×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GNOME 3: Beauty To the Bone?

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the needs-more-ponies dept.

GNOME 647

someWebGeek writes "According to the GNOME design crew, as reported by Allan over at As Far as I Know, GNOME 3 will represent a new approach to GNOME application design. The design patterns being developed and employed may effect a new, prettier interface, but more importantly a new mindset about the entire project, a mindset intended to encourage greater deep beauty in the application layers below the user interface. Maybe...for now, I'm sticking to the sinking ship of KDE in the Ubuntu ocean."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

647 comments

To the Bone! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028393)

Developers at Gnome have reduced the entire UI to a single button and they're even trying to get rid of that.

Dev (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028545)

But that's what the usability studies indicate that users want this.
The ONLY reason you don't love it yet, is because you haven't learned the new paradigm, or you're too stupid to do so.

Ok, no more negative feed back please, La la la la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Re:Dev (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028855)

See Apple for details.

Re:To the Bone! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028781)

I've reduced my user interface to a single toggle switch.

101011101101101111001...

Re:To the Bone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028811)

I think you're lying, I see ones and zeroes, not electric pulses.

BLECK! (3, Insightful)

WolphFang (1077109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028395)

Awful desktop design. I *need* multiple windows displayed, *NOT* maximised to a single task view.... *LAMERZ*

Re:BLECK! (1)

debiangruven (576982) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028423)

This is why I jumped off the Gnome ship a few years ago. It is a horrible look, hopefully they are able to take care of the UI.

Re:BLECK! (1)

WolphFang (1077109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028445)

I am now using the MATE gnome2 fork myself.... I jump ship from KDE 3.something...

Re:BLECK! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028861)

I am now using the MATE gnome2 fork myself.... I jump ship from KDE 3.something...

And of course, for the KDE3 experience there's the Trinity Desktop [trinitydesktop.org] .

Re:BLECK! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028473)

What are you talking about? GNOME 3 supports display of multiple non-maximised windows. Have you even used it?

Re:BLECK! (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028555)

Ah, too busy to RTFA?

Displaying multiple windows at the same time means that screen space isn’t used efficiently, and it means that you don’t get a focused view of what it is that you are interested in. Windows that aren’t maximised also create additional tasks for people. Often you need to adjust their size, or you have to move them around.

They are clearly on track to eliminate that in favor of maximized windows. These people spend their lives studying Microsoft Window users, where a ridiculously high percentage of users have to close their browser to read their email, because nobody ever explained to them that you can do more than one thing at a time.

Had Gnome not gone out of their way to kill off (or at least bury) the historical multiple desktop that 'Nixes have had for decades they would not now find themselves chasing after the most incompetent of users, and trying to dumb down the interface to the point where productive people are just as helpless as your grandmother.

Not content with that, they are now aiming at a full screen environment, where even the simplest tasks require all the real estate you have.

Yes, you can run multiple non-maximized windows, and yes you can have more than one desktop. These are not the norm any more for Gnome. And reading the design documents at the posted link makes it clear what they think of your intelligence level, and makes it clear they would just as soon hide that capability even deeper than they buried it in past releases.

Re:BLECK! (4, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028669)

I use Windows, OSX, Linux, iOS, and Android. I have to say, I find that I generally want either one window maximized, 2 windows halved to move data between them, or 3 - 4 windows halved over 2 screens to move data between 2 windows while looking at reference materials. Virtual Desktops are fine, but in practice provide a functionality similar to minimized windows but with an annoying degree of toucheyness.

Of course, for Linux, I pretty much just want a command line and a phone with a browser. So I'm probably not the target market. But I can still understand the goal of moving to just maximized windows, and jumping between them. OS UI got stagnant for about 10 years in there, so I'm happy that they're experimenting with things... even if that means they'll occasionally Ubuntu it.

Re:BLECK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028735)

I generally want a window that feels like the right size, which is almost never exactly half the screen, and never the full screen unless it's already subdivided into smaller areas. I don't want it moving around either.

I don't want some prick scolding me for where I choose to put my windows and how big I make them, and I especially don't want that prick designing my UI.

Re:BLECK! (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028829)

I am all for experimentation and choice. Gnome wants to remove that choice. They think everything should be maximised and have said so. Soon they won't just hide the ability, but actively remove it. (Like they did with ctl-alt-bksp) That is my problem with this crap. Try anything you want. Make a UI entirely out of giant penises if you want. But don't take my preference away.

Virtual Desktops (5, Insightful)

jbov (2202938) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028951)

Virtual desktops are great for organization of your open windows. Having everything on one desktop, gives you no logical grouping of applications. Indeed, the keyboard shortcuts for switching between open applications are different if those applications are on separate desktops.

For example, one may have the following:
Desktop1: console
Desktop2: todo list, notes, and time tracking for billing
Desktop3: Gimp and all of its toolbars, file browsers
Desktop4: Gvim or editor of choice
Desktop5: Web browser(s)
Desktop6: Music player

Once you become consistent, you know that you can use a keyboard shortcut to switch to any of these windows, without having to Alt+Tab cycle through them. This is a great reason to keep Gimp on it's own virtual desktop, since there is an application window created for the main program, each open file, and each toolbar. The same can be said for browsers and their developer plugins. Applications which are related, logically, and that you switch between often can be on the same desktop. YMMV.

