Linked by David Adams on Wed 17th Aug 2011 17:48 UTC, submitted by suka
Gnome In an extensive interview with the Austrian tech site derStandard.at/web GNOME3 designer Jon McCann talks about the future of GNOME3 - and why it's all about the apps - why he is convinced that KDE and Ubuntu are actually different operating systems and also reacts to the outspoken criticism against GNOME 3 which has been making the rounds lately.
Order by: Score:
Jack of all trades - master of none
by Wafflez on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:56 UTC
Wafflez
Member since:
2011-06-26

GNOME Designer and Red Hat developer William Jon McCann.


Main reason Linux fails on desktop - no designers, only developers...

Reply Score: 1

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Here I was thinking it was shortsighted users expecting it to be everything to everyone simultaneously, complete with pinatas filled with Mary Lou Retton.

Gnome 3's a very well thought out desktop, one that's only going to get more refined over time. It's not, however, for everyone's tastes. Most likely it never will be. That's perfectly fine, there's plenty of room in the OSS ecosystem to find something that suits your needs if Gnome isn't it.

Reply Score: 7

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Gnome 3's a very well thought out desktop, one that's only going to get more refined over time.


Definitely. It's not perfect - far from it - but pretty solid by the standards of .0 releases. Looking forward to seeing the rough edges disappear in 3.2 and subsequent releases...

Reply Score: 5

Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Looking forward to 3.2 and subsequent releases. Amen. Year of Linux coming up here folks.

Reply Score: 1

Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I don't even see what you are replying to. The guy is saying there are almost no good designers in open source. He didn't say people have to do every role.

Reply Score: 2

RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

I think the main reason is because Linux doesn't do the jobs people want it to do on the desktop.

For computer manufacturers it doesn't help them make a competitive product. They can't offer a unique Windows experience with it and they can't offer a cheaper or higher end Mac experience with it. (Very few are bold enough to define their own experience since most of them started out as IBM-PC clone companies.)

For users it doesn't run most applications and it doesn't work with some external devices and accessories (eg. Printers, Wifi-adapters). That's the reason most people bother with an operating system in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think the main reason is because Linux doesn't do the jobs people want it to do on the desktop. For computer manufacturers it doesn't help them make a competitive product. They can't offer a unique Windows experience with it and they can't offer a cheaper or higher end Mac experience with it. (Very few are bold enough to define their own experience since most of them started out as IBM-PC clone companies.) For users it doesn't run most applications and it doesn't work with some external devices and accessories (eg. Printers, Wifi-adapters). That's the reason most people bother with an operating system in the first place.


Nice theory, it is a shame it is utterly incorrect.

Not.one.single.thing.right in your whole post.

Linux has by far more working drivers than any other OS.

Is the Linux Desktop "On Par" With Mac and Windows? No Way!

http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/483462-is-the-linux-desktop-qo...

Unfortunately the discussion usually starts from the wrong premise, that the Linux desktop has only recently achieved parity with its Mac OS X and Windows cousins. Not so! The Linux desktop has been superior since its early days, and would have to go backwards to achieve parity.

67 Open Source Replacements for Really Expensive Applications

http://www.datamation.com/open-source/67-open-source-replacements-f...

Why spend thousands or even hundreds or thousands of dollars on a closed source application when you can get a comparable open source app for free? Even if you need commercial support, many open source programs now offer paid support that costs much less than the alternatives.

No, the ONLY real reason why Linux isn't on almost every single desktop is that ordinary non-computer-expert people are simply not offered it to buy as a consumer item in most stores as an option, side by side with comparable machines.

Perhaps there is one other reason also ... there seem to be a largish number of people who are prepared, for some reason, to parrot UTTER LIES about Linux on the desktop all over Internet forums, endlessly.

Edited 2011-08-17 23:10 UTC

Reply Score: 4

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Nah, the reason you don't see Linux based OSes on the screens of computers around the world has a lot to do with both momentum and the natural tendency of the market to prefer standardization.

For a Linux based OS, note I don't say "Linux" as a whole, to get significant market traction. You'd need to see software vendors opening up their offerings to said OS. You'd need to see hardware vendors marketing machines with the OS as a featured selling point.

More importantly though you'd need to see employers and schools swap over to using it to some significant degree. If your average Joe User type spends all day at work using Windows, and their kids spend all day at school using Windows then it's a pretty foregone conclusion that most of them are going to go with the system they're most familiar with when they buy personal machines.

Reply Score: 4

ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

As a realist who wants Linux to be THE desktop and uses Linux 24/7 and runs his mother's computer on Linux, I can say that you're generally right... but there are two big flaws:

1. Linux still has rough edges as far as failing safely goes. If a video driver crashes and needs adjustment or the package manager gets left in an "interrupted" state, users are expected to know that command-line.

