- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Fedora 16 And GNOME Shell: Tested And Reviewed
This massive article amounts to a full blown guide to Fedora 16 “Verne” and complete dissection of GNOME Shell. It begins with an installation guide, which includes instructions for enabling 3rd party repos, proprietary graphics drivers, Wi-Fi, Flash, Java, multimedia codecs, and 32-bit libs. Next up is a guide to GNOME Shell, including customization options and methods to “fix” the Shell or mimic GNOME 2. Finally, Fedora is benchmarked against Ubuntu 11.10 and Windows 7. |
|
|
Comments (20)
Super comprehensive and it has to be said this must be the ULTIMATE negative gnome shell assessment. I bet the gnome devs who bother to read this will not be happy.
They could not care any less.
They are right and what other people think, need or want does not matter.
You can repeatedly show how the new interface increases the work to do the same things that were once more efficient, increases disruption of work flow because of view switching, decreases user configuration options, reduces the appeal to new users because it requires tweaking configuration files instead of giving GUI options, decreases the usefulness on tablets because the easiest way to navigate and control is with keyboard shortcuts (so useful on tablets), and on, and on, and on....
None of that has mattered up until now. It won't start mattering any time soon.
If someone at Red Hat wised up and Gnome 3 got dropped as the default in Fedora, the Gnome developers might take notice.
Like in this review most users are using extensions to alleviate the worst parts. Once you get reasonable alt-tab behavior, an applications menu, a workplace switcher and running applications there is no longer a need for an activities pane. All that Gnome 3 still needs is an extension to turn off the activities hot spot and you have a pretty reasonable desktop.
Oh wait, that's Cinnamon :)
They are right and what other people think, need or want does not matter.
You can repeatedly show how the new interface increases the work to do the same things that were once more efficient, increases disruption of work flow because of view switching, decreases user configuration options, reduces the appeal to new users because it requires tweaking configuration files instead of giving GUI options, decreases the usefulness on tablets because the easiest way to navigate and control is with keyboard shortcuts (so useful on tablets), and on, and on, and on....
None of that has mattered up until now. It won't start mattering any time soon.
If someone at Red Hat wised up and Gnome 3 got dropped as the default in Fedora, the Gnome developers might take notice.
Like in this review most users are using extensions to alleviate the worst parts. Once you get reasonable alt-tab behavior, an applications menu, a workplace switcher and running applications there is no longer a need for an activities pane. All that Gnome 3 still needs is an extension to turn off the activities hot spot and you have a pretty reasonable desktop.
Oh wait, that's Cinnamon :)
I'm still confused why Cinnamon was needed to achieve that... LXDE, XFCE, KDE and E17 all provide sane desktops without hacking needlessly at a project whose creators don't want the users to be in control of their system.
~Jeff
~Jeff
I so want to make a pun how Jeff knows where the Bodhis are buried. But I guess I won't.
Under the Bodhi tree!
Jeff is correct. There are already multiple solutions that can deliver a reasonable desktop interface. That includes Gnome 2.
Maybe that is why the Gnome developers veered off into such a strange direction. Most of the 'niches' left in the desktop 'environment' are all filled. The only place left for a new desktop 'species' is in a more extreme environment where the 'species' (and hence the desktop user) has to work harder to accomplish the same tasks that the existing 'species' can do so much more efficiently.
Of course what doesn't make sense is that the Gnome 2 desktop was one of the dominant species in the ecosystem. Gnome 3 shell is just scrabbling for its existence :)
Maybe that is why the Gnome developers veered off into such a strange direction. Most of the 'niches' left in the desktop 'environment' are all filled. The only place left for a new desktop 'species' is in a more extreme environment where the 'species' (and hence the desktop user) has to work harder to accomplish the same tasks that the existing 'species' can do so much more efficiently.
Of course what doesn't make sense is that the Gnome 2 desktop was one of the dominant species in the ecosystem. Gnome 3 shell is just scrabbling for its existence :)
Linus dropped KDE 4 for Gnome 2 and there was a huge outcry at how bad KDE 4 was as well and projects popped up to try to keep KDE 3 alive. This passed, as will the outcry on GNOME 3 will pass with time and refinements.
The one good thing you can say about gnome 3 is the ease of customisation. The extensions site mushroomed out of nowhere with literally hundreds written by what look like disgruntled users. Cinnamon, which is really just another customisation albeit a little more serious since Lefebvre and co forked gnome at least superficially, took very little time to come up to a very stable and usable desktop.
Quoting:This passed, as will the outcry on GNOME 3 will pass with time and refinements.
Actually there is a huge difference. I was one of the people who complained bitterly about KDE4 and abandoned it for GNOME 2. The difference is that the KDE4 people, as arrogant as they were and I believe still are, were not attempting some huge paradigm shift. What they did was allow KDE4.0 to be released into the wild... it was a beta, probably Alpha, product. Over time they have added back in all of the functionality that was available in KDE 3.5.10, and, speaking as an ex KDE 3.5.10 user, it's all there in pretty much the same place.
GNOME 3 is a paradigm shift, it is touted as a paradigm shift, and it was held back from release by the GNOME 3 devs, because they believed it was not ready for release (about 12 months I think it worked out to be. So what was eventually released was supposed to be a complete ready for public consumption release. The problem with GNOME 3 is that the GNOME devs will never add back in the GNOME 2 functionality.
