Gnome 3.0

b9anders · 2009-10-01 20:24:55

pcmanfm is a thunar clone that supports tabs.

cb474 · 2009-10-02 01:03:24

Thanks. I tried pcmanfm too, a while back, and didn't like it for some reason that I've forgotten. I did go through a phase of trying every desktop environment and different applications and file managers. And Thunar was only one of many things that weren't quite right about XFCE for me. It was just a while ago, so I don't remember. In the end, for my purposes Gnome just worked out the best. It was the best version of a full featured desktop, with a relatively minimalistic interface design. This is why I'm so dismayed by the complete revision that Gnome 3.0 represents. It seems like the kind of thing I was trying to avoid. XFCE is more in the direction that I like. But it was missing a lot of things for me. I'll have to try it again. But you know. If it's not broke don't fix it. I'm happy with Gnome, more or less, as it is. Now it's getting completely changed for reasons that I think are not well thought out.

Last edited by cb474 (2009-10-02 01:05:39)

cb474 · 2009-10-05 09:33:51

Picking up on something I wrote much earlier on in this thread, which several other people said they would like to see.

cb474 wrote:

I also wish, with all the focus on workspaces, that Gnome would provide a feature I've always wanted: separate desktops. I want to have different icons and files on separate desktops, in each workspace, and have them always open that way on startup. It drives me crazy to see the same files and icons on every desktop and seems pointless.

As far as I know, having separately customizable workspaces like this is a feature that does not exist in any desktop environment. So I am completely surprised to discover that this is how the Hildon framework works on the upcoming Nokia N900 running the Maemo platform based on Debian. Each workspace can have different widgets, shortcuts, wallpaper, bookmarks, and contacts (okay, it is obviously a little phone oriented). All the more surprising is that Hildon is a Gnome project (see: http://live.gnome.org/Hildon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildon).

I have to say that I'm kind of floored, baffled, and insanely frustrated that Gnome is part of something that seems so well done for the mobile phone world. And yet Gnome-Shell for computers is so lame and unimaginative. I can't believe Gnome is implementing something for smartphones that would be such a great innovation on the desktop, but in fact is just ignoring this idea in the Gnome desktop environment. To me this is a perfect example of something that isn't a flashy eye candy change to the user interface, isn't a big overblown "paradigm shift," but would actually just be a really functional and useful addition to Gnome as it already is.

Last edited by cb474 (2009-10-05 09:43:42)

daf666 · 2009-10-11 19:03:53

Interesting read: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6870/1/

scv5 · 2009-10-11 20:50:22

KDE and Gnome, imo, have killed the linux desktop by taking a good thing and ruining it.

cb474 · 2009-10-26 01:56:54

daf666 wrote:

Interesting read: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6870/1/

Thanks for the link. That is a good article. It confirms a lot of my impressions I've already had.

1) The new menu is nothing more than a fancy version of Gnome Do. But you lose the potential usefulness of a hierarchical menu, for those who don't know what applications are already there in their disribution. You can only search for applications, after all, that you already know are there.

2) The animation of the workspaces is nothing more than a compiz like eye candied up way of presenting workspaces. It adds no special or innovative functionality.

3) Total lack of customization. A big problem for me will be that the panel in Gnome Shell can now only be positioned at the top of the screen. Talk about regression. This completely ignores people who like to put the panel (or panels) on the sides of the screen, which makes more and more sense with wide screen monitors and laptops (where there's plenty of horizontal space, but vertical space is at a premium).

4) The article points out how the Gnome developers are, either intentionally or by negligence, isolating themselves from the larger community of Gnome users and really aren't getting much broad feedback on this major change. This also confirms my impression that the move to Gnome Shell is a bright idea that somebody likes, but really is a pretty narrow vision, and it's just going to be imposed on everyone regardless of their needs. I wonder how Ubuntu will handle this? With their broad userbase, of highly varying degrees of sophistication, it could make the KDE 4 disaster pale in comparison.