That's NOT good enough for the average user in 2011... as much as I wish it was.

Compare, for example, my brother's Windows Vista where, if his nVidia drivers crash, all that happens from the user's point of view is that the display stalls for a moment, flickers, then displays a "your video drivers crashed" message in a speech balloon.

2. People like my brothers who are primarily gamers aren't willing to fight with Wine the way I am. They want guaranteed, publisher-supported compatibility between their games and their OS of choice.

(And people who are really like my brothers scoff at the idea of playing FPS games or Strategy games with a gamepad on a console and are also hooked on how convenient Steam is)

Edited 2011-08-17 23:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Linux still has rough edges as far as failing safely goes. If a video driver crashes and needs adjustment or the package manager gets left in an "interrupted" state, users are expected to know that command-line.


The usual Windows response to serious system issues, like the installer getting borked, isn't much better. Something major happens to a non-techie sort on Windows their options are typically phone a friend and pray or the infamous four R's.

Reply Score: 2

ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but Windows has a massive support infrastructure already in place and, in my experience, supposedly friendly distros like Ubuntu still put users in situations where they can easily cause themselves problems without realizing it.

...for example, offering release upgrades far too readily for the risk of trouble they present. (Again, compared to Windows, which leaves the big, potentially-breaking upgrades to when you buy a new PC or pay a techie to do it for you)

Seems like every second release upgrade my mother gets, I have to do some manual console jockeying to un-break SOMETHING she needs to do her day-to-day work.

Edited 2011-08-18 00:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but Windows has a massive support infrastructure already in place and, in my experience, supposedly friendly distros like Ubuntu still put users in situations where they can easily cause themselves problems without realizing it. ...for example, offering release upgrades far too readily for the risk of trouble they present. (Again, compared to Windows, which leaves the big, potentially-breaking upgrades to when you buy a new PC or pay a techie to do it for you) Seems like every second release upgrade my mother gets, I have to do some manual console jockeying to un-break SOMETHING she needs to do her day-to-day work.


This too is an utter lie. I maintain half a dozen or more Linux desktop machines on behalf of friends and family members, and I have kept them all running without breakage for over six years, without breaking a sweat.

Just a couple of simple rules to follow: keep /home mounted on a separate partition, run a LiveCD and check that it works fully before committing to hard disk, and always wipe and re-install the entire OS (takes only 30 minutes or less), do not upgrade the existing installation on hard disk. Easy peasy.

In the meantime I have had to rescue countless of Windows machines that have been borked beyond all hope. Each rescue takes many hours, and sometimes days.

Just run Ubuntu LTS, for goodness sake.

Edited 2011-08-18 03:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

yfph Member since:
2009-09-03

Just a couple of simple rules to follow...and always wipe and re-install the entire OS (takes only 30 minutes or less), do not upgrade the existing installation on hard disk. Easy peasy.


Wipe and re-install the entire OS when making, say a 6-month upgrade? Sounds like the Windows way if you ask me.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As a realist who wants Linux to be THE desktop and uses Linux 24/7 and runs his mother's computer on Linux, I can say that you're generally right... but there are two big flaws: 1. Linux still has rough edges as far as failing safely goes. If a video driver crashes and needs adjustment or the package manager gets left in an "interrupted" state, users are expected to know that command-line. That's NOT good enough for the average user in 2011... as much as I wish it was. Compare, for example, my brother's Windows Vista where, if his nVidia drivers crash, all that happens from the user's point of view is that the display stalls for a moment, flickers, then displays a "your video drivers crashed" message in a speech balloon.


Xserver and Wayland are both approaching the point now where they can run with normal user priveledges.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzM2MA

When this happens, Linux desktops will then (I think) gain the same ability as you note for graphics on Windows.

Of course, the significantly better behaviour of Linux as a desktop OS will still be retained everywhere else:

http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/483462-is-the-linux-desktop-qo...

"Here is a partial list of things Linux can do, some new, most old, many of which Mac and Windows still can't and won't even try, or only with expensive third-party add-ons:

Multiple window managers to choose from.
Multiple desktop environments to choose from.
Multiple virtual desktops, as many as you want and your hardware can handle.
Live bootable CD, DVD, USB.
Portable applications that run from USB on any computer.
Easy to get what you need to fix it-- you don't have to keep the exactly right installation media for each PC you own, or the special secret codes, or hope and pray the authentication server actually works for once.
Adaptable to multiple roles, from tiny low-power embedded systems to giant workstations with multiple monitors.
Multiple mouse buttons.
Complete keyboard controls.
Endlessly customizable: make it your own.
Give it your own corporate branding, roll your own customized distro and replicate it all you want to.
Secure remote graphical desktop and helpdesk.
Classrooms via remote graphical desktop, with the options to let users make changes or lock them out.
Seamless integration of command line and graphical environment. You can have the console, graphical environment, and X terminals all going at the same time.
Hall of mirrors: run multiple nested graphical sessions.
Multiple simultaneous graphical sessions, not nested.
Multiple monitors in all kinds of configurations.
Easy software installation over the Internet.
Secure remote networking.
True multi-user.
Easy patching and updates.
Or manage software manually, from source code if you prefer. Say, Apple and Microsoft, where is that source code?
Better Mac and Windows rescue tools than Mac and Windows offer.
No silly artificial distinctions between desktop and server, business and home, big business, small business, etc. designed only to pry more money out of your bank account.
ncurses: graphical environment without X11.
All this newfangled compositing and fancy special effects are not my cup of tea, but I recognize their coolness, and they should drive video hardware support past its current dismal state.
KDE4 Activities turns virtual desktops and multiple screens into independent environments, which is something nobody else does.
You can be a fan and make suggestions without having attack lawyers sicced on you, like Apple did to a little girl.
You can wade in and contribute without having attack lawyers sicced on you.
You can talk directly to developers, or at least read their deep unfiltered thoughts on their blogs and mailing lists.
Real interop, not the fake kind the Brand Xs peddle."


2. People like my brothers who are primarily gamers aren't willing to fight with Wine the way I am. They want guaranteed, publisher-supported compatibility between their games and their OS of choice. (And people who are really like my brothers scoff at the idea of playing FPS games or Strategy games with a gamepad on a console and are also hooked on how convenient Steam is)


We are taliking about desktop systems, not games consoles.

Edited 2011-08-18 02:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"Compare, for example, my brother's Windows Vista where, if his nVidia drivers crash, all that happens from the user's point of view is that the display stalls for a moment, flickers, then displays a "your video drivers crashed" message in a speech balloon.


Xserver and Wayland are both approaching the point now where they can run with normal user priveledges.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzM2MA

When this happens, Linux desktops will then (I think) gain the same ability as you note for graphics on Windows.
"

X11 already includes the ability to recover from a crashed driver, without closing any apps, without losing any data, with the ability to restart the X server and pick up all your apps right where they were.

Unfortunately, none of the non-Motif X11 toolkits support this feature.

This is not a failing of X11. It's a failing of GTK+, QT, and all the other toolkits.

The whole point of the client/server architecture in X11 was to mitigate things like losing the X server. It's just too bad that none of the "modern" toolkits and environments make use of these "ancient" features.

Reply Score: 5

Tom Janowitz Member since:
2005-12-05

Yeah.. those lame toolkits QT and GTK+ .. very, very lame!... let's all switch to motif .. yeah!.. The simple fact: crash on my (really decent rig) pc of a video driver results in ... hardware reset. Now get back to earth from your dreaming session sky above ;)

Reply Score: 1

RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

Why isn't Linux offered as a option side by side with comparable machines?

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why isn't Linux offered as a option side by side with comparable machines?


Microsoft offers heavy discount to vendors, which is conditional on said vendor not offering Linux as an option. Without the Windows discount, commercial retailers cannot offer Linux machines side-by-side with Windows machines unless the Windows machines they offer are significantly more expensive than similar Windows machines in other stores (which do get a discount).

There are a very few vendors who offer Linux machines on-line, some of them offer ONLY Linux machines, whereas others, such as Dell, make people jump through many hoops in order to get Linux pre-installed. AFAIK no mainstream bricks-and-mortar store has ever even tried to offer undiscounted Windows, Mac and Linux side-by-side on similar (or identical) hardware. If they offer Windows, they always try to get the Windows discount, and therefore they will ONLY have Windows machines, and possibly Mac as well, in the store.

Microsoft have been able to get even further back in the supply chain in some markets, so that OEMs sell only machines with Windows pre-installed. here is an example of a retailer in my country who is perfectly willing to sell Linux, but apparently they can only do so by removing the already-paid-for Windows from the machines they get from OEMs.

http://www.vgcomputing.com.au/dsintro.html
http://www.vgcomputing.com.au/linuxinfo.html

Because the Windows OS that OEMs install on machines is heavily discounted, it still turn out way cheaper for end users to have the retailer (such as vgcomputing) wipe the Windows OS from the OEM's install and install Linux plus Linux desktop applications. You will be amazed at how many people are not aware of this fact, however.

BTW, even though they never end up running Windows even once, machines such as the Linux machines sold by vgcomputing are still counted, as far as market share statistics goes, as Windows machines, because that is what they were when the OEM shipped them.

