When the Fedora Engineering Manager hates GNOME3…

[rijnsma]

I hope I do not have to suspect some possible developers paid by MS are trying to do the same
to Gnome they did to KDE?

KDE 3.5 was fine, KDE 4.x.x was hell for a long, long time. It was sad to see that KDE 3.5 apps
were no longer supported and maintained because they were too busy with an ugly KDE 4.x.x.
So a lot of people said 'goodbye' and went to Gnome/KDE.

Ext4 was such a thing. Grub 2 the same. 'Very nice' for mixed multiboot systems... Ok, I foud some
solution after destroying my system a few times. But for how long??

And now the same story all over again??!! Where is my handkerchief?!!
Can it stop now? Or has the Linux-desktop-'crowd' to shrink? It's not so big..

Why not maintaining fine systems with old name while making new ones with other names.
Because 'Gnome' is quite something else like Gnome 3...!
The same with KDE. So why have Gnome 2.x and KDE-old to disappear?? Keep it alive while
producing new KDE en new Gnome. And don't let 'them' force things on you.
I don't want to be forced to use Xfce, although it is rather good.
(In Vector-Linux they understand this a little, there is still a version with KDE 3.5....)

[HorrorCode]

I agree with alot of these points. The most confusing part to me is/was if Ubuntu is dropping gnome?(i think?), why are we both moving towards these 'shells', there is already Chromium/Chrome, Moblin, Meego, Android, those have their own niche market, and in my eyes don't belong in the desktop world by deafult, only by option? Ubuntu was a desktop os at one point, I take it their leaving the desktop users behind and moving towards mobile/portability, forget the rest of us.

The way I see it, Gnome was JUST starting to really mature, apps that made it simpler and easier to use, that had been requested for years, just starting to see the light of day. So lets smother that. I'm at the point now that, I can'y see myself moving away from LM10 Julia Gnome 2.x.w/e x86_64, EVER. It has everything I asked for, for example these few useful apps that the Ubuntu/Gnome gods should have thought of long ago:

DesktopNova
Jupiter
Deluge
Opera
Cardapio(menu alternative)
Talika
GnomeDo
Tilda
AllTray
Guayadeque
X Screensaver(small glitches but still functional)
AbiWord
PulseAudio Equalizer(has small glitches, and I use pulse for easily switching between bluetooth/speaker/regular output, and streaming multiple outputs to multiple sources i.e music playing on bluetooth and movie playing on speakers, simultaneously, can anything else do this??)
Arista & Avidemux
VLC
Redshift
Almost forgot: Blueman
& so many other USEFUL utilities that just might not make it past this Shell/Cloud computing age, but thats just my outlook on it. Lets all watch them reinvent the wheel, again.

And just to clarify, I'm all for change, and portable apps/web/mobile computing, but this was supposed to be about choice, it seems theyre taking that out of the equation and making it for us. It would have been nice had they worked on fixing the current Network Manager, as what a better way to make the choice easier on us than to not give us one at all.

[rijnsma]

I have tried Fedora with Gnome 3 (which is not finished for a long, long time, I noticed).

Freedom to do whatever you like with your icons, desktops, panels and applications in general is gone.
They are forcing something upon you and I hate it very much.

For a lot of action there's no more one-click.
The controls on windows are mostly gone etc.
It looks beautifull but it is not 'handy' and 'fast'.

Never forget, the desktop was much, much better then menu-structures. Thát was THE revolution,
which made computing so attracktive and special. Now they are killing that.

My desktop is not a smartphone..! My desktop is a complicated control-center.

I'm going to see now how it is with Xfce and if necessary I try more flavours. I hope 'they' leave this
how it is now.

Here is my 'ideal day-to-day' desktop and so has anybody one, that's the essence of todays computing; freedom;
don't kill that with some cr*p like we experienced (and still do here and there) with KDE (sorry that it doesn't fit):

[azathoth]

I've heard PCLinuxOS uses the Brain ^^^^ Scheduler(sorry for the language but that's what it's called) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Fuck_Scheduler it's suppose to be faster then the default scheduler. Do you notice a difference?

Liquorix recently switched to using BFS by default, but I wouldn't have realized that had I not looked at the changelog, and grep'ed my kernel's config to see that BFS is actually being used. To be honest, I really haven't noticed any differences in latency or responsiveness.

As for Gnome 3, I've given the OpenSUSE Gnome 3 Live CD a spin and concluded that at present, I'd rather stick with Gnome 2. I'm a guy that loves messing around with cutting-edge/bleeding-edge software, but I'd rather give Gnome 3 a chance to mature (just look at how much KDE has stabilized from 4.0 -> 4.6).

