Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Apr 2011 18:30 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Gnome Ars has reviewed GNOME 3.0, and concludes: "The solid technical work that has been done under the hood really complements the new user experience features in GNOME 3.0. Despite some of the gaps in the feature set, I think that the environment and the new shell is a good starting point for building something even better. The GNOME contributors will be able to iterate on the design and move it forward in future updates."
Thread beginning with comment 469588
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Soooo ....
by Delgarde on Thu 7th Apr 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "Soooo ...."
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

I am guessing the way this works is that when it comes to Gnome and KDE, Gnome is geared toward people who want a very simple and straightforward desktop without a million different options to deal with, while KDE is more for tweakaholics and power users? Is that the best way to differentiate the two?


Broadly speaking, yes. For a long time now (and especially for 3.0), Gnome has aimed for simplicity, at the expense of some configurability (although there are many settings not visible in GUI that can be tweaked with gconf-editor). Whereas KDE has always been customisable in pretty much every aspect.

As a Gnome user though, I'd dispute that "power user" is a distinction between the two - being more customisable doesn't necessarily make a difference to the user's ability to use the desktop effectively. I find Gnome is *customisable enough* for my needs, and a lot of the settings in KDE are things I see little value in changing.

But yeah, it's just different philosophies...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Soooo ....
by WorknMan on Fri 8th Apr 2011 01:47 in reply to "RE: Soooo ...."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

As a Gnome user though, I'd dispute that "power user" is a distinction between the two - being more customisable doesn't necessarily make a difference to the user's ability to use the desktop effectively. I find Gnome is *customisable enough* for my needs, and a lot of the settings in KDE are things I see little value in changing.


Yeah, it's like iOS in that way; it will work well for power users, assuming it's set up out of the box the way they like to work, and so they don't need to change much in order to start working with it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Soooo ....
by mat69 on Fri 8th Apr 2011 08:48 in reply to "RE: Soooo ...."
mat69 Member since:
2006-03-29

And in practice you don't change settings on a daily base anyway.

In some cases I think that some of the Gnome applications lack features. Nautilus was quite bad but is getting better at a constant pace. I mean not being able to mark files with the mouse in list view is really stupid.


In regards to Gnome 3.0 I tried it for roughly have an hour yesterday and I am _really_ amazed.

It works quite smooth and does what a Desktop should do imo. Help you in starting applications and managing those that run already. Also the notifications are a good thing, the KDE 4 notifications really annoy me. They are like "look at me, look at me, click me, click me", those in Gnome 3.0 work a lot better imho.

Further Gnome 3.0 really makes me wanna use workspaces. I never/hardly do that in KDE. It is too uncomfortable to assign applications to it and to switch between them. And no I don't want to remeber keyboard shortcuts, especially not when I want to work with the mouse. Yeah I know you can assign actions to screen edges, but those have a disadvantage for me themselves: I end up hitting them by accident.
This does not happen in Gnome 3.0, since it is not just a screenedge but also a clickable area which has a specific purpose.

All in all imo Gnome 3.0 is a very good desktop already. Yeah it has flaws but for a .0 release ...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Soooo ....
by sorpigal on Tue 12th Apr 2011 13:57 in reply to "RE: Soooo ...."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Mac OS X and GNOME share something in that regard: as long as you like what someone else decided it should be like, you're fine. I find the very idea that someone else's choices are more important than mine, to the point where they choose for me, to be abhorrent. If being a "power user" means placidly accepting the dictates of some remote designer or developer, then GNOME is for power users.

Incidentally "power user" has never meant "able to use the desktop effectively." It means someone who uses more features, demands more features and generally exercises his software to its limits. For a power user it isn't about something being "enough for my needs" but about things being there. Why climb the mountain? Why overclock the CPU? Why push the limits? Because you can. That's a power user.

Not that GNOME doesn't cater to such people to some extent; gnome-do comes to mind as a definite power user tool.

Reply Parent Score: 2