Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Nov 2012 16:32 UTC
Gnome Not even GNOME itself could ignore the GNOME 3 criticism for much longer. "As part of the planning for the DropOrFixFallbackMode feature, we've decided that we will compile a list of supported gnome-shell extensions. This will be a small list, focused on just bringing back some central 'classic' UX elements: classic alt tab, task bar, min/max buttons, main menu. To ensure that these extensions keep working, we will release them as a tarball, just like any other module."
Thread beginning with comment 543514
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
comment
by pandronic on Thu 29th Nov 2012 07:44 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

As someone who uses Linux once in a blue moon, just to see what's changed I'm genuinly curious what's so fundamentally wrong with Gnome 3 that it gets so much hate?

Judging from the screenshots and online videos it looks and feels much more modern than Gnome 2 or XFCE. So why are people so pissed?

Reply Score: 4

RE: comment
by bouhko on Thu 29th Nov 2012 10:38 in reply to "comment"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

It's basically a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it": Most users were perfectly productive with Gnome 2 and would have been happy if they just fixed the remaining bugs. It's also the reason a lot of people are switching to Xfce : it's very similar to Gnome 2, it just works and doesn't get in your way.

Now, the thing with Gnome 3 is that they are trying to do much more than just a window/desktop manager. They are trying to build a whole ecosystem of apps with some new UI paradigms. The new UI is mostly targeted at tablet-style use cases, where you have one app fullscreen. The problem is, a lot of Gnome 2 users are engineers/scientists/technical users with multiple screens and a lot of windows.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: comment
by pandronic on Thu 29th Nov 2012 16:03 in reply to "RE: comment"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

It's basically a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it": Most users were perfectly productive with Gnome 2 and would have been happy if they just fixed the remaining bugs.


That's interesting, but do those people see themselves using Gnome 2 in another 10 years? What about progress?

Now, the thing with Gnome 3 is that they are trying to do much more than just a window/desktop manager. They are trying to build a whole ecosystem of apps with some new UI paradigms. The new UI is mostly targeted at tablet-style use cases, where you have one app fullscreen. The problem is, a lot of Gnome 2 users are engineers/scientists/technical users with multiple screens and a lot of windows.


From what I've read about the subject, I've got the feeling that the devs wanted to appeal to a broader audience. Unfortunately, it seems that all they've managed to do was just to drive away the audience they had.

I think Cinnamon should have been a Gnome 3 project (the fallback option).

Edited 2012-11-29 16:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: comment
by drcouzelis on Thu 29th Nov 2012 15:11 in reply to "comment"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

I used GNOME 3 (on Fedora Linux) for the first time last weekend. I can give you two very specific reasons why I didn't like it:

It took more mouse clicks and more mouse movement to use my computer. It was very tiring, but I suppose I may have been using GNOME 3 "incorrectly".

It came with an "Accessability" icon in the tray area. I have no need for accessability options (I'm not seeing-impared, and so on) so I wanted to remove the icon. To remove it, I had to do an Internet search and then edit an obscure un-documented file.

Reply Parent Score: 3