am just saying there are similar/same features already found in other DE/OS.

My final thought was that by just looking at the UI and some features shown in the video, GNOME3 looks like mimic of KDE4, Mac OS X and Unity ( in alphabetical order (: ) *to me*,

Though I guess there should be differences beyond them, until I try it out I cannot tell.

Anyway, kudos to GNOME dev team.

Edited 2011-04-06 23:09 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by t3RRa
by Mystilleef on Thu 7th Apr 2011 00:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by t3RRa"
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

The videos and screenshots don't do GNOME Shell justice. You have to use it, for at least 2 weeks, to appreciate the fact that its experience is unique among desktop environments.

Edited 2011-04-07 00:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa
by t3RRa on Thu 7th Apr 2011 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by t3RRa"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

Come on. I have already said that Though I guess there should be differences beyond them, until I try it out I cannot tell.. What I meant was that unless I try I cannot judge. and I know that. Still I could feel a bit what the experience would be like, with those videos and screenshots.

However, even they might not do full justice, if it doesn't do at all then no point of putting up screenshots or videos in the first place!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by t3RRa
by Ruahine on Thu 7th Apr 2011 00:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by t3RRa"
Ruahine Member since:
2005-07-07

Fully agree with you!

Reply Score: 1

Glad
by computrius on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:17 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

Actually Im happy to see someone finally innovating. Doing something different other than adding social networking B.S and calling THAT revolutionary.

Reply Score: 4

GNOME 3
by Jason Bourne on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:18 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

I give 1 year for the developers to take their words & design layout back and revert the good old panels again by continuing to developing the "fallback" mode and abandoning the Shell, using all the 3.x engine technologies.

GNOME 2.x had been consistent through a decade, being adopted by major distributions and its evolutionary cycle guaranteed many Windows converters. It's just now that, in effort with Canonical and GNOME, the linux community will spit out many many users. If Shell and Unity persists, we'll be facing many defections.

Now that grandmama just learned how to use GNOME and hated Windows XP, it will be a military operation to get her to use GNOME Shell or even Unity. No, no, and no.

In the meantime, we have a couple of interesing scenarios:

- Linux Mint will top over Distrowatch.com and long first timer Ubuntu will have to be content with a second position. Actually I see that happening... for days now the Mint statistics are always +10 a day against +4 Ubuntu's average ups and downs.

- XFCE being adopted as a major main desktop interface on Linux, after some major polish to look like GNOME. Better themes and wallpapers comes to mind now. (Yes, I hate that silly rat.)

- KDE may slashback its way to the mainstream, after the 4.x series fiasco. Of course, if they strive to integrate GTK applications perfectly out-of-the-box, Compiz and revamp their menus and cut down the too-many preferences. Of course if someone doesn't BLOW UP the whole thing again...

I for one will keep Fedora 14/GNOME 2.xx for undetermined time, for now...

Reply Score: 5

RE: GNOME 3
by grat on Thu 7th Apr 2011 00:58 UTC in reply to "GNOME 3"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

- KDE may slashback its way to the mainstream, after the 4.x series fiasco. Of course, if they strive to integrate GTK applications perfectly out-of-the-box, Compiz and revamp their menus and cut down the too-many preferences. Of course if someone doesn't BLOW UP the whole thing again...


You think KDE has too many preferences?

*falls over laughing*

*realizes you're serious*

*starts drinking heavily while muttering about broken cup holders*

Reply Score: 4

RE: GNOME 3
by kiddo on Thu 7th Apr 2011 04:55 UTC in reply to "GNOME 3"
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

The youth is decadent, we will face massive defections, the world will come to an end, kittens will die, etc. I wouldn't worry so much.

Keep this in mind folks: many Linux users are just happy/content with the new design and quietly use it instead of posting on osnews/slashdot.

