Agreed...Midnighter wrote:personally, I'm not a fan of what appears to be a "complete" change in the way Gnome works. It seems to be changing for the sake of changing. Most of this is unnecessary. Where has it been asked for all this change? Over the top in my opinion.
I also was not under the impression that the GNOME user experience was "broken" and needed to be changed. In fact, I switched to GNOME from KDE because of its simplicity and because of the ease with which it integrated well with other technologies (especially Compiz-Fusion).
I can understand that GNOME's underpinnings - the core technical components like Bonobo, GVFS, Pango, etc. - need a lot of rework and streamlining, like the way KDE did by coming out with Phonon, Plasma, and Solid:
- KDE Software Compilation 4:
This is something that the GNOME desktop environment sorely needs, and the GNOME organisation's response is GNOME 3. The driving forces behind GNOME 3 and Gnome Shell are legitimate and well-established. The GNOME desktop infrastructure has grown out of control and is relying on many different external components, some of which are not well-maintained, or don't follow FreeDesktop.org standards, or are not modular enough to painlessly integrate with new technologies.
However, reworking the GNOME desktop environment's underlying technology shouldn't have to result in changing the "user experience" for change's sake. In my mind, Gnome Shell is a perfect example of "just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should do it."