Re:BLECK! (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028859)

I stopped using modal interfaces for computing when Windows 98 came out, removing my "boot to command prompt, and type 'win' if I need windows" option. This was the year I learned about Linux, GNU, and in particular GNU Screen which allowed me to fill my massive high-res monitors with many terminals, and thus become more effective than closing one to open another... It amazed me that this software had been around for 13 years at that time. It was like getting out of an abusive relationship. I had been using two separate machines and a KVM switch -- I gained another order of magnitude in efficiency that day.

It's strange to see Gnome returning to the "one activity at a time" methodology that we had with simple DOS programs, or even the Apple IIe. At this rate programming an interface with Gnome4 will require wielding wire cutters and a soldering iron, Gnome5 will simply be several strings of beads, and Gnome6 is only a single stick -- What's more simple and user friendly than a beach full of sand? Gnome7: It's just a zen-like feeling of serene clarity you hold in your mind -- the ultimate free software, no hardware even required -- Wow, its NOTHING!

After the scales had fallen from my eyes, I promised myself that I would never stand for such abuse again.
Go ahead and write code without the API docs open on an adjacent screen or window -- or write a school report without your sources visible. Hell, enter spreadsheet data without another page visible. Look at papers? What papers? Some of us are paperless now! Who are these 'users' they're targeting? Surely no one that actually USES a computer. If it's only fit to be used as a media consumption device I believe they should call their desktop design methodology, Consumer Friendly, not User Friendly.

Re:BLECK! (4, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028563)

What are you talking about? GNOME 3 supports display of multiple non-maximised windows. Have you even used it?

Sort of. But it doesn't really seem to like that. Go to the Dash or Application menu to open a new terminal window, and instead Gnome says - "oh - Terminal! Here's your terminal window right HERE", and just maximizes the one already open. So I have to get Terminal to open a new one for me. Every application works like that. "You don't want ANOTHER application window - use THIS OPEN ONE INSTEAD!"

So Gnome does what it wants, not what I want it to do. And it takes me more mouse click and keystrokes to do anything than it did in Gnome 2. Why?!?

Re:BLECK! (1)

VanCardboardbox (1265220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028817)

This one is so easy to overcome. Firstly, you can right click on the instance of terminal in the favourites and select "new window". Admittedly this does double the number of required clicks from one to two. That's why I am using an extension that permits placing shortcuts on the top panel, GNOME 2 style. Using the panel shortcuts always opens a new window for any application. I use multiple non-maximalized windows all the time and have no issues. Extensions in general, and I am using several of them, have made GNOME Shell usable for me. In fact I have gone from hating it to kinda almost sorta loving it.

Re:BLECK! (4, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028835)

So Gnome does what it wants, not what I want it to do. And it takes me more mouse click and keystrokes to do anything than it did in Gnome 2. Why?!?

Because YOU ARE WRONG! At least that is the message I seem to be getting from Gnome and Ubuntu lately. "We are all about choice as long as you make the right one." Respectfully, gentleman, shove it!

Do you really? (1, Interesting)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028527)

Plenty of people use tablets and phones that don't have multiple windows. And not to sound like an old fart, but let's not forget that up until the mid 80's most computers barely had any multi-tasking at all, let alone multiple windows.

And what do multiple windows really give you? Inefficient usage of your screen? The hassle of dragging titlebars and fiddling with window grips? A paradigm where dragging and dropping an object causes an unpredictable IPC interaction?

Seems to me multiple windows is more of a bug than a feature.

Re:Do you really? (3, Insightful)

WolphFang (1077109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028601)

Hrmmmm as a *writer* and doing other sorts, such as *programming*, I need multiple windows thank you very much. Just because you are incapable of handling anything beyond a small tablet interface does not mean I am limited to such by ability, unless *forced* upon me... I also use *mouse focus*, not *click focus* as well...

Re:Do you really? (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028649)

oh boy oh boy, so the 1980s were the "bees knees" of UI for you. you must be a gnome3 developer.

For you, maybe. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028675)

Seems to me multiple windows is more of a bug than a feature.

For you, maybe. Not for everyone.

I prefer multiple monitors with multiple windows on each monitor. And none of them maximized.

And not to sound like an old fart, but let's not forget that up until the mid 80's most computers barely had any multi-tasking at all, let alone multiple windows.

Yeah. It's 2012 now.

I don't agree with those design changes. I don't see the advantage of trying to copy a single interface from the most limited systems to all systems. Particularly ones without the limitations of the systems that drove those restrictions in the first place.

Re:For you, maybe. (3, Insightful)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028943)

I use gnome 3 on 2 monitors with unmaximized windows every day and I love the new task switcher. The Linux community is ridiculously conservative.

Re:Do you really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028677)

And what do multiple windows really give you? Inefficient usage of your screen? The hassle of dragging titlebars and fiddling with window grips? A paradigm where dragging and dropping an object causes an unpredictable IPC interaction?