Aside from the article, something struck me recently about the impending release of the Nokia N900 phone, with the Maemo 5 platform, that Gnome is one of the developers on. It impliments one of the features I'd love to see on the desktop: workspaces where the desktops can have different icons and widgets on them. Truly independent workspaces. This was already discussed earlier in this thread. How can Gnome be part of such a good idea in one side project and be getting it so wrong in their actual desktop enviroment for computers?

Last edited by cb474 (2009-10-26 02:00:11)

arew264 · 2009-10-26 02:40:36

cb474 wrote:

1) The new menu is nothing more than a fancy version of Gnome Do. But you lose the potential usefulness of a hierarchical menu, for those who don't know what applications are already there in their disribution. You can only search for applications, after all, that you already know are there.

I'm using a recent build of it right now, and the hierarchical menu is still there.

cb474 wrote:

2) The animation of the workspaces is nothing more than a compiz like eye candied up way of presenting workspaces. It adds no special or innovative functionality.

Except that workspaces can be added and removed in less than a second, letting you organize your work the way you want.

cb474 wrote:

3) Total lack of customization. A big problem for me will be that the panel in Gnome Shell can now only be positioned at the top of the screen. Talk about regression. This completely ignores people who like to put the panel (or panels) on the sides of the screen, which makes more and more sense with wide screen monitors and laptops (where there's plenty of horizontal space, but vertical space is at a premium).

You're correct here, and I hope this feature is readded before the final release.

cb474 wrote:

4) The article points out how the Gnome developers are, either intentionally or by negligence, isolating themselves from the larger community of Gnome users and really aren't getting much broad feedback on this major change. This also confirms my impression that the move to Gnome Shell is a bright idea that somebody likes, but really is a pretty narrow vision, and it's just going to be imposed on everyone regardless of their needs. I wonder how Ubuntu will handle this? With their broad userbase, of highly varying degrees of sophistication, it could make the KDE 4 disaster pale in comparison.

I suspect this will change drastically in the next month because gnome-shell is now packaged in Ubuntu Karmic, and making its way into the backports of other Ubuntu releases.

I'm using it right now and loving it. I came from Awesome (a tiling WM), and when I got a new laptop from my school, I tossed Ubuntu and the gnome-shell package onto it. It's virtual desktops rethought into something useful.

Last edited by arew264 (2009-10-26 02:43:32)

cb474 · 2009-10-26 06:41:36

Good to know the hierarchical menu is still there, contary to what the article says.

I can see how creating more or less virtual desktops on the fly would be useful for some people. I find just always having four works pretty well for me. I would also hate to have to create new virtual desktops every time I start up my computer, so I hope that can be set to some default. On the other hand, implementing the virtual desktop applet in Gnome as it is now, to allow one to create more desktops on the fly would be pretty simple, I'd think. It doesn't require the animations, which I just find annoying. Nor a whole new "paradigm." So to me the virtual desktop implementation of Gnome Shell still seems like a very very overdone (eye candy) way of providing a particular feature that could easily be added to the current Gnome desktop inteface. It doesn't seem like much of an innovation at all. And to the extent that it excludes possibilities that currently exist and forces users into a more narrowly conceived new "paradigm," that to me is a regression jazzed up as eye candy. Frankly, why not just make a plugin for Compiz that does this? That's what it feels like. Someone took their favorite (in this case hypothetical) Compiz plugin and is now imposing it on everyone.

Last edited by cb474 (2009-10-26 06:44:51)

Rasi · 2009-10-26 09:08:56

btw.. wmii has had flexible adding/removing of workspaces for years

Last edited by Rasi (2009-10-26 09:09:07)

Anikom15 · 2009-10-26 22:24:16

Rename WIMP to:
Workspace
Icon
Menu
Pointer

madalu · 2009-10-27 14:40:42

arew264 wrote:

Except that workspaces can be added and removed in less than a second, letting you organize your work the way you want.

I can't remember any time in my lifetime that I've wanted to or needed to add or subtract workspaces on the fly. To me, this is the type of feature that people will have fun playing with for a couple of hours. "Oooh, look, the desktops slide off the screen...."

