Linked by thesunnyk on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 22:14 UTC
Gnome "Gnome 3 has received a lot of disapproval of late, from the Gnome foundation being charged with not taking care of its users, or losing mindshare, to Gnome 3 itself being an unusable mess. I've been using Gnome 3 myself for a few months to sort the truth from the fiction, and to try and understand just how the Gnome foundation expects their newest shell to be used. I will end with some thoughts on how Gnome 3 can be improved. The review will require a fairly lengthy preface, however."
Thread beginning with comment 536211
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Sodki
by Sodki on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 23:02 UTC
Sodki
Member since:
2005-11-10

Gnome 3, for all its faults, isn’t that bad.


As a GNOME 3 user, I agree completely. GNOME 3 is not supposed to be the evolution of GNOME 2: making people realize that is it's biggest challenge. In that regard, GNOME 3 is fine, albeit still young and with a long way to go, just like young GNOME 2. I still remember cursing about GNOME 2 and longing for my beloved departed GNOME 1.4.

But there is a lot of valid criticism. GNOME 2 is being seen by the GNOME 3 designers as a failure, which is pure nonsense. And GNOME 3 designers seems to be completely oblivious to user's criticism. The GNOME 3 platform is wonderful, but it's potential might be completely ruined due to the designer's seemingly "blind and deaf" attitude.

I want GNOME 3 to grow. But I don't want it to grow alone, as a designer's experiment, out of everyone's desktops, hearts and minds.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Sodki
by WorknMan on Mon 24th Sep 2012 05:20 in reply to "Comment by Sodki"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

As a GNOME 3 user, I agree completely. GNOME 3 is not supposed to be the evolution of GNOME 2: making people realize that is it's biggest challenge.


Maybe they shouldn't have called it Gnome 3 then? I'm just sayin'.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Sodki
by adkilla on Mon 24th Sep 2012 06:11 in reply to "RE: Comment by Sodki"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

You mean like how Mac OS 10 is actually Mac OS 9 with prettier Window borders? I thought it was a huge difference. Don't recall seeing the dock and the Aqua interface in OS 9. People did not seem to mind the differences either.

Yeah, they should have called Gnome 3 the Garden Gnome XL Extremist Edition. That way people will get it that it is different and yet it is a product of the GNOME Foundation?

Edited 2012-09-24 06:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by Sodki
by r_a_trip on Mon 24th Sep 2012 11:43 in reply to "Comment by Sodki"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

GNOME 3 is not supposed to be the evolution of GNOME 2: making people realize that is it's biggest challenge.


I don't think the problem is people thinking Gnome 3 is an evolution of Gnome 2. It clearly isn't. The problem many people have with Gnome 3 is that it simply isn't what they want.

It would be good if the people who don't like Gnome 3 (Shell) stop paying attention to it. It's never going to be anything like Gnome 2. That part is dead and gone. It would also be good if the Gnome 3 (Shell) using people stopped telling other who don't like it, to just give it a chance. They did and it's like Brussels Sprouts, you either like it or you don't.

But this will become one of those eternal fights, where the pro Gnome 3 people acuse the naysayers of being afraid of change and living in the past and where the anti Gnome 3 people acuse the opposition of adopting change for the sake of change and chasing the mobile paradigm...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Comment by Sodki
by Jason Bourne on Mon 24th Sep 2012 18:59 in reply to "Comment by Sodki"
Jason Bourne Member since:
2007-06-02

People want to put the GNOME 1 x GNOME 2 transition as the same thing as GNOME 2 x GNOME 3 transition. It's a real mistake to stand for this argument.

As far as I remember, GNOME 1.4 was basically a bottom panel with traditional menus, tasklist, workspace switcher & clock. Going to GNOME 2.x was just a matter of adapting to the menu distribution which was the same classic menu and the position of the panels, sporting then 2 panels with the applets in them. You had the same workflow.

With GNOME 3 is totally different. You need to push to Activities corner every frigging 10 seconds and switching applications is annoying. The workflow is totally different despite the "better technology behind it".

So I don't buy GNOME arguments about those transitions being the same. They have never been the same. I was alive and well and I remember it was a bit annoying but it was nothing like we have now - head up the arse.

There is THIS DESIGNER who told people that every change is naturally uncomfortable, of course, because it was the same reaction when GNOME 2 was released. For one thing I know, this guy was in diapers when GNOME 2 was released. Nothing has irritated me more than his comments.

Edited 2012-09-24 19:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5