Also, the demographics of Linux users is changing. It's not just hardcore people running fluxbox or some obscure combination of software "because it has been like this since 1995 and it should stay that way!" or because "I need it to run on 64 MB of ram and no 3D acceleration!" anymore...

What we're seeing here is pretty much an echo chamber for negative reactions to disruptive change.

Also: GNOME Shell hasn't yet revealed its true potential. It is made to be extensible. Imagine when people start writing gadgets and extensions for it... just give it some time.

Reply Score: 2

This could persuade me
by Ruahine on Thu 7th Apr 2011 00:01 UTC
Ruahine
Member since:
2005-07-07

There was a lot of complaint about KDE 4, and similarly for Gnome 3. Now, I'm mostly experienced with KDE 3 (it's what they have on the computers at Uni), and have never thought much of Gnome (I just didn't like the way it did things), but both Gnome 3 and KDE 4 seems like great innovations to me.
Having had a look at those videos about Gnome 3 makes me think I should really give it a go. I think they've done some quite clever UI things. Then again, I'm a big fan of projects that try and come up with new UI ideas.

Reply Score: 3

I`m trying now...
by Jason Bourne on Thu 7th Apr 2011 00:36 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

Ok, I admit I am in disbelief with GNOME Shell and Unity... Just trying now the GNOME 3 Fedora spin from their site. This surely looks like NO KDE 4 fiasco release. Actually some things got clever (The ON-OFF switch I found really clever and original). GNOME Shell is sporting a cleaner and pleasant interface. The fallback mode also got more similar to the Shell. Both black panels now, and the System menu is now gone from main panel. Nice.

I will have to see if I get used to the lack of maximizing/minimizing windows and this global Activities menu sucks big time... I am sure that A MIX between the Shell and Fallback mode is what is going to really make GNOME 3 a whole. I really don`t see a future for Activities menu - at this time, but I may change my mind after using some days....somehow moving the mouse towards the corner is more pleasant than targetting a 20px minimizing button. I start now to get the idea through this...

Comparing this to Unity, it`s miles away and this will make Ubuntu bite the dust, as I predicted. I consider now, the war between GNOME and Shuttleworth, in my humble opinion, really WON BY GNOME. What can I say...

I just can`t, FOR THE LIFE OF ME, change the UI font, which is *HORRIBLE* by the way. I can`t set the right DPI, and can`t do anything really. I looked for instructions over the internet and haven`t found one that worked. Please if someone knows how to tweak the UI font, I will be grateful. Another thing is the mouse, I usually like to change the pointer (DMZ-White, size 32), and it doesn`t have an option to do that.

If any GNOME developer hears this, please INCLUDE these settings before next distro releases...

I think I may now start stopping to bash GNOME Shell... (Well, not my fault since anything previous to this 3.0 release was broken.)

NB - I am FINALLY GLAD, Nautilus fixed the renaming bug in List View - it`s not selecting the extension for renaming anymore! Phew...

Edited 2011-04-07 00:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: I`m trying now...
by Mystilleef on Thu 7th Apr 2011 04:18 UTC in reply to "I`m trying now..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

gnome-tweak-tool allows you to change fonts among other things. I think it ships with gnome 3 but I'm not sure.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I`m trying now...
by kiddo on Thu 7th Apr 2011 04:47 UTC in reply to "I`m trying now..."
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

You should probably install "gnome-tweak-tool", which will allow you to change less-often used settings that were taken out of the gnome-control-center 3.0 panels.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I`m trying now...
by Finalzone on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:51 UTC in reply to "I`m trying now..."
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

gnome-tweak-tool provide some ability to tweak UI. It is functional though not all options are available because of early stage.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I`m trying now...
by benir0 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 13:42 UTC in reply to "I`m trying now..."
benir0 Member since:
2006-07-26

You can use gnome-tweak-tool to do a number of modifications to the way the shell works and looks.

Reply Score: 1

Looks like a parody of the desktop
by nt_jerkface on Thu 7th Apr 2011 02:08 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

If I saw the youtube preview without knowing I honestly would have thought it was a parody of the desktop.