BFS is about scheduling. Under modest to normal loads you likely won't see a significant difference, but under heavy loads - in my case an example might be doing a lengthy compile while web surfing and listening to mp3s and popping in and out of Gimp or Blender, etc, etc.
In such cases, latency is dramatically reduced and the desktop remains crisp and responsive. If you're not crunching some fairly heavy throughput, neither CK or Zen patched kernels would pass a blindfold test. It's basically, "bigger pipes only improve flow if more water is going through."

[proxima_centauri]

GNOME3 was rewritten from scratch to be more lightweight (less bloated) and highly configurable. I'll say right off the bat that yes, obviously more development needs to occur to order to appease most GNOME2.32 users. And no, not everything you want to see has been implemented yet. Was GNOME2.32 broken? did it need to be re-written? No, of course not - but by refining the API's, upgrading with GTK3 and depreciating old and outdated components (of what lets face it, was a pretty bloated DE) they dev's have created a better base to build upon.

The 'out-of-box' experience is quite unlike GNOME2.32, of course. Yet many simple things mentioned as being "forced on one" are configurable, and it requires you to make the changes yourself (changing behaviour of items on desktop, shutdown menu, alt+delete, workspace management, theming, etc). If one doesn't want to put the effort into changing the default layout, fine; but people are acting like everybody uses the default vanilla GNOME2.32 and nobody get's 'under the hood'. That isn't a completely fair categorization, but my point is, if you want customization, you're going to have to do it yourself until someone creates a 'user friendly' tool for it. Yes, there are somethings you simply cannot achieve on your own yet.

Additional panel options are already popping up as gnome-shell extensions. Granted GNOME3 is in it's infancy, and not every single feature or customization desired is there yet, and you may argue it's too hard to configure these things for novice users - fine. But what the GNOME3 dev's have done is create a better far API for development and built a new DE with the future in mind. I think that it was a necessary sacrifice in order to truly make something better, but clearly - that opinion is not shared by everyone.

GNOME3 may have been written for the benefit of developers and perhaps this currently overshadows the user improvements. But I for one am excited to where development on this fresh DE takes us.

[exploder]

proxima_centauri, you make quite a few good points. I saw yesterday that extensions were written to give a similar experience to Gnome 2x, so ways of customizing are starting to show up. The use of extensions sounds like an easy way to make Gnome 3 however you want it.

[zerozero]

+1 for proxima_centauri post
sums up with better wording some of my ideas about GS

[vincent]

I've heard PCLinuxOS uses the Brain ^^^^ Scheduler(sorry for the language but that's what it's called) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Fuck_Scheduler it's suppose to be faster then the default scheduler. Do you notice a difference?

Liquorix recently switched to using BFS by default, but I wouldn't have realized that had I not looked at the changelog, and grep'ed my kernel's config to see that BFS is actually being used. To be honest, I really haven't noticed any differences in latency or responsiveness.

As for Gnome 3, I've given the OpenSUSE Gnome 3 Live CD a spin and concluded that at present, I'd rather stick with Gnome 2. I'm a guy that loves messing around with cutting-edge/bleeding-edge software, but I'd rather give Gnome 3 a chance to mature (just look at how much KDE has stabilized from 4.0 -> 4.6).

BFS is about scheduling. Under modest to normal loads you likely won't see a significant difference, but under heavy loads - in my case an example might be doing a lengthy compile while web surfing and listening to mp3s and popping in and out of Gimp or Blender, etc, etc.
In such cases, latency is dramatically reduced and the desktop remains crisp and responsive. If you're not crunching some fairly heavy throughput, neither CK or Zen patched kernels would pass a blindfold test. It's basically, "bigger pipes only improve flow if more water is going through."

Thanks for pointing that out; I know that already. I often compile my own packages from source (i.e. with pbuilder), while web surfing and other desktop-related tasks, and still see no difference compared to earlier releases of Liquorix using CFS. Of course, your mileage may vary.

[proxima_centauri]

proxima_centauri and other, I don't agree with your claim that GNOME 3 is "a better far API" and again, first, you should NOT need for extensions to have a good, usable, operable etc desktop. Period.

Plus, sorry exploder but the pack you talked is not really "a similar experience to Gnome 2x"... Really, at least for now, GNOME 3 is unusable for me. I'm so sorry.

KDE 4 is a better choice now as a desktop.

GNOME3 may have been written for the benefit of developers

Well, this is silly. Just like a "stupid" user, can I for instance use my desktop, my computer, without be a developer and/or without have to configure it for hours? Thanks a lot.

