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.
Thread beginning with comment 469411
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Sigh...
by tuma324 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:21 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Sigh...
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:55 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 Parent Score: 2