I think Linux distros should go for speed and build around OpenBox. Going after Windows or OS X users is a waste of time. The Linux desktop is too far behind in usability.

But I would actually rather leave a new user with OpenBox than Gnome 3. G3 is a case of engineers designing a desktop without any feedback from average users. The KDE team should send Gnome a cake to thank them for driving users away.

Reply Score: 0

Alternative other than KDE
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 04:39 UTC in reply to "Looks like a parody of the desktop"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If I saw the youtube preview without knowing I honestly would have thought it was a parody of the desktop. I think Linux distros should go for speed and build around OpenBox. Going after Windows or OS X users is a waste of time. The Linux desktop is too far behind in usability.


Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.

But I would actually rather leave a new user with OpenBox than Gnome 3. G3 is a case of engineers designing a desktop without any feedback from average users. The KDE team should send Gnome a cake to thank them for driving users away.


For anyone thinking along these lines and yet wishing to stay GNOME 2.x-like (rather than migrate to KDE/Qt), then might I suggest Linux Mint Debian Edition?

http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1725
"With KDE 4 and Gnome 3 bringing drastic changes to their environments, and with the emergence of Fluxbox and LXDE on the lightweight scene, Xfce represents a nice alternative for PC desktop users who are looking for a light yet full-featured desktop solution. Its relevance is becoming more significant and this is another reason for us to support it in both 32-bit and 64-bit and to give it a mainstream software selection."

This is an Xfce desktop system (gtk-based) built on the Debian testing rolling distribution. It would appear that the RAM use is quite modest (between 128MB and 256MB), depending on how many applications are loaded, as opposed to 800MB for GNOME 3.0 or about 600MB for KDE 4.6.

Edited 2011-04-07 04:47 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Alternative other than KDE
by WereCatf on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:01 UTC in reply to "Alternative other than KDE"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.


That is an opinion, not a fact. Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Alternative other than KDE
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Alternative other than KDE"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.
That is an opinion, not a fact. Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion. "

Very strange indeed. I've never had any kind of a problem with stability of KDE, (except minor flakiness for KDE 4.0), even with compositing on. This is my experience across a number of different machines (ordinary desktops, laptops and netbooks, ATI, VIA and nVidia, Intel and AMD, a whole range of clock speeds) a whole range of KDE distributions (OpenSuse, Kanotix, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, MEPIS, Sabayon, Arch and Kubuntu), and a range of KDE 3.x and KDE 4.x releases.

I can't say the same for Windows, for example. I have never had a Windows installation last for more than a few years before the person who was using it came back to me and asked me if I could fix it. Again.

So this is not just my opinion, it is my experience.

PS: I haven't seen any instability in GNOME, either, BTW, it is just that the KDE applications are IMO generally better than the GNOME equivalents.

Edited 2011-04-07 06:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is "Strange" ... Oh comon, It is known not be reliable.

You will never find a comment like this about Mac OSX or Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Alternative other than KDE
by Phucked on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Alternative other than KDE"
Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

"Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.


That is an opinion, not a fact. Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion.
"

Wow that has never happen to me since the KDE 4.0-.4.1 days, using KDE 4.4.3 and its been really stable, more so than windows 7 64-bit. Even with those flaky fglrx drivers. Of course this could be do the fact that I use KDE under Slackware....

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Wow that has never happen to me since the KDE 4.0-.4.1 days, using KDE 4.4.3 and its been really stable, more so than windows 7 64-bit. Even with those flaky fglrx drivers. Of course this could be do the fact that I use KDE under Slackware....


Well, I don't know what the issue is. I keep on trying KDE every now and then in an effort to try to "give it a chance", and every time the result is something like this. Note that I've tried it on several different hardware configurations, both with Radeon and with GeForce, and even in a virtual machine, and I've tried it with Ubuntu and OpenSuSE.