[proxima_centauri]

I don't agree with your claim that GNOME 3 is "a better far API" and again

'Future' Argument #1
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/ I suppose you could still disagree and say for instance, GTK+3 is not an improvement, but it would be a hard sell.

first, you should NOT need for extensions to have a good, usable, operable etc desktop. Period.

'Future' Argument #2
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

[michaelzap]

Gnome Shell is a very interesting experiment and an impressively faithful implementation of some clear design principles. I don't think that it will work for all users, but it may be that for the majority of users it will offer improved workflow and focus on the task at hand. Time will tell.

Gnome 3 (everything but the shell) is indisputably an improvement on Gnome 2.

When I first heard that Gnome Shell was written in Javascript, my reaction was, "confused?" But now I think that the Gnome devs placed a very high value on the ability to customize the user interface, and already we are seeing extensions that change the way that Gnome Shell works. I expect that it will be a matter of a few weeks before we see a Gnome Shell extension that essentially restores the "classic" Gnome panel interface, since there's no reason why that couldn't be done (Gnome-panel still works, btw, and you can choose it in the session menu at login).

Gnome Shell is a fairly radical redesign of the UI and workflow in the hope that most users will benefit. But fortunately the developers did not lock things down so that you have to use it the way that they intended. There will be respins and extensions and all manner of variations, and that is good thing.

[trollboy]

Gnome Shell is a very interesting experiment and an impressively faithful implementation of some clear design principles. I don't think that it will work for all users, but it may be that for the majority of users it will offer improved workflow and focus on the task at hand. Time will tell.

No. I tried to use it for over a week to get real work done and it seemed to be designed to purely get in the way. [edit] And that was after I had found out that the keyboard can be used for almost everything which is perhaps the only thing I liked about Gnome Shell [/edit]

Gnome 3 (everything but the shell) is indisputably an improvement on Gnome 2.

Given that the shell is how the end user experiences Gnome 3, the impression given is that it is quite frankly rubbish. I've moved over to XFCE, which always ran Gnome a close second for my desktop affection anyway and you know, I haven't had to change my work flow one tiny iota.

I think the biggest mistake made was calling it Gnome Shell. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems to me that Gnome 3 is more like a framework and API and that the shell is built on top of it. Calling the shell something like "Goblin" would have instantly removed all the unfavourable comparisons with the traditional Gnome, it would have indicated something new and it may have made it clearer that this is only one potential interface. I chose "Goblin" quite deliberately as it is quite a short journey from Gnome to Goblin on thesaurus.com, less cruel that bogeyman and less obscure than brocard

There is no doubt that Gnome Shell is going to be a "Marmite" interface; you will either love it or hate it!

[rijnsma]

proxima_centauri wrote:

GNOME3 was rewritten from scratch to be more lightweight (less bloated) and highly configurable. I'll say right off the bat that yes, obviously more development needs to occur to order to appease most GNOME2.32 users. And no, not everything you want to see has been implemented yet. Was GNOME2.32 broken? did it need to be re-written? No, of course not - but by refining the API's, upgrading with GTK3 and depreciating old and outdated components (of what lets face it, was a pretty bloated DE) they dev's have created a better base to build upon.

Great. We will wait until it is better then the old one. Or make it very easy switchable. Gnome 2.3/Gnome 3. Fine!
Or wait some years until it is splendid.

The 'out-of-box' experience is quite unlike GNOME2.32, of course. Yet many simple things mentioned as being "forced on one" are configurable, and it requires you to make the changes yourself (changing behaviour of items on desktop,

Great, free desktop, free panels, so I can make what I want? Position what I like, add-ons like normal?
One click like always inst. of 3 click? Etc. So: better?

Additional panel options are already popping up as gnome-shell extensions.

Panels are free configurable now, it's nice, because out of the way (desktop). Fantastic! Could not better.
Don't leave a winning team in this.
And please only seldom keyboardcommands! This is not M$.

But what the GNOME3 dev's have done is create a better far API for development and built a new DE with the future in mind.

What do you mean by that?? Are we (who have to work with the stuff) allowed to know what your fine future IS?
Or do you guys do something on your own? Then I hope I agree with your view... in the near future.

GNOME3 may have been written for the benefit of developers and perhaps this currently overshadows the user improvements.

I hope so, but keep it switchable, or else I use KDE and Xfce together. It works fine after the hell for years of KDE.

But I for one am excited to where development on this fresh DE takes us.

Fine for you. I hope the crowd agrees.
And so in my view this is quite tricky for Linux. Will people follow?? We hope so..
Btw. a lot of other desktops functionallity depends on all kinds of Gnome software... it is like a web..