I can see the usefulness of "tagged" workspaces in tiling WMs. But these work because the whole point of workspaces is to make stuff invisible until you need it. Gnome shell seems to operate with a different principle. What's the advantage of being constantly reminded of all my workspaces every time one opens an application or a file? I would love to hear what exactly the advantages of this are other than the novelty factor. IMO, the Windows 7 hide/reveal features are leagues beyond what gnome-shell has thus far promised because (surprisingly for Microsoft) they are functional and simple -- i.e., they don't add complexity and eye-candy just for the h*ll of it, but only where it makes sense.

I also have to say that the design principles of gnome shell -- too many moving parts and poor proportions (i.e., the left-side slide out menu looks lopsided) --- leave something to be desired. I don't see anything other than "crash and burn" (KDE 4.0 style) here, but I certainly hope that I'm proven wrong.

Last edited by madalu (2009-10-27 14:48:30)

cb474 · 2009-10-28 08:23:54

madalu wrote:

I can't remember any time in my lifetime that I've wanted to or needed to add or subtract workspaces on the fly. To me, this is the type of feature that people will have fun playing with for a couple of hours. "Oooh, look, the desktops slide off the screen...."

Exactly. And if you could just turn it off after you got tired of it I wouldn't care. It would just be like some random Compiz plugin, which I still think is all this feature amounts to. But forcing the whole desktop to always work this way for everyone is a huge limitation.

Last edited by cb474 (2009-10-28 08:24:26)

keiichi · 2009-10-28 23:16:14

I can't remember any time in my lifetime that I've wanted to or needed to hear people complaining about gnome without contributing any ideas or code to help. To me, this is the type of complaining that people will have fun making noise about for a couple of hours but won't fix any of the problems they're so fed up about.

Ranguvar · 2009-10-28 23:46:23

keiichi wrote:

I can't remember any time in my lifetime that I've wanted to or needed to hear people complaining about gnome without contributing any ideas or code to help. To me, this is the type of complaining that people will have fun making noise about for a couple of hours but won't fix any of the problems they're so fed up about.

I agree a tiny bit, but not everyone wants to (or has time to) become a programmer, and you shouldn't need to be to critique the work of programmers.

Last edited by Ranguvar (2009-10-28 23:46:37)

cb474 · 2009-10-29 00:06:08

keiichi wrote:

I can't remember any time in my lifetime that I've wanted to or needed to hear people complaining about gnome without contributing any ideas or code to help. To me, this is the type of complaining that people will have fun making noise about for a couple of hours but won't fix any of the problems they're so fed up about.

It's obvious that Gnome (and Linux in general for that matter) has a huge user base that goes way beyond people who are developers and that it is trying to appeal to such a wide user base. In fact, the move to Gnome Shell is clearly a decision made out of Gnome's desire to bring in more users and introduce them to different ideas. So the idea that the very users who are the audience for Gnome are completely irrelevant for feedback, unless they're a developer, is silly and elitist.

Also critique is contributing ideas to a program or platform. In fact, it's often only in the face of critique that one pushed to go farther and come up with a better idea. This is true of any field of endeavor. Projects that avoid critique and feedback, usually stagnate and fail to innovate effetively.

ngoonee · 2009-10-29 00:32:54

Critique must be fair and qualified, however. There was, with KDE 4, way too much bile which basically said "wtf are the devs doing, they're forcing crap on me". Devs are human as well, nobody takes well to abuse. There's far too many users who feel entitled to curse the dev just because they're doing him the favour (!!!) of using his software.

Give fair criticism through the proper channels (official bug-reports and feature-enhancement request, mainly), not unfair and personal criticisms through forums and blogs.

madalu · 2009-10-29 01:42:23

keiichi wrote:

I can't remember any time in my lifetime that I've wanted to or needed to hear people complaining about gnome without contributing any ideas or code to help. To me, this is the type of complaining that people will have fun making noise about for a couple of hours but won't fix any of the problems they're so fed up about.

Well I must confess to some schadenfreude here, as I long ago left Gnome for the greener pastures of Openbox and, yes, KDE. Though I have fiddled around a bit with gnome-shell just to check it out...

