Linked by Antonio Ospite on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:35 UTC
Gnome Antonio Ospite explores Gnome 3 in fall-back mode and tries to make it look and behave more like Gnome 2.32 again. This summer Linus Torvalds made it to the news for complaining about the gnome-shell design; Gnome fall-back mode is the solution for those like Linus who can't - or better, do not want to - use gnome-shell just yet.
Thread beginning with comment 493879
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Just tried Gnome Shell (again)
by ndrw on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 16:56 UTC
ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

I kind of like the idea of an integrated panel, wm, desktop, notifications etc. It could Potentially result in a more streamlined user experience, provided such capability was used for assisting users, not making them slaves of whatever new paradigms authors want to force upon them.

Unfortunately, Gnome Shell authors chose the latter method. They came up with a whole pile of new concepts (modal UI, differentiation between windows and applications), artificial limitations (one window per app without resorting to tricks, no task bar, no desktop list, can't simply open a window on 4th workspace without putting something on first 3) and introduced quite a few of bugs (IM switching stopped working, desktop switching is sluggish).

I'm sure bugs will finally get resolved but knowing arrogance of Gnome UI team (ever wondered why there is no wrapping when switching between workspaces in Metacity? Not even as an option?) I’m sure that at least some the brain-dead design decisions are here to stay.

What's particularly annoying for me is the process - the way all these changes were forced upon all Gnome users. Gnome2 was screaming for improvements (like fixing gnome-panel in vertical mode), instead the whole thing was deliberately made incompatible with Gnome3 and its users abandoned. It'll be good if the users consider only moving to KDE4 or XFCE rather than giving up on the idea of the open desktop altogether.

Reply Score: 3

sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

Fud, fud, fud... You can have any number of windows per app and it's natively supported. Taskbar does exist but it is in form of exposé instead of the legacy panel with buttons. The same goes with desktop list. The Gnome paradigm states you don't need empty desktops, and it's easy to agree with it. Why is the number of the desktop so important to you? For no reason, just because it was like that in the past.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Fud, fud, fud...


Just an opinion different of yours.

You can have any number of windows per app and it's natively supported.


Opening a new window requires a different action than opening the first one. Same for switching between windows of the same application. I want to get rid of this feature(?), where is an option to disable it?

Taskbar does exist but it is in form of exposé instead of the legacy panel with buttons. The same goes with desktop list.


None of which are visible when I need them. To see them I have to perform an additional action that disrupts my work flow. I see this design (UI modality) as a very fundamental flaw that interferes with my work instead of supporting it. Sadly, the whole desktop is constructed bottom up around modality so I guess it won't ever satisfy my needs.

The Gnome paradigm states you don't need empty desktops, and it's easy to agree with it.


My paradigm states that the mail program is on desktop 4, the browser on 5th and the communicator on 6th. Not a big thing but none the alternatives require me to retrain my muscle memory. Just another example of functionality sacrificed for glitter.

The point is, such strongly integrated desktop can be the best thing under the sun (if done right, that is with proper UI research, taking user feedback into account and adding enough options) or a nightmare if done by a bunch of narrow minded authoritative UI design wannabes.

Reply Parent Score: 4