Some vendors (such as Wallmart) have, from time to time, offered very low-end, low-powered Linux machines without any directly comparable Windows machines in the store. Even for these offerings Microsoft has eventually been able to pressure retailers to remove them from stores. A very similar thing happened with the first netbooks, when Microsoft revived Windows XP Home out of end-of-life, and gave it away to OEMs. One suspects that Microsoft even paid OEMs to ship Windows XP Home instead of Linux. Although it was never admitted, I observed at least one local store where there was plaenty of stock of Linux netbooks one day, and overnight they were all removed from the shelves and only Windows XP Home netbooks were able to be bought the very next day.

Edited 2011-08-18 02:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

yfph Member since:
2009-09-03

"Why isn't Linux offered as a option side by side with comparable machines?


Microsoft offers heavy discount to vendors, which is conditional on said vendor not offering Linux as an option.
"

There was a time when Linux was offered on almost every computer of a specific type, netbooks. Pity that the OEMs offered such a shitty distro like Xandros. But it seemed that both the Linux Distros and Microsoft missed the boat initially. What if there were netbook respins out at the time when Netbooks first came out with Canonical working together with OEMs? What if....

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

No, the ONLY real reason why Linux isn't on almost every single desktop is that ordinary non-computer-expert people are simply not offered it to buy as a consumer item in most stores as an option, side by side with comparable machines.


Then again, I am one of the people who used to use Linux on their desktop PCs daily for almost ten years, hoping that it would one day Just Work(TM), and then finally getting tired of it never reaching that status and going for a proper OS. In my case Win7.

Oh well..

Reply Score: 1

saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

Different strokes for different folks, as they say ;) .

Not that you have done so at all, but I see a need to reduce the cheerleading of OSes. What I consider the "main" 3 (Windows, Linux, Mac) all perform their task quite well, but they have different styles.

I think your comment proves that we all have different preferences: even using Linux for a long time you choose Windows. Thanks for bringing this up, that even those that appreciate Linux may see the value in other choices.

Reply Score: 1

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I share the same pain.

I am typing this on Linux now, but I am usually on Windows 7.

On the last years it has been hard to find Linux distributions that just work on laptops. And I am speaking about proper laptops, not consumer brand ones.

Now I finally managed to have a workable laptop where everything works with Linux, but this is not always easy.

As I aged and experienced the life of software development in big corporations, I got to understand a lot how Microsoft works and nowadays I use tools. No need to get religious about programming languages or operating systems.

Reply Score: 2

Tom Janowitz Member since:
2005-12-05

Linux has by far more working drivers than any other OS.


May be .. but we don't install "Linux", but a distro of choice. My - carefully chosen after years of experience - won't support (will work .. but then it crashes) 2 Ati cards .. one is to "old" (actually it's not old, bu integrated, so it's kind of make it look like old) or the other to new. Either way.. your claim means absolutely nothing when we speak about real life user desktop experience.

Is the Linux Desktop "On Par" With Mac and Windows? No Way!

http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/483462-is-the-linux-desktop-qo...

Unfortunately the discussion usually starts from the wrong premise, that the Linux desktop has only recently achieved parity with its Mac OS X and Windows cousins. Not so! The Linux desktop has been superior since its early days, and would have to go backwards to achieve parity.


I use both Linux (school & home) and Windows (work) and I must say - it was *NEVER* my impression, that Linux is better than Mac OS X or Windows XP .. Which Linux ? Is it operating system ? A kernel ? Any standard to anything ? Desktop shell, music player, package management .. anything ? Aaaaa!.. you have the choice .. you can choose to loose ;) And you can customize your @$$ to death (that requires only about million hours of free time every month of playing with your desktop instead of actually doing something with it). It's "better" only in that it can be free (as in beer). I would prefer to pay for quality than to tackle the obstacles of a "free" (as in speech) open source (like i do care) software... that's my opinion .. as the one above.


67 Open Source Replacements for Really Expensive Applications

http://www.datamation.com/open-source/67-open-source-replacements-f...

Why spend thousands or even hundreds or thousands of dollars on a closed source application when you can get a comparable open source app for free? Even if you need commercial support, many open source programs now offer paid support that costs much less than the alternatives.


To get the job done better, faster and in easier, more user friendly way ? What do you mean "comparable" ? You can compare everything .. Comparable is not enough. What is Gnome music app ? MusicBox ? .. what would you like to compare it to ? Amarok is fine .. but it's QT .. ok - again - inconsistent desktop .. i can bite this .. it has cool feature of getting lyrics & info for the song i listen to .. it broke one day because amazon sth .. or wiki sth (don't remember) .. distro won't update it's scripts .. choice I have ? Build app from source .. when ? Do I have time for this ? Do I really have to do this ? A.D. 2011 ? Really ?