Any GNOME 2 like functionality will be provided by people who don't like the way the GNOME devs have done it. As a consequence any dying down of complaints will be because of two reasons. 1/ people like me who have moved away from GNOME (I went back to KDE), or 2/ those who have moved to cinnamon (which is basically GNOME 3 with all the GNOME 2 like functionality added on by non GNOME 3 developers.
As it stands GNOME 3 as envisioned and built by the GNOME devs is basically a bridge too far.
I agree with TracyAnne about this. I recently tried KDE again, and was pleasantly surprised to see all the functionality of 3.5 had come back. I'm not crazy about the icons/desktop issue with it (having to put them in boxes), but I can tweak what I don't like.
Gnome 3 and Unity are a different story. You have to overhaul them to make them useful. And it takes a lot of overhauling to do it. After you do it's only marginally useable.
Gnome 3 and Unity are a different story. You have to overhaul them to make them useful. And it takes a lot of overhauling to do it. After you do it's only marginally useable.
Quoting:The GNOME 3 tagline is "made of easy." Easy for who?
Easy for new Linux-users, people coming from Windows or Mac? Considering that GNOME Shell is one of the most alien GUIs we've ever seen, none of that is likely.
Quoting: Without a functional desktop, on-screen task management, or widgets, the GNOME 3 desktop is literally vacuous. Creating room for nothing and killing off functionality in the process seems pretty pointless to us.
The Gnome team learned nothing from the last time they did this, dumping 1.4 for a 2.x series that was also devoid of functionality. And just like Gnome 3, other people put stuff back until it was usable again. Which again was intolerable to the devs, and thus Gnome 3 emerged.
This blog from 2008 gives a good look into the mindset of the Gnome team. In a word: boredom. "gnome in the age of decadence" http://wingolog.org/archives/2008/06/07/gnome-in-the-age-of-...
Quoting: The screen is still constructed as a static landing strip on which the mouse pointer might alight, an array of possibilities necessarily constricted by decontextualized space. The metaphors are the same: file, folder, desktop, even as these things cease to exist for many people. And techologically, we don't even have a way of considering how the visual elements of space might be anything other than static, much less have any way of interacting with those elements other than the impoverished point and click.
Um...OK.
the impoverished point and click.
Must be one of those inner-city point and clicks. I've seen them on TV.....
Must be one of those inner-city point and clicks. I've seen them on TV.....
Possibly one of the best distro reviews, I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
Wish Tom's would cover a few more distro's like this.
As for Gnome 3 well the conclusion was pretty much a given, considering how bad it is.
Wish Tom's would cover a few more distro's like this.
As for Gnome 3 well the conclusion was pretty much a given, considering how bad it is.
@jasp
that box doesn't have to be a box. it can be set to go full screen and then you have your icons back on your desktop, if that's what you want
Quoting:I'm not crazy about the icons/desktop issue with it (having to put them in boxes), but I can tweak what I don't like.
that box doesn't have to be a box. it can be set to go full screen and then you have your icons back on your desktop, if that's what you want
Gnome 3 itself is not bad, but the shell interface as first shipped leaves a lot to be desired. I agree that the third party extensions are adding the much needed functionality.
I've been using Cinnamon for the last month and am very happy so far. Either way the desktop 'paradigm' works for me and I don't need a radical shift, thank you very much.
The idea of a gtk3 based desktop is sound. It's working out the details that will take time.
I've been using Cinnamon for the last month and am very happy so far. Either way the desktop 'paradigm' works for me and I don't need a radical shift, thank you very much.
The idea of a gtk3 based desktop is sound. It's working out the details that will take time.
Quoting:I'm not crazy about the icons/desktop issue with it (having to put them in boxes), but I can tweak what I don't like.
Actually, having them in boxes helps organizing icons on the desktop by user's favorite categories. And if you are still a Windows fan and want to extend it further, combined with "Quick Access", Lancelot menu, and other widgets, you can tile them to look like but function better than Metro interface in Windows 8. :-).
The sky is the limit.
Fettoosh, I'm about as much a Windows fan as Steve Ballmer is a Linux fan,...
If I wanted boxes, I'd make boxes myself (somehow). Actually, What I'm planning on looking into is Cairo-dock on KDE.
If I wanted boxes, I'd make boxes myself (somehow). Actually, What I'm planning on looking into is Cairo-dock on KDE.
Actually the first thing I did was turn the Folder view off completely. That way I don't have any icons on my desktop. A much more satisfying result. No icons and no Plasmoids on my desktop, nice.
Quoting:What I'm planning on looking into is Cairo-dock on KDE.
I never used or looked into Cairo-dock, but for icons I use often, I create an empty panel on the left edge and fill it with my favorites. It sort of looks like Unity launcher panel.
I rather like having files and directories "on the desktop", a temporary landing pad to which all downloads are sent. A place to have the things I'm working on easily available, to be sorted later into their final resting places when I'm done fiddling.
I'm so glad people can turn it on or turn it off, not like those proprietary OSs which make it either one way or the other and darn the user's preferences.
It may be time to try a KDE4 install, and see if I can make it work. Too bad about Kmail not using mbox any more, having my mail stored in a way I cannot access through plain text tools is one of those things up with which I will not put.
I'm so glad people can turn it on or turn it off, not like those proprietary OSs which make it either one way or the other and darn the user's preferences.
It may be time to try a KDE4 install, and see if I can make it work. Too bad about Kmail not using mbox any more, having my mail stored in a way I cannot access through plain text tools is one of those things up with which I will not put.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post