The easiest way of making KDE crash has so far been to try to resize the panel or to move it to the top of the screen where I prefer it.

Reply Score: 2

roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23

Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion.


If you experience horrid stability problems in KDE4, you will very likely experience the same for GNOME3, as these problems all come from graphics driver problems. If you run KDE4 in a virtual machine, or disable all the bells and whistles, you will see what I mean.

And, just to remind you, in KDE4, it is not possible at all to crash the panel without bringing down the whole desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Alternative other than KDE
by kiddo on Thu 7th Apr 2011 13:40 UTC in reply to "Alternative other than KDE"
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

What is interesting is that I have been testing GNOME Shell on Fedora 15 (to be released in May), on a machine with only 512 MB of RAM.

I have no idea where those people get the "it uses 600 MB of RAM" figure.

On my machine (without any tweaks whatsoever), GNOME3 with GNOME Shell uses less than 180 MB of RAM on startup. I don't even touch the swap file. And you know what? This RAM usage is the same as GNOME 2.x!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Alternative other than KDE
by kiddo on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Alternative other than KDE"
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

Bleh, can't correct my previous comment since I posted it >20 minutes ago.

My "180 MB of RAM" figure was actually quite pessimistic. It actually uses less than 120 MB: http://jeff.ecchi.ca/blog/2011/04/07/gnome-3-0s-ram-usage/

Reply Score: 2

Fallback interface
by sb56637 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 03:38 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

Personally I'm more interested in trying out the fallback interface, since I dislike graphics intensive desktop effects that wreak havoc with many video cards or simply aren't compatible with older hardware. Any comments on the fallback interface? Thanks!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fallback interface
by earksiinni on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:15 UTC in reply to "Fallback interface"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

I thought that the default on the SuSE live CD available at gnome3.org was pretty slick, though slow. Kind of silly, though: it's like a locked down GNOME 2, nothing is configurable through the usual menus. Minimize/maximize buttons are enabled. (YaST and other SuSE configuration stuff is available, though, and so is the GNOME 3 configure tool.) The new messaging system is activated and that's pretty nice, I guess.

Back to XP.

EDIT: I have a netbook with ATI X300 graphics, which haven't been supported by Catalyst since 9.3 and aren't supported by radeonhd. You can install other drivers through SuSE's tools.

Edited 2011-04-07 07:17 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Don't spread the hate.
by earksiinni on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:21 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

These GNOME 3 boys be mad slick.

Reply Score: 1

Don't know...
by Neolander on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:31 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Don't know how I feel about GNOME 3. Their ideas sound quite interesting, but I have yet to try it in practice. Forcing the use of something fundamentally broken like window compositing is a jerkish move, though. And, what's more, since they've broken compatibility of stuff like notifications, distros will have to integrate it properly before it works well.

I think I might be one of the kind of multitaskers which GNOME 3 targets. I need simultaneous task execution in the background, however I almost never need to interact with several things at once, and when I do the current windowing systems prove to be completely broken anyway (something like tiling would be more suitable if only window resizing worked in a better way). I rather need fast task switching, will see if the Shell provides it (among other things) in Fedora 15. I think something like the task switcher from Mac OS classic would have been more discoverable than what's described here, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Don't know...
by kiddo on Thu 7th Apr 2011 13:43 UTC in reply to "Don't know..."
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

Surprisingly enough, the notification system is entirely backwards compatible. It still uses libnotify and requires no patching at all from apps to work with it at least at the basic level, it's transparent.

Concrete example: I've been pleasantly surprised to see that Specto's notifications work 100% fine and "as you would expect" with GNOME Shell. I did not have to touch a single line of code. This is frankly quite an achievement.