No, the ONLY real reason why Linux isn't on almost every single desktop is that ordinary non-computer-expert people are simply not offered it to buy as a consumer item in most stores as an option, side by side with comparable machines.

It is by far the most stupid thing you uttered. There is no single reason for Linux adoption on desktop. There are thousands of them ... hundreds of distros (fragmentation), thousands of apps (variable support), many drivers (so what that I can have a driver for some ancient radio receiver stuff which I don't have, when I don't have for driver for my not so recent PCI-E tv tuner card !??), many DE's .. ok - I have a choice .. but this attitude is not task oriented. It won't help me do my things quickly without additional hassle of learning 1000 new things in a months, of which most will be obsolete by the end of year (yes, I exaggerate).


Perhaps there is one other reason also ... there seem to be a largish number of people who are prepared, for some reason, to parrot UTTER LIES about Linux on the desktop all over Internet forums, endlessly.

[/q]
Agreed on that ;)

And .. I apologize if I was to harsh few times ..

Reply Score: 1

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Just recognize there are always trade offs:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216654/Windows_7_s_malware_...

That being said, Linux is not for everyone. It does have a learning curve, which personally I think is good for people, but most people don't want to learn. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't spend all my time fiddling with Linux, KDE or writing scripts or patches, etc. PCLOS just works for me.

Reply Score: 2

sreque Member since:
2010-09-10

Whoa! Someone has a strong opinion about Linux.

I like Linux and have used it for years, however, I bought a new laptop recently and tried installing Linux on it. I couldn't even get the installer to run at all without using custom flags that I had to type in manually. Even after hours of labor, I still can't get the machine to recognize my graphics card, even though the latest nvidia driver claims to support it on Linux. Some of the fixes I tried rendered the system unbootable and I had to fiddle with xorg.conf to get things working again.

That kind of user experience, regardless of whose fault it is, will always keep people from switching to Linux. Linux does a lot of things well, but being a good desktop OS for PC-compatible machines currently isn't one of them.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

What makes you think a designer can't be a developer or vice versa?

Reply Score: 2

Gnome 3 is better
by fast_rizwaan on Thu 18th Aug 2011 04:06 UTC
fast_rizwaan
Member since:
2010-09-01

Gnome-Shell at least in "Activities" which is self-explanatory, much easier to work with, and right-away useful to the user than the KDE4's activities; which are confusing, to say the least.

The Windows key, is the next best thing in Gnome 3, which helps new users and not so computer savvy users, unlike Alt+F1 which is difficult for new people and people with disabilities. And it also help the migration of existing Windows users to Gnome-shell and Linux easier. Gnome Developers I want to thank you for the Windows key!!!

When Gnome 3.0' gnome-shell and KDE 4.7 plasma-desktop are Compared, gnome-shell 3.0 seems more neat, responsive and stable than the plasma-desktop 4.7; Good job on your first 3.0 release. gnome-tweak-tool can add minimize, maximize, desktop icons in gnome-shell; which is available for those who want them.

Even though KDE4 has some nice and feature rich applications (kwin, dolphin, okular, ark) and intuitive behavior with krunner; but Gnome nicely answered the remaining... Ugly cluttered things like Kickoff menu (MS Windows 98 like sliding effect), and unsightly panel (uneven icon sizes, taskbuttons), and plasma notifications.

I simply could not ask my friends to try Linux with KDE, because, KDE is not for the new and average user; but gnome-shell is for the uninitiated to the advanced.

Now, I'm recommending and installing Linux+gnome3 to my friends and you know, new users love it.

I just want a Gnome3+ArchLinux live/install cd, to share gnome-shell with more people.

edit: to make qt4 apps like smplayer, vlc, goldendict, etc. and gtk2 apps look consistent in gnome-shell; use aldabra gtk theme and set with gnome-tweak-tool:
http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Aldabra?content=142247

wow gnome3 rocks!

Edited 2011-08-18 04:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Gnome 3 is better
by Hiev on Thu 18th Aug 2011 05:28 UTC in reply to "Gnome 3 is better"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Im downloading GNOMINT right now, witch is the latest Linux Mint with the GNOME Shell, what distro are you using?

Edited 2011-08-18 05:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Gnome 3 is better
by fast_rizwaan on Thu 18th Aug 2011 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnome 3 is better"
fast_rizwaan Member since:
2010-09-01

Archlinux

Reply Score: 1

RE: Gnome 3 is better
by sdeber on Thu 18th Aug 2011 07:22 UTC in reply to "Gnome 3 is better"
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are talking about the quality of the code, then I have to say Gnome 3.0 is better than KDE 4 series. However, Gnome 3 is a design failure. It requires more clicks for users to do some thing like application switch, or to get an overall status of the system. It forces desktop users to use their desktop PC as a tablet. It sucks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Gnome 3 is better
by fast_rizwaan on Thu 18th Aug 2011 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnome 3 is better"
fast_rizwaan Member since:
2010-09-01

>It requires more clicks for users to do some thing like application switch,

To switch between applications only 1 click is required, move your mouse pointer to activities, and click on the available running application window. Btw, keyboard shortcut, Alt+Tab also works.