Well, it gives me the ability to read a PDF or other image file in one window and write in another. I do a lot of transcription of digitized copies of texts (manuscript codices and early printed books), and so I need to be able to look at an image file and at a text editor at the same time. Other times, I do research and write papers, which sometimes involves reading electronic copies of journal articles on one half of the screen and writing in LaTeX in the other. There really are plenty of uses for multiple windows, and much of the universe can't just be copied and pasted.

As for the last objection, "dragging and dropping an object causes an unpredictable IPC interaction," WTF? How the fuck does drag-and-drop cause problems in 2012, the year of jet-packs and flying cars?

Re:Do you really? (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028853)

As for the last objection, "dragging and dropping an object causes an unpredictable IPC interaction," WTF? How the fuck does drag-and-drop cause problems in 2012, the year of jet-packs and flying cars?

Because we now have more stupid people using computers. I mean really... Drag and drop is even consistent between Windows and most flavours of Linux. (clt-drag to copy and shift-drag to move) Wow...

Re:Do you really? (5, Insightful)

bell.colin (1720616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028699)

WHAT THE FUCK?

This is not a Tablet-OS, It is a "Desktop-OS". If I Wanted a FUCKING Phone or Tablet, I would buy a FUCKING Phone or Tablet! and there are already better interfaces than the Shit that is Gnome3 and Unity for them (iOS and Adroid 3.x)

STOP SHOVING SHITTY MOBILE PHONE TOUCH-SCREEN INTERFACES DOWN OUR THROATS FOR DESKTOPS!

Re:Do you really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028719)

For programming, one window will hold a fullscreen web browser to look up documentation. Another window for the editor, a third to run and test the program. Often a fourth and sometimes fifth for graphics (GIMP and Inkscape.) The sixth holds the MP3 player.

For everything else, some combination of the above.

Really, using multiple windows in this fashion follows what people with tablets and phones want: a workspace dedicated to one application at a time that maximizes the use of the available screen. No need to search for what I want from a list of running programs, just press a key combo corresponding with what I want.

I highly recommend VirtuaWin [sourceforge.net] if Windows users want to try this concept out.

Re:Do you really? (4, Informative)

grahamwest (30174) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028731)

At work I have a maximised IDE on my left monitor (with the editor split vertically so I can see a .c and .h file side by side).
On my right monitor I have my IM client up against the right hand side, email against the left, browser in the middle and taller than the email, music player in the top left. I put IM windows to the right, so they touch the left-hand edge of the IM contact list.

This lets me work on code and watch for incoming emails while referencing a document off the wiki, see when someone comes back from lunch or gets out of a meeting (their IM status) and if someone messages me I can click straight to the window to reply. Similarly, I can click the music player to the front and immediately get at the volume or track list or whatever, without having to alt-tab or go down to the taskbar.

If all that stuff was maximised or tiled it would be a big pain in the ass for me. I don't log out or turn off the computer for weeks at a time, so once the windows are positioned I'm good - and most of them remember where they were last time anyway.

Re:BLECK! (4, Insightful)

Shark (78448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028783)

I'm so with you on that one... May I add screen space being used for my work, not giant blank areas that serve no purpose, like 10 pixel padding around every single item or giant icons that a Parkingson's disease patient on speed could never miss. I could also do without the nagging sensation that I'm using a 24" smartphone that even Jobs would have labeled too dumbed down for the masses.

There used to be a time when a larger monitor meant more information in front of you. I guess it's still true, only the information now is just blank spaces between inane UI elements. Were I still a kid, I'd feel like my parents took away my Lego Technic set to hand me a bucket of Duplo.

found a GNOME replacement (5, Interesting)

poppopret (1740742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028425)

It takes just a minute to make XFCE look and act pretty much like GNOME 1.

I think you can clone GNOME 2 as well, but I always configured that to be like GNOME 1 so quickly that I barely saw it. :-) Why you'd want bars at top AND bottom of the screen is a mystery to me, but XFCE does support it. The same goes for desktop icons: you can have it if you want it.

I have my menu, my task switcher, my desktop switcher, my clock, and my xterm launcher. Life is good with XFCE.

Top & Bottom (1)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028585)

Why you'd want bars at top AND bottom of the screen is a mystery to me, but XFCE does support it.

I understand why you say this but really there is a menu at the top and a dock at the bottom. In the early days Gnome and KDE were cloning Windows-like paradigms, but increasingly they clone Mac paradigms, which is why they opted for a dock I'm sure. Honestly, unless you are stuck on a small monitor, there is no real reason to cram UI elements in the corner and even Windows these days is becoming much-much more doc-like. First, they made their task bar into a large pseudo-dock and with Windows 8 they are going to remove the start button, making it even more Mac-like.

Re:Top & Bottom (5, Insightful)

poppopret (1740742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028723)

there is a menu at the top and a dock at the bottom. In the early days Gnome and KDE were cloning Windows-like paradigms, but increasingly they clone Mac paradigms, which is why they opted for a dock I'm sure. Honestly, unless you are stuck on a small monitor

In case you really mean a Mac-style app menu disconnected from the app window, you have the monitor sizes backwards. A top-menu GUI makes sense on the original 512x342 display, since you have to maximize most stuff anyway and your mouse can't possibly have far to travel.

A modern iMac is painful to use. Your choice: place every app in the upper-left corner of the screen, or move the mouse over a thousand pixels each way.

