Gnome 3.0

tomd123 · 2009-05-20 15:48:36

I liked the videos, can't wait to see more of it.. thanks gnome for thinking outside the box rather then making one release look like the previous one ;p

And if you don't like "bloated" de's or graphical programs, don't flame, just do what I do, have ff and vlc the only graphical programs on your system, if even that.

Ghost1227 · 2009-05-20 17:05:07

I wouldn't say that anyone has really 'flamed' in this discussion... and that's exactly what this is... a discussion. it was started to discuss the upcoming release of GNOME3 and that's what people have been doing. just because someone's point of view differs from your own doesn't classify it as a flame.

I don't use "bloated" de's either (pretty much just firefox and pidgin), but i'm still interested in where they are taking this one... like you said, it's definitely thinking outside the box.

The idea on creating a de based on fluxbox wasn't exactly what i had in mind, but it's really not a bad idea either.

[/rant]

let the discussion continue!

Pyntux · 2009-05-20 17:17:57

I can posible use Gnome 3 but if that can be QT Gnome... Videos are videos, we will se everithig when they publish Gnome 3...

jorpheus · 2009-05-20 21:11:11

I've yet to see anything to make me want to replace Openbox.

Also, +1 for the truly separated workspaces. When I was first introduced to the concept, I thought it would be like having multiple desktops.

Last edited by jorpheus (2009-05-20 21:12:11)

Ranguvar · 2009-05-21 01:29:09

All I can say is hey, at least they're innovating again. Good or bad. The desktop as a whole has kind of stagnated, across _all_ platforms. While Gnome doesn't go so far in these concept designs as to replace the WIMP model, at the very least it's interesting and will be fun to try out. KDE 4's big push was Plasma, and the idea of easily created desktop widgets (there will be special tools to help make them soon). While desktop widgets weren't a new idea by any means, I think KDE's done a good job of pushing them as the way a desktop should be, and made it a whole lot more modular as a result -- I think there's even more room to push Plasma. Now we have Gnome innovating, and in an entire other direction too. As long as they learn from KDE a little, and perhaps make Gnome 2.90 what KDE 4.0 was

arew264 · 2009-07-06 04:13:27

I like what they're doing. I've recently started trying to use virtual desktops, and now I can't live without them. The new approach to the shell will definitely improve virtual desktop productivity.
I can see how some people wouldn't like it if they don't normally use virtual desktops though.

Is there any way I can try this out? Are there packages somewhere, or would I have to do it myself?

Ranguvar · 2009-07-07 14:56:44

It's likely somewhere in here... have fun searching, let alone building and packaging

kensai · 2009-07-07 15:48:44

Ranguvar wrote:

As long as they learn from KDE a little, and perhaps make Gnome 2.90 what KDE 4.0 was

This my friend is as impossible as can be. If it only were so easy. GNOME 2.90 will be 2.90 even if it takes months to release a 2.91 and a 2.92 even if they test it very through and then release 3.0 it will be in the same state 4.0 was. Just because many people doesn't bother testing alphas and betas, thy start testing at RC and then start feeling, well this and that feature is missing, but now is too late, it is already RC so is in a freeze.

I do think gnome 3.0 will be more stable than kde 4.0, because it won't be as revolutionary. Still a good improvement.

napsy · 2009-08-11 09:31:19

Hello.

I get the following error when I try to compile gnome-shell with jhbuild:

checking for GNUC visibility attribute... ./configure: line 31176: syntax error: unexpected end of file
*** Error during phase configure of glib: ########## Error running ./autogen.sh --prefix /home/luka/gnome-shell/install --libdir '/home/luka/gnome-shell/install/lib64' --disable-static --disable-gtk-doc *** [10/228]

And before that:

*** Configuring glib *** [10/228]
./autogen.sh --prefix /home/luka/gnome-shell/install --libdir '/home/luka/gnome-shell/install/lib64' --disable-static --disable-gtk-doc
/usr/share/aclocal/xdelta.m4:7: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_XDELTA
/usr/share/aclocal/xdelta.m4:7: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal'
/usr/share/aclocal/xdelta.m4:7: or see http://sources.redhat.com/automake/auto … ng-aclocal
libtoolize: putting auxiliary files in `.'.
libtoolize: linking file `./ltmain.sh'
libtoolize: putting macros in AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR, `m4'.
libtoolize: linking file `m4/libtool.m4'
libtoolize: linking file `m4/ltoptions.m4'
libtoolize: linking file `m4/ltsugar.m4'
libtoolize: linking file `m4/ltversion.m4'
libtoolize: linking file `m4/lt~obsolete.m4'
gtk-doc.make:26: EXTRA_DIST multiply defined in condition TRUE ...
docs/reference/gio/Makefile.am:122: `gtk-doc.make' included from here
Makefile.decl:8: ... `EXTRA_DIST' previously defined here
docs/reference/gio/Makefile.am:1: `Makefile.decl' included from here
gtk-doc.make:26: EXTRA_DIST multiply defined in condition TRUE ...
docs/reference/glib/Makefile.am:73: `gtk-doc.make' included from here
Makefile.decl:8: ... `EXTRA_DIST' previously defined here
docs/reference/glib/Makefile.am:2: `Makefile.decl' included from here
docs/reference/glib/Makefile.am:92: `%'-style pattern rules are a GNU make extension
gtk-doc.make:26: EXTRA_DIST multiply defined in condition TRUE ...
docs/reference/gobject/Makefile.am:61: `gtk-doc.make' included from here
Makefile.decl:8: ... `EXTRA_DIST' previously defined here
docs/reference/gobject/Makefile.am:2: `Makefile.decl' included from here
docs/reference/gobject/Makefile.am:74: `%'-style pattern rules are a GNU make extension