>or to get an overall status of the system.
Do you mean system-monitor or system-info? Assign a shortcut to the "/usr/bin/your-command" in custom keyboard shortcuts; I've assigned "xcalib -a -i" to ctrl+shift+i for invert color effect for reading. and If you add that shortcut to the panel as favorite then again 1 click will do the job.

>It forces desktop users to use their desktop PC as a tablet.
Please give a week's time to gnome-shell; don't just hate it because it's different. When I first saw gnome-shell, I said, "What! NO minimize, no taskbar, no menu?"

I thought, It's different but is it useful and better somehow? so, I decided to try using it for a few days; and with each passing day, I have found that I'm least distracted by notifications, or overwhelmed with too many tasks buttons (as in KDE 4.7, which out of being overwhelmed, I would do "killall -KILL X" to escape the stupefying task buttons.); and things are easier.

I know 3.0 is not perfect, no shortcut to switch tasks after pressing "Super" key; or "invert effect for a single window"; but I will become better with each new release.

Would you try gnome-shell for a week to ascertain its value?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Gnome 3 is better
by sdeber on Thu 18th Aug 2011 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Gnome 3 is better"
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06

To switch between applications only 1 click is required, move your mouse pointer to activities, and click on the available running application window. Btw, keyboard shortcut, Alt+Tab also works.

Your description is exactly what I complained. A proper task list has to be present in front of the user. But with gnome-shell, one has to go to Activities or Alt+Tab. Any of these requires a mental context switch, which is rather annoying.

Do you mean system-monitor or system-info? Assign a shortcut to the "/usr/bin/your-command" in custom keyboard shortcuts; I've assigned "xcalib -a -i" to ctrl+shift+i for invert color effect for reading. and If you add that shortcut to the panel as favorite then again 1 click will do the job.

No, that is not what I mean. By overall system status, again, I mean the user should be able to know how many applications are open and what they are.

Please give a week's time to gnome-shell; don't just hate it because it's different. When I first saw gnome-shell, I said, "What! NO minimize, no taskbar, no menu?"

Dude, I have been a gnome user since gnome 1.4. And I have been trying gnome-shell before it was formally released. I never managed! Some people would say that "You just cannot stand with the new changes!". Well, yes and no. For example, whenever my boss changes my position with a promotion, or changes my salary by increasing it, I am always very very happy. If he cut down my salary by half, I would not be happy anymore.

During my try of using the developing Gnome-shell, I had already noticed that it is terrible. However, the developers promised to the community that the final release will be good. OK, they did improve the quality of the code, the design is still terrible.

I thought, It's different but is it useful and better somehow? so, I decided to try using it for a few days; and with each passing day, I have found that I'm least distracted by notifications, or overwhelmed with too many tasks buttons (as in KDE 4.7, which out of being overwhelmed, I would do "killall -KILL X" to escape the stupefying task buttons.); and things are easier.

distraction, too many buttons, etc, all these small things. I have never had any serious problem with them, I don't like them but they I can adjust myself. But what gnome 3 did is that up to some level, it enforces a work flow to every user. Anyone who refused to use this work flow will be terribly annoyed. I think the gnome developers have gone too far.

I know 3.0 is not perfect, no shortcut to switch tasks after pressing "Super" key; or "invert effect for a single window"; but I will become better with each new release.


None of these bothers me, again, I can adapt myself.

Would you try gnome-shell for a week to ascertain its value?


Again, you have no idea about how much effort I had made to work with gnome 3. The more I try, the more pains I get. I even hated KDE developers for them making KDE 4 so resource consuming and Xfce developers for them making Xfce so primitive. But finally, I have to move.

I still wish that gnome can change so that I can use it again, in fact that is why I am still concerned with news about gnome.

Edited 2011-08-18 11:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Gnome 3 is better
by fast_rizwaan on Thu 18th Aug 2011 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Gnome 3 is better"
fast_rizwaan Member since:
2010-09-01

>Again, you have no idea about how much effort I had made to work with gnome 3. The more I try, the more pains I get. I even hated KDE developers for them making KDE 4 so resource consuming and Xfce developers for them making Xfce so primitive. But finally, I have to move.

Ok, I understand that you are very much used to your way of working; and simply cannot move on to a new desktop with a new behavior. Your resistance to new behavior is really making you frustrated. It's understandable.