Edited 2011-04-07 13:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Don't know...
by Neolander on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Don't know..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Must have confused with tray icons... The big conflict between Gnome and Shuttleworth's company is about the fact that GNOME have reworked the way system tray works in a fashion that's incompatible with the solution from Canonical that has also been adopted by KDE, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Don't know...
by kiddo on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Don't know..."
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

Indeed, the GNOME Shell doesn't use the "Indicator Applet" (aka libappindicator or libindicate or something like that); but keep in mind that applications actually had to add optional support for libappindicator, not the other way around.

Let me illustrate with an example: Specto already supported the standard notification system (libnotify) + "tray icon" (gtk status icon) for years, but it had to be extended and complexified with a bunch of if/else in the code to make it work with Ubuntu's indicator applet.
When this applet is not detected/available on the user's panel/system, Specto reverts to using the standard notification system... which is what is used by gnome shell, nothing much has changed in this regard.

And app developers have somewhat less to worry about because the new notification system's design paradigm solves the friggin' problem we've been plagued with since Windows 95's introduction of the notification area (aka the "tray icons").

As I understand it, in gnome shell's notification system, new possibilities are added for application developers wanting to extend the precision of the behavior of their notifications (ex: to be able to mute them when the user is "Busy") and integrate better than they already do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Don't know...
by Neolander on Thu 7th Apr 2011 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Don't know..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Didn't know that old apps still work perfectly. That changes the Canonical-Gnome situation a lot ;) In that case, no problem at all as far as I'm concerned.

What is this problem from the Win95 era ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Don't know...
by kiddo on Sat 9th Apr 2011 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Don't know..."
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

Long story short, in Win95 MS introduced the notification area (aka "tray icons") but did not strictly restrict it to system notifications.

Every damn app maker on the planet started abusing it and docking his apps into it.

Microsoft then tried to cover the problem in Windows XP and subsequent releases by making icons autohide in that area... which is a band-aid, not a fix, and a stupid one.

GNOME Shell makes this distinction clear and doesn't allow apps to show icons into the upper right corner, which is reserved for system stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Don't know...
by Neolander on Sat 9th Apr 2011 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Don't know..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

And how do background services like Transmission, which used to hide in the tray in order to take up less room but remain available, now work ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Don't know...
by kiddo on Sat 9th Apr 2011 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Don't know..."
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

They can still sit with a notification icon, but now that icon will be in the lower right corner, not shown at all times unless you put the mouse over there.

But more importantly, it doesn't need such an icon anymore. Since there is no "window list" (aka "taskbar") anymore, the "better" way to do this in GNOME Shell is to not have a tray icon; instead, simply put transmission onto its own workspace. Since you can have as many workspaces as you want (they are dynamic and automatic after all), you can afford to do so.

Then when you want to call that transmission instance, just hit the Win (or alt+F1) key or the upper-left hotcorner to call the activities view, type "tr"+enter to switch directly to it (or click the transmission icon that shows up on the dash ("dock") on the left).

Same goes for IM clients like empathy: no need to worry about minimizing them anymore.

Reply Score: 2

Hysteric
by qbrick on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:39 UTC
qbrick
Member since:
2010-04-20

There are distributions supporting good old Gnome 2 for another 7 yrs plus from now. So why the hysteria to change or not to change the desktop? Dear, this is OSS. It developes with different premises than commercial software.
And if you think about it, isn't it great that Red Hat as the main contributor to Gnome didn't step in to stop this mess they call Gnome 3.0? Isn't it exciting to watch, what direction Gnome will take after this - and after that - and after that?
At least, this major release doesn't seem to struggle with stability and speed issues, so heads up.

Reply Score: 2

It is a good release
by Alexander on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:45 UTC
Alexander
Member since:
2011-03-19

I am writing from the GNOME 3 Fedora preview live CD and so far i'm loving it. I know that the change from the older 2.x release is very big but even after several minutes of use i grew accustomed to it and i like how it works. The systems is snappy and fast (even though i use it on a live cd) and the whole design concept works well in my opinion. The biggest drawback of the new desktop is that you need some time to get used to it. But after that it works quite well. What is even more impressive is that this is a x.0 release. Compared to what i saw in KDE 4.0 and to what i've read about GNOME 2.0 (back when it was released i wasn't using linux so i don't have a first hand experience of it) it is quite stable. I can only imagine what it will be like after several more releases.