The OSX dock is unusable too. The fact that an app is running is indicated by a tiny dot under the icon. The fact that a second instance is running (rather difficult to do BTW) is indicated by a second icon located nowhere near the normal dock icon. You don't get a second dot. Seriously, WTF?

Re:Top & Bottom (2, Interesting)

xombo (628858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028897)

The rationale is that the bar being at the top of the screen provides an infinite targeting area. You just have to push your mouse up until the pointer will no longer move then go left or right until you've gotten to the right menu. I find myself spending a lot of time and concentration trying to target menus in Windows because they're so slight compared to the rest of the interface. I imagine that's one of the things the ribbon is trying to solve in light of high-resolution displays, a rather garish way to increase the targeting area.

Re:Top & Bottom (1, Insightful)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39029007)

A modern iMac is painful to use. Your choice: place every app in the upper-left corner of the screen, or move the mouse over a thousand pixels each way.

Don't ignore Fitts' Law-- the menu bar at the top of the screen has an effectively infinite height, so even though you have to move your mouse farther, you can just slam it to the top of the screen and only have to aim horizontally. This is actually more important with higher-resolution screens, as the UI elements are smaller (at least until we finally get a resolution-independent UI, any decade now...).

Besides, the idea is to use keyboard shortcuts for menu items you use frequently. Much better than having to aim for a tiny rectangle on the screen, wherever it's located.

The OSX dock is unusable too. The fact that an app is running is indicated by a tiny dot under the icon.

For better or worse, Apple is trying to do away with making users know or care about whether an app is running, much like how things work on iOS. For example, there's a new API in Lion called Automatic Termination that allows apps to let the system automatically terminate them when the system needs to free up resources. See John Siracusa's Lion review [arstechnica.com] for more details.

The fact that a second instance is running (rather difficult to do BTW) is indicated by a second icon located nowhere near the normal dock icon. You don't get a second dot. Seriously, WTF?

Oh, come on. How common do you think it is for users to want a second instance of an application, rather than just another window? I mean, I've only wanted to do it maybe once or twice in the five or so years I've had this Mac, and I'm very much a power user.

Re:found a GNOME replacement (1)

timothyb89 (1259272) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028657)

That's exactly what I've been doing. I tried using GNOME 3 for a few months, but I eventually just got fed up. While I really like the shell interface, some of the other UI "enhancements" meant to "simplify" everything drove me away after a while.

I still use it on my laptop despite its control panel [timothyb89.org] but I now use a combination of XFCE and Kwin on my desktop. I spent ages searching for a DE that would "just work" and XFCE does exactly that.

Re:found a GNOME replacement (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028879)

Why you'd want bars at top AND bottom of the screen is a mystery to me

Top: Actions and status.
Bottom: Window and virtual desktop selection and previews.

There is no way both can fit into the same bar -- there is just no enough space. This is NOT ABOUT THE DEFAULT CONFIGURATION WITH THE EMPTY TOP BAR, that Ubuntu so carefully imitated in their sad mockery of GNOME2, it's about what desktop looks like after the user adds everything he needs to the top bar and still wants to see the list of windows on all his desktops, and be able to hover for window previews, on the bottom.

There is also a matter of user-selectable window manager. I need "Previous virtual desktop"/"Next virtual desktop" bound to the mouse buttons 8 and 9, Expo to left bottom corner and Scale to upper left corner. This is very important for me because I have three monitors connected to three computers running Synergy, so screen edges must be consistent. Compiz is currently the only window manager that allows such customization, however GNOME3 does not support window managers other than its own built-in one, XFCE and LXDE break horribly with Compiz.

I have to use _KDE_ on Ubuntu to get this on 11.10.

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028427)

and that damn sidebar that interferes with the app you are trying to use.

Can I say it? Please?

XFCE4

As long as it isn't the travesty that is 'unity' (5, Insightful)

Teunis (678244) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028441)

I wait with baited breath for a hopefully usable system, unlike the current gnome shell, and most especially unlike unity. I want applications that remember their states and can be saved and restored (gconsole, I'm looking at you in particular) and otherwise the ability to organize my working day properly on desktop and laptop.
Support tablet all you want, but don't remove support for desktop and laptop - like unity did.

Re:As long as it isn't the travesty that is 'unity (0)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028567)

I want applications that remember their states and can be saved and restored (gconsole, I'm looking at you in particular) and otherwise the ability to organize my working day properly on desktop and laptop.

WINDOWS doesn't run on Linux.

Re:As long as it isn't the travesty that is 'unity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028981)

Oh [wikipedia.org] rly [wikipedia.org] ? [wikipedia.org]

Re:As long as it isn't the travesty that is 'unity (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028957)

BATED breath. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm [worldwidewords.org]

I'm totally cool with misuse of the language to be ironic or whatever, but that requires a degree of cleverness I don't detect here. Please learn language idioms before you try to use them. Just sayin'.

Re:As long as it isn't the travesty that is 'unity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028983)

upvote parent. downvote grandparent.

I like it, whats everybody complaining about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028449)

I have been using Gnome 3 for the last 3 months and I really like it. I got it using Debian http://cut.debian.net cut release and it works great and was an easy way to get into Debian testing. I have Gnome 2 at the office with an LTS Ubuntu and I am just waiting for some free time to switch.

