bamm wrote:rop75 wrote:with some tweaking Gnome shell is really nice and usable
The problem is not that the Gnome devs have not yet incorporated these features, the problem is that the devs actually believe they shouldn't be there. Thus Shell is premised on a flawed design.
I think egrabrum's mention of 10 minutes is significant. It is not normal for a person to experience so many design flaws in only 10 minutes of use. This is open source, and we know that software can be made to work the way we like. I believe he is aware that all his complaints can be resolved by tweaking.
If you read his posts clearly, he was talking about bad specification design. If a person needs to do all the things you mentioned to bring a software to a usable state, then you have proven his point. Let me quote a post I made a page ago, which you may have missed:bamm wrote:The purpose of extensions are to extend. As you said, it is for anyone to adjust it to their liking. But something is wrong if there exists an entire ecosystem of extensions whose purpose is not just to extend functionality but to make it usable. Good software should have good defaults.
Let's say you configure Gnome3 for a friend you are converting to Linux. What if he creates a new user? What if he recommends it to his friends? Do they need to have you to reconfigure it to make it usable?
When Mint attempted to include Gnome3 in Lisa, they had to create their own extensions. Zorin also created its own set of extensions. SolusOS is still in Squeeze but when they migrate to Wheezy Ikey has said that it will have a heavily modified Gnome3. These distros wanted people to have a good experience on first try.
Think Firefox. Firefox has a good extension system, but has good defaults too. That is the beauty of open source. Now let's say I release a browser that has no URL bar or no support for bookmarks, because I don't believe in them anymore. Then lots of third party coders scramble to create extensions that restore these functionality. It is a sign that my product is bad by design. To rely on third parties to provide important things is irresponsible, and it's the ugly side of open source when people say "you want it, you code it yourself!" because it gives an excuse to do things badly.
Gnome made a lot of bad decisions which they won't even admit. Did you add a panel, or a maximize/minimize button? You had to add 10-15 extensions because the Gnome team believes that those features should not be there. Fortunately, Mint is a distro that cares about giving people good defaults.
According to your point of view (good software must have good defaults), Fedora must be a huge piece of crap (you can't create or edit any document, you can't see any videos, you can't hear MP3, you can't surf the web properly -as you can't visit flash or java based pages), but I can tell you Fedora is not hat bad and it is pretty easy to fix these problems. And not only fedora, there are many distros that are not usable and lack basic features at first, "because the devs actually believe these features shouldn't be there", and none of them are bad distros.
Of course, for Windows users Mate or Cinnamon are easier environments, but that is not my case (nor it is people who have taken part in this poll's case)
I know many Linux users, but I don't know any of them who has not tweaked their system and install new applications to make their systems more usable.
From my point of view, when I choose a software / distro / DE... I don't look at the default settings (because I know I'm going to change them) but what I can get using that software