>I still wish that gnome can change so that I can use it again, in fact that is why I am still concerned with news about gnome.

I don't think such big decisions will ever change for the default behavior; but there are always users and developers which will allow previous look and feel with extensions/fallback mode, etc.; fore example see this:

Gnome3 extenstions that provide Gnome2 look and feel:

http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html

http://www.webupd8.org/2011/05/new-gnome-shell-extensions-that-prov...

http://www.micahcarrick.com/gnome3-shell-taskbar-dock.html

So, there you go, you can have your Gnome3 desktop like you've been loving, using extensions:

But I as a KDE use since 1.1, simply can't have windows key working in it; because the KDE devs hate 1 key for 2 tasks. Even though it was there working fine; they removed it citing 'bad code' reason. And there are too many 10+ year old bugs and feature requests rotting in http://bugs.kde.org; and they don't give a damn about them.

I have been thinking why KDE guys simply do not make proper applications, fix issues which are bothering so many users; and make the fancy vaporware into reality, and how come the interface remains so buggy; well, we can see this: Microsoft + Nokia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12427680

Yes, I suspect that QT and KDE developers are pawns at the hands of microsoft to not to make the Linux Desktop work as a good desktop and let the bugs be not addressed as they might have sold their soul to Microsoft.

After shaking hands with Nokia, why do you think microsoft says, Linux is no more a threat on desktop?

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/73074.html

Obviously, it is QT and KDE4 which is helping the enemy.

KDE4.0 to 4.7, so many years, and still buggy and inconsistent!?

Gnome 3.0? no bugs! from day 1, Not too many features, yes, but never crashed!!!

I'm pleasantly surprised and astonished!

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Gnome 3 is better
by sdeber on Fri 19th Aug 2011 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Gnome 3 is better"
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06



Ok, I understand that you are very much used to your way of working; and simply cannot move on to a new desktop with a new behavior. Your resistance to new behavior is really making you frustrated. It's understandable.


"Way of working", you got it. My point is designers should implement necessary tools for users to implement their own work flow. Those tools have to be versatile or general enough so that most users can use them to get the job done in their own ways. However, Gnome 3 defines a work flow and forces users to stick to it. That is the problem. In fact, I am the kind of person who always ignores the details. So things like consistency of UI, positions of buttons, etc will be ignored. But most people cannot ignore the big things. In my case, the big thing is my work flow.

Reply Score: 1

Not a bad initial release
by saynte on Thu 18th Aug 2011 09:21 UTC
saynte
Member since:
2007-12-10

I'm using GNOME 3 on a few machines and it works fairly well. I find the stability side of this 3.0 release is much better than when I tried the initial KDE 4.0 release. Admittedly it's a bit of a baren customization-wise, but I did very little with that to begin with.

The UI is, of course, a large departure that I haven't totally wrapped my head around the best way to use it. I'm loving the use of the super/windows key though ;) I wish they would add more cursor navigation to the overview mode.

I'm looking forward to what they can come out with for 3.2.

Reply Score: 1

Sad, sad, sad...
by Jason Bourne on Fri 19th Aug 2011 01:49 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

GNOME Shell or GNOME 3.0 should be called "GNOME Starter Edition". Because that is what it really is right now. For the most possible stupid & dumb user to play with. If you are just a dummy who wants to browse the web, hear a few songs in Rythmbox and tackle some pictures from your digital camera in Shotwell, GNOME 3 is perfectly fine in this "vision". Just for the stupid! Hey I'm a stupid!! Just want the cloud mail, the web, some photos and music! Look how stupid I am.

The problem is if this stupid person starts to develop the need to open more than 4 or 5 applications at once. The GNOME 3 starts to be a pain. You can get lost easily if you have 7 windows open or start to spread all of them on workspaces. Definitely *THERE IS* a design flaw in GNOME Shell.

Interviews like that, well, I respect his point of view, but I usually don't care about design. I just want the work done and fast. Well, let them just stick with their GNOME Starter Edition, because this is it, for starters.

KDE... well... it has come a long way since its fiasco. It reached the point of being usable enough, if you fix manually some of the (again) design concepts. Not that I love that KickOff Menu at all. I don't. But it's bearable. The overall feeling of using Windows 7 is darn present, which may lead more people to it. Well, I prefer to use KDE than GNOME Shell. Takes more time to configure. I even needs Catalyst on my setup for it to really shine its fancy effects. But you can't just deny: it's way more powerful. Its applications too. Way more powerful.