Re:I like it, whats everybody complaining about (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028887)

OK. You like it. I don't. It interferes with my workflow. It makes everything take longer. It makes me curse more. The only difference is that you can still have what you want, while everyone tells me I am wrong and is removing support from what I want.

Gnome 3 on Fedora & Ubuntu: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028457)

Things I like:

- Look seems updated & clean (simple top menu bar)
- Hidden dock (containing my favorite apps)
- Hot corner (shows all running apps)
- Instant app / file search

Things I hate:

- No minimize buttons
- Hidden desktop icons
- The bottom notification area
- Needs better UI consistency behind the scenes (ex. System Settings looks unorganized and messy, etc...)
- Consider putting any common app menu items in the top menu bar

I do prefer it over Ubuntu's default UI and KDE so far...
Just my two cents :)

- stoops

Re:Gnome 3 on Fedora & Ubuntu: (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028603)

Let's not forget how badly incomplete it is even now. Perhaps there are better implementations under other OSes, but under Fedora, it's just missing SO MUCH. Screensavers? I can't change the window controls colors at all?! What the hell?

The instant app search? C'mon. Just give me some menus. They really ARE faster. And seriously? Change the entire display over and over again to launch a single program?

And the top menu bar is a horrible abonimation. I want to be able to change it with mouse clicks, not addon scriptlets which fight with other scriptlets.

I'm on the second Fedora with Gnome3 and it hasn't improved a great deal. When I finally get around to upgrading my main laptop from F14, it's going to CentOS6. I might continue to play with Gnome3/F16 on my smaller, travel machine, but I just can't imagine my mind changing with regards to Gnome3. They just need to say "we're sorry... we'll put it back."

So yeah.... even Linux can have a "WindowsME/Vista" thing happen... and here it is.

Re:Gnome 3 on Fedora & Ubuntu: (1)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028697)

Sorry to tell you but fc16 is still bad. I have resorted to using it for its shell only from a Mac book.

Unfortunately 80 percent of my scripting is done for fedora cents and red hat. 10 for aix and 10 for os x servers. So I need it, or I would have moved to any other os that still has gnome 2.

Re:Gnome 3 on Fedora & Ubuntu: (1)

poppopret (1740742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028807)

fc16 does have XFCE. You just need to install the packages, then pick that desktop from the login. Your choice will be remembered.

Re:Gnome 3 on Fedora & Ubuntu: (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028613)

I feel your pain. But, there is a way to enable the minimize/maximize buttons using the gconf_editor (look for "button_layout"). You're supposed to use "the Dash" instead of your desktop now (something I don't like myself, but there it is).

Frankly, I've tried to deal with Gnome 3 because I've used Gnome for so long, but it looks like I'm going to end up switching to XFCE instead. I just can't be as productive with the new UI, and I've really made an effort to work with it.

Re:Gnome 3 on Fedora & Ubuntu: (2)

testdummy (61896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028705)

You should get the gnome-tweak-tool. This will allow you to add the desktop icons and minimize buttons.

KDE Blows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028459)

suck it nerds

Just two questions (1)

sk999 (846068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028479)

How many xterms fit on the screen? And does it do edge-flip?

Everything else is fluff.

"GNOME 3 will represent a new approach to GNOME" (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028517)

I tried Mint 12 and went back to 11 because I did not like GNOME 3. Why are they saying "will" like it hasn't come out yet?

Re:"GNOME 3 will represent a new approach to GNOME (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028619)

If you like Mint then you might want to check out Cinnamon, that clem is making.

I can't wait for it to be available for debian (may end up building it myself) but it looks like the start of a sane desktop based on GTK3 and GNOME 3, but without the steaming pile that is GNOME Shell.

Re:"GNOME 3 will represent a new approach to GNOME (2)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028711)

I tried Mint 12 and went back to 11 because I did not like GNOME 3. Why are they saying "will" like it hasn't come out yet?

I'm using the MATE UI (GNOME 2 fork) on Mint 12 and it's great.

burn it all down and move on (1)

crafoo (591629) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028525)

"but more importantly a new mindset about the entire project, a mindset intended to encourage greater deep beauty in the application layers below the user interface" No. Not "more importantly". No one cares about the "deep beauty" in the application layers or anywhere else besides the user interface. The most important thing for a desktop to get right is the user interface. Everything else is just codemonkies masturbating.

what about cinnamon? (5, Informative)

lord3nd3r (1073580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028549)

I for one, love cinnamon. http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/ [linuxmint.com] :D

Re:what about cinnamon? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028637)

looking good but it's still in early stages though, needs another half year to firm up.

Re:what about cinnamon? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028901)

looking good but it's still in early stages though, needs another half year to firm up.

So does Gnome3. Minus the "looking good" part...

I didn't think it was possible (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028557)

Just when I thought I could maybe settle in with Gnome3 on my Fedora 16 running, 11" laptop, I read this and was reminded why I hated Gnome3.

They go on about the efficiencies of maximized windows? REALLY? I'm not one of those users. I prefer overlapping windows so I can see movement in them when something changes. Yes, I know I can still do that, but tweaks are necessary.

