'Future' Argument #1
linuxviolin wrote:I don't agree with your claim that GNOME 3 is "a better far API" and again
I want to be clear when I say GNOME3, I don't mean gnome-shell
. You hate the implemented gnome-shell, I understand that, but I want to be clear that the implementation has no bearing on the relevance of an improved API, most notably the addition of GTK+3. It could be the case that you may like future
developments (and I know I'm stretching it here
), all of which depend upon the API. GTK+3 is generally heralded as an improvement to GTK2.*. A list of improvements can be found here -> http://blogs.fedoraproject.org/wp/mclas ... 3-is-here/
you could still disagree and say for instance, GTK+3 is not an improvement, but it would be a hard sell.
'Future' Argument #2
linuxviolin wrote: first, you should NOT need for extensions to have a good, usable, operable etc desktop. Period.
Some complain about the obscene nature of the default gnome-shell, and how it forces users to conform to the "gnome3 dev's" vision; then, once it is discovered that gnome-shell extensions provide a "high degree of power to the parts of the GNOME interface managed by the shell, such as window management and application launching", it's not good enough? GNOME3 and it's related libraries and API's have made gnome-shell extremely accessible for future development. Are there a lot of options so far? No. Has it been made easier to create for the future? Yes. The idea that GNOME3 is "locked down" is misinformed at best, and generally not true. The infrastructure is there, it just needs better accessibility of control.
The gnome-shell extensions among other things are going to be absolutely
necessary in order for the modifications people so desperately desire.
If the GNOME3 release was concerned with releasing a functional base core, containing only the bare requirements or necessities; now focus can be put to expanding and improving upon it. GNOME3 is in it's infancy, and it will take time to mature - GNOME2.32 didn't happen overnight either. Obviously new tools and graphical interfaces for settings need to be implemented, but the development cycle never sleeps - GNOME3 was just released last month - it's not unrealistic to expect time for developers to respond to the new interface. I do
think it's unrealistic to expect the GNOME developers to keep GNOME3 under wraps until the 'perfect' product is made, I think the community is a vital force in running and subsequently suggesting and contributing to the project.
Granted, I agree that currently that for novices (or the 'stupid' user as you put it) may have a tough time customizing GNOME3, and for what is
available is nowhere near the standard of GNOME2.Conclusion
I can certainly understand some users are pissed that the 'the house was knocked down' so to speak; but while it may hurt in the short-term - the structure had to be demolished in order to truly improve the 'foundation'. If you disagree the foundation needed to be re-written; fine I am no developer or programmer and cannot argue objectively with you, but I trust the reasoning of the people who contributed to it in the first place.
I can accept the hate deriving from GNOME3 not being a "fully usable desktop experience" for some users, and in light of GNOME2 being fully functional and completely satisfactory - some resentment inevitably surfaces. The optimistic "just wait tell GNOME3 matures bro!" argument doesn't cut it for some people - I get that. If you think GNOME3 sucks, you probably don't care about anything I said previous (A.K.A. 'Future' Arguments #1 & #2
) - the fact of the matter is that GNOME3 is not usable and one is required to remain unhappy, or face the daunting task of switching desktop environments. Yes, that is unfortunate and I'll admit I would be frustrated too, in that position. On the bright side, it will still be awhile before all distro's start shipping GNOME3