As far as I'm concerned, the problem of gnome-shell is that it is the product of too many coders and too few designers. Thus, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to critique gnome-shell from a design perspective. After all, one of the main points of gnome-shell is to keep up with the UI innovations in Windows and Mac OS---i.e., to work for "average" computer users. So why is it not useful for computer users to try to articulate their thoughts about gnome shell in the context of a forum? These types of comments are just as much a part of the open source ecosystem as coding (though obviously not as crucial).

ngoonee · 2009-10-29 02:37:16

madalu wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, the problem of gnome-shell is that it is the product of too many coders and too few designers. Thus, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to critique gnome-shell from a design perspective. After all, one of the main points of gnome-shell is to keep up with the UI innovations in Windows and Mac OS---i.e., to work for "average" computer users. So why is it not useful for computer users to try to articulate their thoughts about gnome shell in the context of a forum? These types of comments are just as much a part of the open source ecosystem as coding (though obviously not as crucial).

Because the people who matter don't read these forums? I differentiate in the post above between useful comments, in the proper place where devs get to see them and act on them, and random complaints (or, sometimes, suggestions) in a forum which will only be read by some other users.

I've heard users complain that dev teams are unapproachable and divorced from the 'reality' of the user's computing habits, which, if true, seems to imply to me more that the users aren't giving feedback properly rather than the devs ignoring users.

Pet peeve here, but the ubuntu bug tracking system isn't the correct place for complaints about gnome . Bugs/feature requests should go to the source. Thankfully arch's bug system doesn't seem too inundated with this.

madalu · 2009-10-29 03:58:21

ngoonee wrote:

madalu wrote:
So why is it not useful for computer users to try to articulate their thoughts about gnome shell in the context of a forum? These types of comments are just as much a part of the open source ecosystem as coding (though obviously not as crucial).
Because the people who matter don't read these forums? I differentiate in the post above between useful comments, in the proper place where devs get to see them and act on them, and random complaints (or, sometimes, suggestions) in a forum which will only be read by some other users.

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant to agree with you here. I think forums
are the place for venting, hashing out thoughts, etc. before making an
official bug report and/or request. We wouldn't want every random user
inundating the bug tracking system. But users also need a space to have an informal conversation about what they think about new features.

What I was objecting to was an earlier suggestion that somehow any informal criticism in a forum without a bug report was somehow illegitimate.

iphitus · 2009-10-29 07:45:47

If you don't like gnome 3... write your own proof of concept. If others like the idea it'll grow.

I've got some ideas that I'll put together in a few weeks. Should be something useful and keyboard friendly unlike these gnome 3.0 animations.

jmdennis · 2009-12-27 12:36:52

I have not used it yet but like the idea of Gnome taking a whole different approach to the desktop. KDE for the most part stuck with the desktop. Sure you can do other things that you might not have been able to do before but it is still around a desktop for the most part. I like the idea of going in the opposite direction. We need more people thinking outside of the box and I believe Gnome is now doing this. I would not have guessed that they would have come up with some thing like this. I am mainly a KDE user but plan on making this my desktop of choice when it comes out.

TheJoe · 2009-12-27 13:08:52

This GNOME Shell thing is scary. It's a move to another DE if that's compulsory.

cb474 · 2009-12-28 08:49:07

I finally installed Gnome Shell and gave it a try. Everything that I thought looked horrible about it from the video demonstrations was in fact horrible.

I think that Gnome Shell offers exactly nothing new. It just uses some slick animations to make features that already exist seem like they're some sort of breakthrough.

Certainly when you first see Gnome-Shell and interact with it, it seems different and cool. But that turns out to be pure gee whiz eye candy, with no underlying substance.

In actual practice all that Gnome Shell does that is different is:

1) Allow you to create workspaces on the fly. This turns out to be incredibly annoying, since you can't have a preset number of workspaces, so every time you login or restart, you have to create all the workspaces you want by default anew. I consider this a regression. Normally I have a certain default number of workspaces that I use. Having to create them every time I start my system just creates steps for me.

2) It defaults to opening applications through a universal search function, where you type and it suggests applications and files, defaulting first to those you use more frequently. This is in no way different than Gnome-Do. It's just done with a fancy/annoying animation.