Another thing that's getting to me is the wild mouse movements required to navigate around. Go to one corner to change to the window changing mode, then go to the opposite corner to do something with the windows like move it to another virtual display or something. Did they consider what a pain that actually is for people with touchpads or those stupid keyboard joysticks? Worse, what does it mean for the disabled?

It's not just different. It's different without a cause or a purpose. It's really stretching things to assert "an old person's user philosophy" where windows should always be maximized over others where people like to be able to easily and more quickly select and work with objects between windows. (Ain't much drag-n-drop with maximized windows is there?)

Linus Torvald's words keep coming back to mind... "unholy abomination" I believe they were.

Re:I didn't think it was possible (2)

lord3nd3r (1073580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028587)

amen. Seriously. I would mod you up if I could. Good Job, straight to the damn point. This new gnome-shell, gnome3 crap sucks ass! I like being able to see what my stuff is doing.+1

Re:I didn't think it was possible (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028633)

Linus Torvald's words keep coming back to mind... "unholy abomination" I believe they were.

Hey! Don't look at me! I don't touch that GNOME 3 shit. I've been using a Mac for, like, forever.

Regards
Satan J. Lucipher, ESQ

Re:I didn't think it was possible (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028651)

beat me to the punch on the extreme amount of mouse movement. From a high level the interface looks kinda nice actually (though it's not something I'd use -- dedicated xmonad user here). Simple, clean and context sensitive, I guess. But holy crap as soon as I tried the mock-up I was immediately annoyed at how far I had to move the mouse!

Granted, for tablet use it probably helps prevent fat-fingering, and makes some sense, but I don't see myself spending most of my time at a tablet for the foreseeable future.

Re:I didn't think it was possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028709)

"They go on about the efficiencies of maximized windows? REALLY?"

Yeah, I'm thinking to myself "That's a FEATURE?" If I they set application windows to "maximize by default", then I'm going to spend half my day resizing windows back to the portion of the screen that I actually want. Those windows better damn well remember their layout between application runs.

The whole world isn't running GNOME on a tablet or phone. Make a big, fat, impossible-to-miss UI switch somewhere that says "I'm running on a tablet", then enable this nonsense by default. Otherwise leave it the hell alone. I don't WANT to have exactly the same interface on desktop and tablet.

Re:I didn't think it was possible (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028923)

I don't WANT to have exactly the same interface on desktop and tablet.

This. Right here... I have a monitor that does 1600x1200 for a reason! And it is not for a more detailed iPhone experience!

These "UI Designers" made me want to hurt people. (3, Interesting)

FilthCatcher (531259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028615)

This particular rant is about Unity but the concept of "design" decision overriding utlity applies.

I really tried using Unity for a week or so but NEEDED to move the launcher / dock thingy to a different screen edge. (reasons below)
First, I tried the obvious click-dragging move - nothing happened
Ok, I told myself. This is open source software! must be a config file somewhere so I googled. Found a post from Shuttleworth himself saying:

I’m afraid the location of the Unity launcher is fixed by design. We want the launcher always close to the Ubuntu button.

Fixed by design? but I want to move it! I'm running ubuntu inside Virtualbox. I NEED both 'dowze and 'nix and the windows host / linux guest config works best for me. I also give that Linux guest a monitor to itself - on the right. Because it's on the right, the left edge of the linux screen jumps the mouse pointer back to the left screen and into the windows host system. So when trying to use the dock with autohide on (i want to use all of my screen when coding) I'd keep touching the edge of the screen and the dock would disappear.
I've got no problem with these design decisions from valuable end-user testing being used to setup defaults but both Gnome and unity seem hell-bent on FORCING you to use their new design paradigms and guess what? It just doesn't suit all use cases.

This being open source, it didn't take long for a whole bunch of options, wokarounds and custom docks to appear but for fuck's sake stop telling me how to use MY computer.
Am currently reasonably happy with KDE - Don't think I'll be going anywhere near Unity or Gnome for a very long time.

Re:These "UI Designers" made me want to hurt peopl (1)

WolphFang (1077109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028671)

Have the tried the MATE fork of Gnome2? http://mate-desktop.org/ [mate-desktop.org]

Re:These "UI Designers" made me want to hurt peopl (1)

FilthCatcher (531259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028747)

No i haven't but will take a look when/if i get time.

Generally, I spend a bit of time playing with desktops when a new linix based project turns up and my current distro is starting to look old. I then spend time installing a new distro but it's not long before system tweaking time starts in eat into what should be productive dev time and my patience starts to tip downhill.

I've never yet seen a Linux system I can just start using straight away - but maybe I'm just too fussy.

Re:These "UI Designers" made me want to hurt peopl (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028941)

I've got no problem with these design decisions from valuable end-user testing being used to setup defaults but both Gnome and unity seem hell-bent on FORCING you to use their new design paradigms and guess what? It just doesn't suit all use cases.

This being open source, it didn't take long for a whole bunch of options, wokarounds and custom docks to appear but for fuck's sake stop telling me how to use MY computer.

That sums it up for me as well. Do what you want but let me keep my shit!

Am currently reasonably happy with KDE - Don't think I'll be going anywhere near Unity or Gnome for a very long time.