It's just such a shame that RedHat and Fedora are sponsoring the Starter Edition cause.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sad, sad, sad...
by fast_rizwaan on Fri 19th Aug 2011 06:34 UTC in reply to "Sad, sad, sad..."
fast_rizwaan Member since:
2010-09-01

>GNOME Shell or GNOME 3.0 should be called "GNOME Starter Edition". Because that is what it really is right now. For the most possible stupid & dumb user to play with. If you are just a dummy who wants to browse the web, hear a few songs in Rythmbox and tackle some pictures from your digital camera in Shotwell, GNOME 3 is perfectly fine in this "vision". Just for the stupid! Hey I'm a stupid!! Just want the cloud mail, the web, some photos and music! Look how stupid I am.

LOL! Doesn't those things are exactly what a desktop supposed to provide, browse the web, hear few songs, tackle pictures from digital camera.


>The problem is if this stupid person starts to develop the need to open more than 4 or 5 applications at once. The GNOME 3 starts to be a pain. You can get lost easily if you have 7 windows open or start to spread all of them on workspaces. Definitely *THERE IS* a design flaw in GNOME Shell.

LOL again! why would a stupid person starts to develop? Ok, I tried with 9 opened applications, and I was comfortable to work with those 9 windows using alt+tab and/or Logo/Super key. to quickly access apps across multiple workspaces, try this: press Windows key; hold ctrl+alt+down/up key; doesn't seem difficult or painful to me for not so stupid persons, who is smart enough to use shortcuts.

>Interviews like that, well, I respect his point of view, but I usually don't care about design. I just want the work done and fast. Well, let them just stick with their GNOME Starter Edition, because this is it, for starters.
Isn't it good that some developers considered the "stupid starters"; They are majority in Computer world; and they do deserve a good consistent desktop.


>KDE... well... it has come a long way since its fiasco. It reached the point of being usable enough, if you fix manually some of the (again) design concepts. Not that I love that KickOff Menu at all. I don't. But it's bearable. The overall feeling of using Windows 7 is darn present, which may lead more people to it. Well, I prefer to use KDE than GNOME Shell. Takes more time to configure. I even needs Catalyst on my setup for it to really shine its fancy effects. But you can't just deny: it's way more powerful. Its applications too. Way more powerful.
Well, KDE is for developers and "tweak" people; you can't make your grandma or younger one work with it, without messing it up. But our stupid grandma would find it easy to work with gnome-shell than plamsa-desktop.


>It's just such a shame that RedHat and Fedora are sponsoring the Starter Edition cause.

Good isn't it ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sad, sad, sad...
by AmigaRobbo on Fri 19th Aug 2011 06:46 UTC in reply to "Sad, sad, sad..."
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Yes people who only do 1 thing at a time with their computer are stupid ain't they?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad, sad, sad...
by fast_rizwaan on Fri 19th Aug 2011 08:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad, sad, sad..."
fast_rizwaan Member since:
2010-09-01

>Yes people who only do 1 thing at a time with their computer are stupid ain't they?

No, our mind / brain can function with only 1 thing at a time. Multi tasking is an illusion created by very rapid switching between different thoughts/sensory inputs. So, by nature itself man is stupid because he/she can work only with 1 info bit at a time.

Intelligent people focuses totally on 1 task at a time, that's why they are efficient; whereas stupid people do not focus at the 1 task at a time properly, hence, becomes inefficient.

I've not seen any intelligent person who could watch a video/movie, and at the same time write some text and talk to his/her friend simultaneously, because it is not possible.

Isn't it focusing on a single task fully is easier thanfocusing on 2 or more task at a time?

What I'm presuming is that you want "Quick task switching capability" i.e., a taskbar and not mulitasking.

try this in gnome-shell:

1. open your 7 apps
2. press alt+tab and leave the tab key (keep the alt key pressed)
3. now click on the app icon you want that's more quicker than clicking on taskbar buttons.

You don't have to move your mouse pointer much.

Btw, there's already gnome2 like taskbars available for gnome-shell as extensions. Now, when extensions give you the capability, you don't have to be mad about it. isn't it?

But If you want taskbar in default gnome-shell, then that's your choice; but because you like taskbar and hence want everyone to use it is a kind of coercion.

If the gnome devs simply do not allow any kind of taskbar/ menu or forbids any changes even by extensions, then your outrage is justified.

http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html

Cheers!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Jason Bourne
by Jason Bourne on Sat 20th Aug 2011 19:22 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

But being a good desktop OS for PC-compatible machines currently isn't one of them.


I currently built one machine with MSI mainboard, chipset 890GXM-G65 (Radeon HD4290) and curiously the board won't boot any Linux 32-bit system (kernel panics). It will boot the 64-bit very well. Another thing is that Ubuntu radeon open-source driver wouldn't work with Unity on LiveCD out-of-the-box, whereas it works with Kubuntu 11.04 or Fedora 15.

If you buy very recent hardware, it's possible linux won't simply support it.

Reply Score: 2