Does this have something to do with a wrong autoconf/automake versions? Because I remember GNOME programs require older versions.

Greets,
Luka

Anikom15 · 2009-08-11 23:09:00

It's been a while. I have this idea, how about we ditch the desktop model?

Instead the desktop is the file manager. No need for an external program.

iphitus · 2009-08-12 11:30:01

Just use LXDE with Fluxbox then? Parts of any DE are not WM exclusive. You can mix and match whatever suits you.

jelly · 2009-08-12 11:38:06

Anikom15 wrote:

It's been a while. I have this idea, how about we ditch the desktop model?
Instead the desktop is the file manager. No need for an external program.

That's what more ppl thought and they did taht check out Window Managers like (Not KDE, Xfce, Gnome )

Anikom15 · 2009-08-12 20:21:41

WMs require FMs. I mean the desktop that can view any folder. Like a maximized FM that's always up.

Diospyros · 2009-08-14 06:50:34

Personally I would find it disorienting to have my desktop shrink and my windows move every time I want to launch an application. I don't see why it's necessary at all.

moljac024 · 2009-08-14 10:49:36

Diospyros wrote:

Personally I would find it disorienting to have my desktop shrink and my windows move every time I want to launch an application. I don't see why it's necessary at all.

Bling bling bling

cb474 · 2009-08-19 07:16:47

Diospyros wrote:

Personally I would find it disorienting to have my desktop shrink and my windows move every time I want to launch an application. I don't see why it's necessary at all.

I completely agree. That "feature" seems like it would become completely annoying very fast. I was already starting to feel sea sick watching the videos.

I really don't see what this feature adds in terms of actual functionality. The side pane that appears when the desktop shrinks could just as easily be a pop up menu or slab as already exist in Gnome and KDE. Functionally it's the same. It just requires this gee-whiz eplilectic seizure causing desktop shrinking effect, which I could do without. It makes compiz seem restrained.

Last edited by cb474 (2009-08-19 08:06:56)

AngryKoala · 2009-08-19 07:39:35

It appears to take features from compiz fusion, meld them together, and force you to use them =/

Anikom15 · 2009-08-27 23:21:13

I think they should focus on making it faster and more efficient. We don't need eye candy or advertising. Seriously, if it's good. People will come.

AndyRTR · 2009-08-28 04:34:50

I've seen a first running preview of Gnome-shell (on top of gnome 2.2.6) at FrosCon event and it was quiet impressive. Nice looking and also nice usablity imprevements. Though I'm not a gnome user it's definitely a major step into the future. And they promised to not make the mistake to publish a 3.0 release until it has the state like the guys next to them could only reach in 4.3 ....

cb474 · 2009-08-28 08:54:53

AndyRTR wrote:

I've seen a first running preview of Gnome-shell (on top of gnome 2.2.6) at FrosCon event and it was quiet impressive. Nice looking and also nice usablity imprevements. Though I'm not a gnome user it's definitely a major step into the future. And they promised to not make the mistake to publish a 3.0 release until it has the state like the guys next to them could only reach in 4.3 ....

Could you elaborate on what specific features you liked about it?

AndyRTR · 2009-08-28 09:46:50

it has a very nice animated "desktop switcher". much better than floating cubes or anything so far. and it has real functionality. you drop files from filemanager into any open application, e.g. gedit or totem into one of the desktops to work with. it's far boyend eyecandy, it's a real new way to work with your system. but i have some concerns about perfomance with old cpus and slow gfx cards. most stuff is currently written in javascript and uses opengl.

http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Screenshots it lookes similar to these shots. but it had the old panel on top of it. and not everything from the left side was on the system i've seen.

