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 536228
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
thesunnyk
Member since:
2010-05-21

I think a lot of people have gotten insulted before really trying the desktop, and I did as well to begin with, which is why I wrote the review. The review itself was actually meant to criticise the Gnome 3 desktop, a sort of "I used Gnome 3 and honestly tried to make the best of it for 3 months and here's why it sucks". The situation isn't so clear, however.

I have some criticisms in the review, but I think the Gnome 3 haters really need to get their hands dirty and give in depth criticisms: either stuff that can be improved or solid reasons why this approach should be abandoned altogether.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'm pretty sure it went something like this for most of these haters (gnome shell & unity alike):
"Oh holy balls! This is different from what I'm used to. I'm gonna try it for 20 minutes and then give up."
...20 minutes later...
"Well, I still don't like this so it must be the worst atrocity in computing since Microsoft Bob."
"Granted, I've been saying that the Linux desktop should be different from Windows but what I really mean is that it should be the same but with themes."

Reply Parent Score: 4

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I'm pretty sure it went something like this for most of these haters (gnome shell & unity alike):
"Oh holy balls! This is different from what I'm used to. I'm gonna try it for 20 minutes and then give up."
...20 minutes later...
"Well, I still don't like this so it must be the worst atrocity in computing since Microsoft Bob."
"Granted, I've been saying that the Linux desktop should be different from Windows but what I really mean is that it should be the same but with themes."

You have a gnome desktop a lot of people like. You throw that away and put a different desktop in front of them. When they complain about the change you claim they are wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 10

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know about anyone else, but why should I bend my established workflow to whatever some guy developing Gnome 3 or Unity has decided my workflow should be? I have a workflow, I'm happy with it; if your "platform" doesn't support that workflow, it's far easier for me to find one that does instead of changing my workflow.

Reply Parent Score: 5

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

I have some criticisms in the review, but I think the Gnome 3 haters really need to get their hands dirty and give in depth criticisms: either stuff that can be improved or solid reasons why this approach should be abandoned altogether.


Here is where you are wrong. Nobody needs to convince the Gnome developers that they have to adopt another vision than they have for Gnome 3. People either adopt it or they don't.

The people who don't adopt it should stop leveling criticism at Gnome 3. This desktop wasn't written for them. Gnome 2 is dead, long live the myriad of alternatives.

The other side of the medal might be that Gnome 3 shouldn't expect to take the same leading position with the distro's it had with Gnome 2. After all, nobody is obligated to adopt Gnome 3. (The jury is still out on the question if Gnome 3 including Shell is loved by the majority).

Personally, I like most parts of Gnome 3 and I think those parts are substantial improvements. I even like the infrastructure that was written for and is underpinning Gnome Shell, but Gnome Shell itself... My personal opinion is that Gnome Shell should be incinerated at 5778 K, but I don't have to use Shell to use the rest of Gnome 3, so I've come to terms with Shell's existence and I can leave it to the people that do like this interface.

Reply Parent Score: 2

thesunnyk Member since:
2010-05-21

Fair cop, I guess I do agree with that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

I think a lot of people have gotten insulted before really trying the desktop, and I did as well to begin with, which is why I wrote the review. The review itself was actually meant to criticise the Gnome 3 desktop, a sort of "I used Gnome 3 and honestly tried to make the best of it for 3 months and here's why it sucks". The situation isn't so clear, however.

I have some criticisms in the review, but I think the Gnome 3 haters really need to get their hands dirty and give in depth criticisms: either stuff that can be improved or solid reasons why this approach should be abandoned altogether.



No we don't. It's BECAUSE of people like yourself Gnome 3 became the God-forsaken mess it's become.

Reply Parent Score: 1