[exploder]

The bottom line on Gnome 3 is that we just need to give it a chance to mature. KDE 4 did not start out near as well but it seems pretty nice now. Hopefully Gnome 3 will mature a little faster. I really think that the creation and use of extensions is going to help.

Edit: To me time would be well spent helping find extensions to improve the usability of Gnome 3. Everyone pitched in and helped make some of the very early KDE 4 releases usable, we need to do the same with Gnome 3.

[rijnsma]

Almost nobody needs very much improvement to Gnome 2.3. Some improvement o.k. but don't overdo it.

Gnome 3 needs another name, not Gnome and certainly not Gnome 3. It is not Gnome!

And Gnome 2.3 needs to live its own life. Most people know it's good! And it is still better with some other-desktop apps.
Don't destroy it I would like to advice (this is in the planning I feel).

[rijnsma]

exploder wrote:

Everyone pitched in and helped make some of the very early KDE 4 releases usable, we need to do the same with Gnome 3.

O no, KDE 4 was a disaster for years. I used KDE 3 and up untill 3.5 (very nice) for some years and 4 was nothing.
(And so I came to Gnome/some KDE.)
I am very very surprised KDE survived this long period of trouble.

It (KDE 4) is usable now en with some Xfce apps or so it is more or less right.
A little more freedom on the panels would still be better.

[exploder]

I am very very surprised KDE survived this long period of trouble.

Yeah, it was rough but things are looking good these days.

[proxima_centauri]

But what the GNOME3 dev's have done is create a better far API for development and built a new DE with the future in mind.

What do you mean by that?? Are we (who have to work with the stuff) allowed to know what your fine future IS?
Or do you guys do something on your own? Then I hope I agree with your view... in the near future.

You missed the point. They have redesigned API's by simplifying and purging antiquated code and made it better by adding support for modern advancements in other technologies, for instance dbus, cairo, CSS, GDK, XInput2, GObject Introspection, to name a few. What this means is the developers regardless of vision, should have an easier time programming with GNOME3. This is what designing for the future means - it's highly configurable, modifiable and flexible.

[linuxviolin]

If you think GNOME3 sucks, you probably don't care about anything I said previous

I always read everything, even the opinions of people with whom I do not agree...

I admit having a bit tired of this debate and given that apparently there is a growing number of people who like Unity or GNOME Shell, I'm disappointed by the intelligence of the human race ... if ever I had still some illusions.

Again, the simple fact of a need for extensions is silly and I'm tired/ill of hacking like in a Slackware ... Why the heck they can not use proper *defaults*?! I told you already, I've had enough. I want more logical defaults, I do not want to feel like in an old Slackware, I do not want to spend 2 hours setup...

GNOME 3 and its "innovations" are just cr**. GNOME3 is broken by design, and the same can be said of Ubuntu’s Unity. Oh and if you want to know, about XFCE, even if I use it currently, it is, I am sorry to say, “never there yet”. No matter how you’re configuring it, it still feels like Win95 or maybe Win98. And its inability to display the desktop icon titles with a transparent background (and shadowed/outlined text for improved visibility over the wallpaper) is simply a decision to stick to 1995! And you also have to spend "2 hours setup" for it starts, just starts, looking like a decent thing...

Alternatively, KDE 4 is probably now a better choice as a desktop. Btw, it has not made such complete changes to the desktop. As KDE4 is currently the closest to Windows in terms of ergonomics and intuitive use, and it’s very much improved in 4.6, it’s still kinda crashing, being much more unstable than, say, Windows XP and Windows 7. With a folder view desktop, KDE4 should require an almost zero-learning curve to anyone who has previously used any version of Windows. Once you add a Folder View Activity on the desktop, it starts looking like a decent thing, although I still strongly dislike the concept of a plasmoid, but I suppose I could get used with that. I even started to find Dolphin quite acceptable, given the general feeling of a better “polish” that the whole KDE 4.6.2 desktop exhibits.

[rijnsma]

But what the GNOME3 dev's have done is create a better far API for development and built a new DE with the future in mind.

What do you mean by that?? Are we (who have to work with the stuff) allowed to know what your fine future IS?
Or do you guys do something on your own? Then I hope I agree with your view... in the near future.

You missed the point. They have redesigned API's by simplifying and purging antiquated code and made it better by adding support for modern advancements in other technologies, for instance dbus, cairo, CSS, GDK, XInput2, GObject Introspection, to name a few. What this means is the developers regardless of vision, should have an easier time programming with GNOME3. This is what designing for the future means - it's highly configurable, modifiable and flexible.

Oh, that is fine.
But can we use it nicely these days?