Janarto · 2009-09-02 19:42:56

i think the first thing the gnome project need is speed. The main problem remains the lack of responsiveness and i don't think adding a lot of eye candy and features will help a lot that's sad because for the most part it's really a great desktop environment

Ankka · 2009-09-02 20:26:20

AndyRTR wrote:

it has a very nice animated "desktop switcher". much better than floating cubes or anything so far. and it has real functionality. you drop files from filemanager into any open application, e.g. gedit or totem into one of the desktops to work with. it's far boyend eyecandy, it's a real new way to work with your system.

Hear, hear!

Can't add anything wise here.

Just look at the way it operates beyond the eyecandy. Drag and drop IS usability, and so far all my experiences on dnd and linux have been sucky. If G3.0 makes it work, it would bring Free de's really close to OSX in usability.

cb474 · 2009-09-03 01:15:30

I guess I'm not that into drag and drop, so this isn't a big deal to me. For me, the more an interface requires me to use the mouse, the less usable it is. This is why OS X I think seems superficially user friendly, but is actually annoying. At least Windows has a keyboard command system that is consistent across applications and simple. But perhaps I can be enlightened on the benefits of drag and drop.

And I'm perfectly happy with the current desktop switcher in Gnome Ctrl+Alt+Arrow Keys. That is extremely efficient to me. Why does it need to be animated? Anyway, maybe it will turn out to be great, but from the screenshots and what people have said so far I remain skeptical. I just hope all this stuff can be switched off for people who don't like it.

ngoonee · 2009-09-03 04:01:17

cb474 wrote:

I guess I'm not that into drag and drop, so this isn't a big deal to me. For me, the more an interface requires me to use the mouse, the less usable it is. This is why OS X I think seems superficially user friendly, but is actually annoying. At least Windows has a keyboard command system that is consistent across applications and simple. But perhaps I can be enlightened on the benefits of drag and drop.

Obviously the benefits are dependent on you actually using a mouse in the first place, which would indicate a rather GUI-driven workflow. For me, for example, I tend to have some files which I need to send to X buried deep in my folder structure. Even with tab completion, it takes a while to get to the correct folder to access the file. With a GUI, I could have a shortcut (for example 'bookmarks' in nautilus) which brings me to a folder within maybe 1 or 2 clicks from the actual file, which I can then drag and drop to my email client. Keyboard shortcuts for this would be possible, but sometimes, if you're already using a GUI, clicking is simpler and faster.

cb474 wrote:

And I'm perfectly happy with the current desktop switcher in Gnome Ctrl+Alt+Arrow Keys. That is extremely efficient to me. Why does it need to be animated? Anyway, maybe it will turn out to be great, but from the screenshots and what people have said so far I remain skeptical. I just hope all this stuff can be switched off for people who don't like it.

Backward-compatibility is well and good, but at some point it just produces extra dev work for little/no gain. I actually see no real difference between using Gnome sans Compiz and using XFCE, and I'm sure if Gnome 3.0 doesn't have the 'off' switch for most of this stuff people will just use XFCE. Works out good for everyone.

Arch Linux

#51 2009-05-20 15:48:36

Re: Gnome 3.0

#52 2009-05-20 17:05:07

Re: Gnome 3.0

#53 2009-05-20 17:17:57

Re: Gnome 3.0

#54 2009-05-20 21:11:11

Re: Gnome 3.0

#55 2009-05-21 01:29:09

Re: Gnome 3.0

#56 2009-07-06 04:13:27

Re: Gnome 3.0

#57 2009-07-07 14:56:44

Re: Gnome 3.0

#58 2009-07-07 15:48:44

Re: Gnome 3.0

#59 2009-08-11 09:31:19

Re: Gnome 3.0

#60 2009-08-11 23:09:00

Re: Gnome 3.0

#61 2009-08-12 11:30:01

Re: Gnome 3.0

#62 2009-08-12 11:38:06

Re: Gnome 3.0

#63 2009-08-12 20:21:41

Re: Gnome 3.0

#64 2009-08-14 06:50:34

Re: Gnome 3.0

#65 2009-08-14 10:49:36

Re: Gnome 3.0

#66 2009-08-19 07:16:47

Re: Gnome 3.0

#67 2009-08-19 07:39:35

Re: Gnome 3.0

#68 2009-08-27 23:21:13

Re: Gnome 3.0

#69 2009-08-28 04:34:50

Re: Gnome 3.0

#70 2009-08-28 08:54:53

Re: Gnome 3.0

#71 2009-08-28 09:46:50

Re: Gnome 3.0

#72 2009-09-02 19:42:56

Re: Gnome 3.0

#73 2009-09-02 20:26:20

Re: Gnome 3.0

#74 2009-09-03 01:15:30

Re: Gnome 3.0

#75 2009-09-03 04:01:17

Re: Gnome 3.0

Board footer