Congratulations to the GNOME developer's team for their great release!

Reply Score: 2

Impeach the Gnome Leadership
by BrendaEM on Thu 7th Apr 2011 12:03 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

Impeach the Gnome leadership for:

* Implementing every fad that comes along
* Their deathgrip with shareware known as Evolution
* Getting rid of Gthumb, or any photo program that you can do anything useful in.
* Not making it a priority to fix Nautilus bugs.
* Making the users bookmarks too man mouse clicks in
* Not caring about the users needs
* Copying Apple on everything
* Taking the Rojin-Z's worth of applications into its core
* Still making us install fonts manually after all of these years
* Letting Nautilus shell scripts rot on the vine
* Taking away our place to drop the files we are working on, our desktop
* Not listening to users

Reply Score: 2

korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

Impeach the Gnome leadership for:
* Not making it a priority to fix Nautilus bugs.
* Letting Nautilus shell scripts rot on the vine
* Taking away our place to drop the files we are working on, our desktop


Dolphin is to me is one of the major killer features of KDE and the best file manager I have ever used. I agree that a central piece of the desktop such as Nautilus needs more love.

About having iconds on the desktop, you can activate that if you feel like it :-)

Reply Score: 3

What's the big deal?
by axilmar on Thu 7th Apr 2011 13:37 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

I downloaded the live Cd and I got to a pretty much standard Gnome desktop; a top bar with 'applications' and 'places' menus, time, sound volume and network icon; a bottom bar with workspaces; and a blue background.

The applications are standard Linux apps: Firefox, Evolution, Gimp etc.

What exactly is the big deal with Gnome 3? from what I remember, Gnome 2 was extremely similar.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What's the big deal?
by roverrobot on Thu 7th Apr 2011 23:19 UTC in reply to "What's the big deal?"
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23

Use it for real for a day or two, and ask yourself the same question. You may have an answer then.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What's the big deal?
by AdamW on Fri 8th Apr 2011 21:49 UTC in reply to "What's the big deal?"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

That's the fallback mode.

Reply Score: 2

Doesn't start under VirtualBox
by mcking on Thu 7th Apr 2011 14:44 UTC
mcking
Member since:
2010-06-03

The Fedora image doesn't start the new Gnome3 features under Virtualbox, fails back to a standard Gnome desktop.

Reply Score: 1

Sorry, but I need to say this...
by Jason Bourne on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:05 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

Burn KDE, burn... LOL

Reply Score: 0

No way back?
by baryluk on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:16 UTC
baryluk
Member since:
2010-01-02

Ok, how to enable back metacity and panels and applets in GNOME 3? I was trying with metacity --replace &, but something crashed.

Reply Score: 1

Lots of hate here.
by Tuishimi on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:43 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Anyone LIKE Gnome 3.0? Can anyone see anything good about it at all?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Lots of hate here.
by senshikaze on Thu 7th Apr 2011 16:09 UTC in reply to "Lots of hate here."
senshikaze Member since:
2011-03-08

see below ;)

Reply Score: 1

Gnome 3.0
by senshikaze on Thu 7th Apr 2011 16:08 UTC
senshikaze
Member since:
2011-03-08

First: I like Gnome 3. I think I actually grok what the devs were going for, and, considering the look of my gnome 2, android, and even OSX and win vista machines, I fully support decluttering. I have my problems with the software (I mean come on, it is a 1.0 release!). So this is coming from the perspective of someone who likes Gnome 3 and gnome-shell.

There seems to be two types of people commenting on this negatively: those who don't use Linux full time, or at all, and those who do, but don't like Gnome 3 and g-s.