Probably why Ubuntu is dumping it, then. There are not enough face-palm pictures on the entire Internet for this shit.

Like iOS (1)

digitallife (805599) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028621)

This looks horribly annoying. I don't know what they are aiming for, but it appears they are making Gnome like iOS. Who thought that would be a good idea? Bye bye gnome!

I really dont give a shit how pretty it is (5, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028625)

If it breaks my way of operating a computer. Yes gnome3 is pretty, yes gnome3 does have some interesting idea's, yes gnome3 is a fucking pain in the ass and gets in the way all the damn time.

I lasted a whole 3 months with it, then rolled back to gnome2, sure its ugly, sure it has its problems as well, but wow its like using a modern computer, not mac OS6, I can put shortcuts on my desktop without switching DM's, I can right click options that in gnome3 require 3rd party shit and editing a text file, I can make a pile of virtual desktops and not play mind games to get them to show up (like maximize 1 app so desktop2 shows then right click and move bullshit), and if my mouse happens to hit the corner of the screen the whole fucking thing doesnt insta break, zoom out, and require me to select something before I can get back to what I was doing (even windows7 got that right)

Don't tell me how to work (2)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028683)

Displaying multiple windows at the same time means that screen space isnâ(TM)t used efficiently, and it means that you donâ(TM)t get a focused view of what it is that you are interested in. Windows that arenâ(TM)t maximised also create additional tasks for people. Often you need to adjust their size, or you have to move them around.

My work requires me to frequently copy and paste from one window to another, or to compare the contents of one window to another, or I switch to another task while I keep an eye on window waiting for a task to finish. A single maximized window would be horribly inefficient for me, not to mention a stupid waste of space (I have a 2 monitor setup -- there is only so much usable width in a broswer window).

It's one thing to set the default to be optimized for maximized windows, but make it impossible for me to reconfigure it to work well with multiple windows and your window manager becomes useless for me.

Re:Don't tell me how to work (1)

FilthCatcher (531259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028805)

With you there.
We keep hearing about all this testing going on behind these "design decisions" but I'm starting to wonder to myself, who are these people doing these tests? And what do they test them doing?

Horrible. (4, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028685)

This is absolutely horrible, and whoever came up with this thing, should resign from GNOME and go work for Google on Android-without-Java, because this is where it belongs.

I like GNOME 3 (and also Quartz) (1)

Ryxxui (1108965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028689)

Strangely, I just recently installed Ubuntu 11.10, and GNOME 3 on top of it. I couldn't be happier with it. I can move some stuff to another desktop if I need to, and it's easy enough to switch between them. It's also easy to switch between programs. I don't get the hate, to be honest. I also finally took the plunge and installed OSX on my mid-2009 MacBook Pro, which had been running Windows since I got it. Now that's a freaking great user interface.

Mock Up How A Kernel Dev Works (5, Insightful)

schwep (173358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028729)

Hey, GNOME team - I really want to like & use your stuff. It looks neat. But - I earn my living with this 'user interface' each and every day. I don't spend the day playing music and splashing paint on brick walls wondering what bark is made of...

I write code. Lots of code. I have 10-15 editor windows open on 2 or 3 desktops. I deal with 200 emails a day, while on conference calls with customers, while trying to 2 other things (usually poorly, but that's not the point). My computer life isn't as simple as opening 1 program.

I need the ability to be productive all the time. Please, write up user-stories based on what your kernel developer friends needs. Look at what people like Linus need. Please help us!

why? (1)

tortovroddle (1969948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028743)

The problem is not they are trying to innovate, that is fine and needed, but they are trying to do it at the cost of what is old, familiar and functional when you could have both things. Just look at all the work with Cinnamon and MATE to have what we already had but lost without much reason. With Gnome 4 they probably will remove the terminal. Why should we bother with another level of complexity?

gnome will always be a crummy apple rip off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028753)

open source design i.e. design by commitee/mob has not and will never work.

Re:gnome will always be a crummy apple rip off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028819)

posted from my open source based operating system

Ah, What Might Have Been (And Might Still Be?) (2)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028759)

Seems like a million years ago now that I left Windows 98 for Mandrake Linux running KDE 2. I was amazed at how good it was and how easily it installed. I still kept Windows around so that I could play games and deal with multimedia, but most of my work was done in Linux.

Then came KDE 3. I liked it. Then came KDE 4. I hated it. I tried Gnome 2, got used to it and decided I liked it. Then Gnome 3 came along and I almost gave up.

Instead of all of this "me, too!" stuff, and trying to emulate Android on the desktop, why not something really revolutionary? Here's just one example: most of us have lots of resolution and nice big monitors now. Why not a USEFUL 3D desktop? For example, opened windows can be scrolled into the background with the mouse wheel; just hover the wheel over it and a pop up reminds you what that particular window is, and if you want to bring it back to the foreground, scroll the mouse wheel the other way. Make it a true 3D desktop that lets me navigate through everything just like I'm strolling through a neighborhood.

No, instead, we get windows that fade in and out (when they don't hang my system -- I had to turn Plasma off) and other *extremely* useful innovations.

