Dear Deity
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Dec 21, 2011 8:17 AM EDT |
A new desktop metaphor that actually works, what could be wrong with that? You might say that it does not work well but as millions are using it (maybe a exaggeration) one must agree that it does, indeed, work. Ah the "Million Flies" argument. Maybe "millions" are using it, but are they happy with it? Is it really working? Is it the best possible workflow? Are there productivity enhancements? What if many people just begrudgingly use it because it is the only path forward with Gnome? Gnome 2 is dead, MATE is uncertain, KDE/XFCE/LXDE/etc. simply are not Gnome. What if one wants to stay in the Gnome fold? Then Gnome 3 is the future, warts and all. Most stuff in Gnome 3 jives well with me, but pure Shell absolutely not. The workflow is moronic and requires too many actions (in comparison to Gnome 2) just to do the stuff I've always done. There is no productivity gain. It's more of a regression. Still, I'm using Gnome 3 with Shell. It's not the Gnome Shell that the Gnome 3 developers envisioned I should use. I'm running Linux Mint 12 with the Linux Mint Gnome Shell extensions. So my desktop strongly resembles what I had before in Gnome 2. It still isn't on par feature wise, but it is palatable. The most disingenious part of the article is the video link to the authors own Gnome Shell setup. It is already customized to work around the shortcomings of the pure Shell "philosophy". For all the hosanna of "It is new. It WORKS. It is only a short term problem for newbies. It is an opportunity. It is a welcome change. It is a unique new metaphor.", the author has shown that pure Gnome Shell isn't that wonderful thing he claims it is. His own desktop movie is proof that Gnome Shell needs to be customized to fit with your workflow. For all the talk of new metaphors, the author clearly isn't adopting it. That is also where all the grumbling comes from. Out of the box, Gnome 3 Shell isn't an easy, productive and discoverable environment. It's all the extensions popping up like mushrooms, that are removing most of the brain dammage in Shell. The extensions themselves aren't to Gnome's credit. (Although we need to thank them for a working extensions framework). |
| GERGE Dec 21, 2011 8:33 AM EDT |
I also commented that it needs css and js editing. I used some extensions from Mint, did some editing for the fonts and activities behaviour. But that doesn't change that Gnome 3 still is a application based system instead of a window based one. Even the dock I used is set up like that. That is what I am talking about. |
| tracyanne Dec 21, 2011 8:46 AM EDT |
@GERGE, yes they are. Unity and GNOME3 Shell are designed for Tablets and other touch based devices. The paradigm is quite simply wrong for large screen high resolution, and Multi monitor rigs. At best they are somewhat acceptable on non touch devices with smaller monitors. Personally I will wait until MATE is suffiently mature, If that is not in time for Mint 13 (the next LTS release in April 2012), I'll upgrade my system to Mint 11 (from 9) and wait until Mint 14 or 15. |
| fewt Dec 21, 2011 9:08 AM EDT |
RedHat has GNOME2 in their RHEL 6 release which will be supported for a few more years. So .. while there is no new feature growth in GNOME2, I don't know that it's fair to say it is completely dead. I'm keeping an eye on MATE, but I don't know that it's going to be the answer. IMHO - much of GNOME2s lost functionality will be replaced in GNOME3 via extensions. Completely and utterly stupid, it should be native. I don't understand the infatuation with throwing out mature interfaces the moment they reach maturity and starting over. We've consistently shot ourselves in the foot for as long as I can remember. KDE, GNOME, Upstart, Systemd, and on and on and on. Now .. we are about to do the same thing with Wayland / Xorg which we just did a few years ago with Xorg / XFree. When is it going to end? When Desktop Linux has absolutely zero chance of success on the desktop? Will we be done then? /rant |
| cmost Dec 21, 2011 9:54 AM EDT |
@ fewt I couldn't agree with you more. I understand that Linux is a tinkerers dream and some love to keep "fixing" what isn't really broken. Developers need to realize that while incremental improvements and new features are welcome, and that change is good, they need to also realize that Linux is actually being used! Linux is indeed a viable, powerful free OS that many rely on from the individual power user all the way up to massive server farms in corporate enterprise. Continuing to upend users with untested and unpopular new user interfaces (Gnome 3, Unity) bleeding edge and immature underpinnings (Wayland) and generally making changes for the sake of change makes Linux seem like a good idea whose time will never come. It also doesn't help that there are 350+ distributions and very little in the way of standards between them. While I will never, ever go back to being a slave to Windows or Mac, I wonder how many others will simply throw up their hands and say enough already! |
| Fettoosh Dec 21, 2011 12:30 PM EDT |
Although I agree that Linux DEs could benefit from additional consistency, I disagree on some of other issues mentioned in previous comments. Wayland / Xorg is not the same as Xorg / XFree. The objective of Wayland is to address some of the issues that plague Xorg. eg. Performance, complexity, bloat, etc. There is too much junk that was needed long time ago and no longer needed now, or no need to have it on every type of device (fonts, Networking, support for obsolete devices). Wayland will be cleaner and much more streamlined. Networking could still be accomplished by Wayland calling Xorg module only when needed. KDE made changes in the core but not much change in what is visible to the user like GNOME did. KDE made procedural mistake in rolling out KDE 4 but didn't kill the classic DE interface. They added more options by creating multiple interfaces for the user to choose whichever interface is appropriate for the device at the time. See here: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/wha... GNOME made the the right decision to pursue touch interface but made a fundamental mistake by not keeping an option for the users to have the legacy interface along with touch interface. Touch interface is very useful for Netbooks, Tablets and other handheld devices and I believe that will keep Linux more competitive in this area. |
| r_a_trip Dec 22, 2011 7:53 AM EDT |
But that doesn't change that Gnome 3 still is a application based system instead of a window based one. Even the dock I used is set up like that. That is what I am talking about. And what is so revolutionary about that? Even Windows 7 has that in a traditional desktop lay-out. I thought the new fangled thing in UI design should be document centric. Never mind. The grumbling will die down and the adherants to the "desktop metaphor" will get their fix in Gnome 3. Either through extensions or via Cinnamon. (I need to donate more $ to Linux Mint in 2012.) The lovers of the new Unity and Shell interfaces already have their fix. It's just another dividing line in the community, nothing new or spectacular. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!