The latter first: This has been in the works for over a year (GTK+3 and then Gnome 3), we all saw this coming a very long way off. And if you don't like it, fine, I am cool with that. I don't like KDE, but I know people who do like it. The wonderful thing about open source is that there are other options out there (KDE, XFCE, LXDE, *box, Gnome 2, CLI, whatever) and you can use what you want. Don't cry foul because a developer killed one of you sacred cows. It will be okay. Change isn't something to freak out over.

Secondly, to those that don't use Linux (much or at all): WTF? I mean, seriously, WTF? You don't use Linux! Why does it matter to you what design decisions are made by a community that you are not even a part of? I really don't see the fun, or whatever in complaining about something you don't use, and I am sure, don't have any plans to switch to. If you were on the fence and this sent you back to OSX or Windows, fine. That is okay with me.

Everyone has their opinions, and are entitled to it, I just don't understand all the bitching about something YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE. It is just a DE. Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to swallow the pill.

(Yes, I know. The internet is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and no one can agree on anything. But this has become ridiculous. )

Reply Score: 1

Regarding gnome 3 fallback mode
by Alexander on Thu 7th Apr 2011 16:22 UTC
Alexander
Member since:
2011-03-19

BTW i think that if gnome tweak tools is installed and fallback mode is enabled you can configure your gnome 3 to work pretty much like gnome 2. Gnome tweak tool allows has an option where nautilus draws the desktop so you can have a standard desktop where you can save files and folders and when the fallback mode is enabled there are the standard two panels with a task bar on the bottom panel. Only the applets are missing.

Reply Score: 1

gnome-tweak-tool
by Jason Bourne on Thu 7th Apr 2011 16:23 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

Thanks for the dudes and ladies who pointed out how to change the UI font in GNOME 3. Interesting tool this one. However I couldn't change the black panel font.

Tried it again this morning, I really don't see the point of this global Activities menu. Hopefully the Shell and Fallback mode will merge into one single DE.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Thu 7th Apr 2011 17:04 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

this is definitely an odd time. look at what apple is doing to osx. adding bits of the iphone interface to osx?!

"post-pc world"

if you ask me we haven't advanced significantly past windows 2000. OOH THE BUTTONS ARE IN A DIFFERENT SPOT.

the useful innovation is going on in the mobile touch space. the blubbering desktop PC guys are just spinning their wheels.

Edited 2011-04-07 17:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

positive feedback
by rswoods on Thu 7th Apr 2011 18:13 UTC
rswoods
Member since:
2011-04-07

I believe I'm part of the silent majority when I say that I like the direction Gnome 3 and Unity are taking the desktop.

If you have huge projects that require several open windows on-screen simultaneously there are other alternatives like Openbox or XFCE which you can set up to behave just like the old "start menu/taskbar/system tray" paradigm you are familiar with. Personally, I've been sick of that system for a decade and it's one of the first things I removed from my machine in 2002 when I switched to Linux.

It's time to move the desktop into the future, and this is the way forward. I'm ecstatic that FOSS is leading the way here and I can't wait to see the projects in their full glory.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by stipex
by stipex on Fri 8th Apr 2011 09:21 UTC
stipex
Member since:
2009-07-30

Should I laugh or should I cry?
It's big step back at ... everything. Gnome's removing stuff from UI is getting ridiculous.
I hope > KDE 4.6 succedes otherwise GNU/Linux desktop is screwed.

Edited 2011-04-08 09:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by stipex
by Skai on Fri 8th Apr 2011 14:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by stipex"
Skai Member since:
2010-08-19

...otherwise GNU/Linux desktop is screwed.


for sure you made me laugh today ;-)

seriously.

Once upon a time Red Hat was the first distro. They took decisions, users fled away to other distribs.

Trust the open ecocystem to make room for the best D.E.
If it does't yet exist, it will.

Reply Score: 1