I've never understood. There are no rules, so why not just try something completely different? After all, one of the killer apps that made the original PC indispensable was a little program called Lotus 1 2 3 (showing my age now; for you kids, it was around LONG before Excel even existed).

Linux has a very, very, VERY good kernel. It's about time that it had a really, really revolutionary desktop, one that doesn't copy anything else, or try to be anything else, but one that simply revolutionizes how we work on these bloomin' little thingies called "pee cees."

I severely dislike the push... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028795)

to make everything look like an interface suitable for tablets. Contrary to what developers think, not everyone wants an iPad-like interface. It doesn't simplify anything. I want elegance *and* the ability to configure my DE/WM the way *I* want it. Gnome 3 basically reduces my idea of what usable is. KDE has too many options and they are not centrally located. Gconf is OK, but is based on XML. I want old-school text should I want to edit something. I really miss WindowMaker. It's a shame it's not being developed anymore. Maybe LXDE...

Why I left Gnome 3. (3)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028799)

This is why I uninstalled the Gnome 3 desktop on my Ubuntu 12.04 system and I managed to get the MATE desktop installed instead. I do not want a glorified tablet interface on a desktop machine. Even the Afterstep and Enlightenment E16 interfaces are better than Gnome 3. Afterstep at least is based on a NextStep interface and has some sort of heritage. Gnome 3 is just stupid. Sure I am running a alpha release of Ubuntu, but this is Linux and I expect my software to work and not copy the tablet interface just because it is the trendy thing right now.

The Gnome 1.0 interface http://www.blogger.am/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/gnome-1.gif [blogger.am] was a simple interface, the Red Hat desktop kept this style of desktop for a while with the single panel on the bottom of the screen just like Windows `95, then they moved to the two panels, but you could still change it to look like Gnome 1.0. Nowadays the whole interface is crap.

Sigh. RTFA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028813)

Lots of comments about "I like multiple windows". good. in GNOME 3 they still have multiple overlapping windows. What the article is about is making applications maximise by *default* ***when it makes sense for them to do so*** .... which for a lot of apps I think will work well, especially on smaller screens. Now I hope they don't forget the use cases where multiple windows are a plus but my reading of the article is that it is up to the application designer to apply the pattern and design the application so that it will work well maximised by default if possible. So the kneejerk reactions of "OMG its different to what I already have" and "GNOME3 designers are facists" are a bit premature. Personally I encourage any attempt to eliminate the time wasted trying to optimally arrange windows or time spent fruitlessly changing customisable preferences because the designers are too lazy to find sensible defaults.

Maximized windows by default? (5, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028827)

I have a 24" screen. Why would I ever maximize a window other than, say a game or Google Earth? I have a "windowing" system for a reason. Fixed-width layouts on the web are common as well and on a large, high res screen you're going to have either a very large window with a lot of blank space, or a window with very zoomed-in text. Maybe they are catering to the ADHT-type people, but I run a Window Manager for a reason. I can kind of see where they are going (and apps aren't forced to be maximized), but I have some serious doubts.

Gnome has gone off the deep end. (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028869)

I can't stand Gnome anymore. Not with the unity thing, and especially not with this crap. I keep asking myself who their UI designers are really trying to please with these asinine ideas. All this maximized by default crap says to me is "wasteful". Look at all the whitespace around the application contents. Why is that preferred to having a titlebar and being able to see more than one window? It certainly isn't to me. I would very much like to be able to see more than one application at a time thank you very much. I've since moved to XFCE. Much more sane in my opinion.

Re:Gnome has gone off the deep end. (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028949)

They're attempting to copy Apple and steal ideas from iOS. Except, they're stealing the wrong fucking ideas.

nike dunk shoes (-1, Troll)

manysky211 (2573731) | more than 2 years ago | (#39028895)

Welcome to our Nike Dunks online [es-nikedunksb.net] store, here you can find your dreaming Nike products at the discount price. As we know that Nike is a major publicly traded sneakers, sportswear and equipment supplier based in the United States. As the Nike basketball shoes constantly appear on skateboarding scene, the advance nike dunk shoes [es-nikedunksb.net] with the stability and lower profile sole became a popular shoe for skaters which improved grounding performance. This is famous Nike Dunk SB [es-nikedunksb.net] which was specially created for skateboarders.

Bone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028913)

Uh huh. Huhuhuh he said "Bone". Uhuhuhuhuh!

Failure to learn (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39028989)

We fail to learn the difference between a touch interface and a mouse centric interface.

With a touch centric interface the average screen size is smaller, and the required screen size is larger to display the same level of information. (It has to be large enough to be touched, and small enough to be convenient to use with hand motion). Trying to map this onto an arbitrarily large display, one which can have a significantly higher information density is stupid. As well, a mouse based interface should reduce the number of motions, or mouse clicks to get around it.
Design for the target interface, don't hybridize them.

I proclaim GNOME3 the Comic Sans of desktop UIs. (4, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39029003)

Seriously, same stupid reason for development (Comic Sans was made for MS Bob, if anyone forgot), same attempt to achieve the look of a different and hard to imitate medium (comic book font on a 800x600 bitmap, phone UI on a multi-monitor desktop), same failure, same amount of suffering inflicted on the unsuspecting users.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...