3) Gnome-Shell assumes it's better to decide what application you want to use or file you want to open and then specify what workspace you want it on, by dragging the icon to that workspace and then having it open there. This seems cool the first time you do it, but actually takes more steps and requires more use of the mouse than the way workspaces currently work in Gnome. With Gnome as it currently is you get the inverse, move to the workspace, then select the file you want to open. It turns out, moving to the workspace first takes less steps, does not require flashy animations, and can be done entirely with keyboard commands.

Indeed, in general, Gnome-Shell forces you into a much more mouse-drive paradigm. I consider this a regression also. Seems more user friendly at first, in the long run less efficient and the road to repetitive stress injuries.

I understand why Gnome-Shell looks so cool and innovative at first. I had a moment of "ooo, ahh." But that only lasted about two minutes. Then I saw that it offers no new functionality. Confuses eye-candy with usefulness. Forces me to constantly watch the desktop shrink and expand for no good reason. And simply turns on it's head the way workspaces currently work, for no functional reason, other than to appear new and different. I dread the day we're stuck with Gnome-Shell.

Last edited by cb474 (2009-12-28 08:50:00)

JohannesSM64 · 2009-12-28 09:19:41

cb474 wrote:

I dread the day we're stuck with Gnome-Shell.

What? No one's forcing you to use GNOME You can also stick with an old version if you want..
Personally, I've abandoned the whole idea of a DE.

cb474 · 2009-12-28 09:45:23

JohannesSM64 wrote:

What? No one's forcing you to use GNOME You can also stick with an old version if you want..
Personally, I've abandoned the whole idea of a DE.

I like Gnome how it currently is. I find it the most useful for my purposes. And I'm happy to see innovation within the current desktop paradigm of Gnome. So someone will be forcing me to stop using the Gnome I like. My understanding is that sticking with the old version of Gnome will slowly break, as other dependencies are upgraded, and that it's not really practical to hold and entire DE back, while continuing to upgrade the rest of my system. So if it were as simple as you suggest, I wouldn't be so horrified by Gnome-Shell. But basically the Gnome developers are forcing all Gnome users into a different paradigm, unless they simply want to stop upgrading their systems altogether.

Last edited by cb474 (2009-12-28 09:45:42)

Arch Linux

#101 2009-10-01 20:24:55

Re: Gnome 3.0

#102 2009-10-02 01:03:24

Re: Gnome 3.0

#103 2009-10-05 09:33:51

Re: Gnome 3.0

#104 2009-10-11 19:03:53

Re: Gnome 3.0

#105 2009-10-11 20:50:22

Re: Gnome 3.0

#106 2009-10-26 01:56:54

Re: Gnome 3.0

#107 2009-10-26 02:40:36

Re: Gnome 3.0

#108 2009-10-26 06:41:36

Re: Gnome 3.0

#109 2009-10-26 09:08:56

Re: Gnome 3.0

#110 2009-10-26 22:24:16

Re: Gnome 3.0

#111 2009-10-27 14:40:42

Re: Gnome 3.0

#112 2009-10-28 08:23:54

Re: Gnome 3.0

#113 2009-10-28 23:16:14

Re: Gnome 3.0

#114 2009-10-28 23:46:23

Re: Gnome 3.0

#115 2009-10-29 00:06:08

Re: Gnome 3.0

#116 2009-10-29 00:32:54

Re: Gnome 3.0

#117 2009-10-29 01:42:23

Re: Gnome 3.0

#118 2009-10-29 02:37:16

Re: Gnome 3.0

#119 2009-10-29 03:58:21

Re: Gnome 3.0

#120 2009-10-29 07:45:47

Re: Gnome 3.0

#121 2009-12-27 12:36:52

Re: Gnome 3.0

#122 2009-12-27 13:08:52

Re: Gnome 3.0

#123 2009-12-28 08:49:07

Re: Gnome 3.0

#124 2009-12-28 09:19:41

Re: Gnome 3.0

#125 2009-12-28 09:45:23

Re: Gnome 3.0

Board footer