Not even GNOME itself could ignore the GNOME 3 criticism for much longer. “As part of the planning for the DropOrFixFallbackMode feature, we’ve decided that we will compile a list of supported gnome-shell extensions. This will be a small list, focused on just bringing back some central ‘classic’ UX elements: classic alt tab, task bar, min/max buttons, main menu. To ensure that these extensions keep working, we will release them as a tarball, just like any other module.”
Plus, I don’t trust them any more. Going to update Cinnamon to the 1.6 version, looks like a much better option to me.
Rehdon
Yep. I’ve already moved on, for the same reason you mentioned: trust, and the fact that they tried to kill it off in the first place.
Don’t let the door hit your ass in your way out.
This is exactly the same attitude that is literally killing GNOME.
They’ve been at it for quite a few years and finally they’ve got their wish and now its not exactly what they thought the nirvana of no more power users was.
In fact, GNOME is pretty much a 1 Bus Accident project at the moment. One more screw-up on these kinds of things and its done.
Even GTK will probably be forked and move on.
In fact, I would argue that you could take his exact quote and it pretty much nails the GNOME project’s stance when it comes to their new baby “GNOME 3” vs. the traditional desktop…
In other words, “you will enjoy the GNOME 3 environment we’ve given you, or don’t use it. Goodbye.”
It actually means that I won’t lose sleep because some anonymous raging troll in the internet, there are so many, and none of them is worth it.
Edited 2012-11-29 01:22 UTC
Takes one to know one, etc… etc…
Does that means that you did recognize them?
Maybe they should have a public roadmap like they used to. It would be easier to know were they’re going if they did, but maybe they do not know where, because a few weeks ago I asked the developers what was in the future and it sounded as if there were just minor fixes and no real plan to talk about.
I totally get the gnome3 criticism.
And I understand that quite a few users felt (betrayed is far too strong) but ‘left out in the cold’ and sought shelter in cinnamon, mate etc. and some people have switched allegiances to more ‘lightweights’ like XFCE – and that includes myself – – although more and more I’m only using linux on headless boxes , but thats a different story.
I think this move -while only a small gesture in some ways- is pragmatic and will be enough of a little compromise for quite a few people. Took a while mind
Nope. Too Little Too Late. This doesn’t adress anything, it’s just a cheap bandage over a festering wound.
Is it really too late? Where have all the gnome 2 users gone? Every time I hear this I get a different answers.
Mate
Cinnamon
xfce
lxde
kde
With the exception of kde, I don’t think any one of them individually could claim a majority of the old users of gnome 2. If Gnome 3 could just be changed with a click to look act and feel like gnome 2, I think it still has enough momentum to draw some users back.
You forgot one big chunk. Since the majority of Gnome 2 users also was Ubuntu users, they ended up with Unity.
And I guess you still have a large amount of user still on Gnome 2, using distributions with longer life cycle like RedHat, Debian and older LTS. So even more will move over time when support ends for those.
Finally, a UI group that actually listens to the users! Imagine that! Perhaps some day Microsoft and Ubuntu will catch the clue (or at least a focus group before they blow their bases out of the water next time).
Ubuntu is likely the only non-Android distro which sees a significant growth lately, exactly when they deployed Unity…
(compare http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2012-10/SquidRepor… with a year ago http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-10/SquidRepor… )
They still just don’t get it. While they are caving to some pressure, they aren’t really changing the core problem. That problem is that the desktop is MINE, not theirs. If I want to change the way it looks, I should be able to. I don’t give a crap about their branding, or their identity, or anything else they think. They can ship whatever they want, but if I can’t make it usable, I am gonna go with something else. Plus, who the heck wants to code against an arbitrarily moving target?
That problem is that the desktop is MINE, not theirs.
Then why don’t you clone the git repository and start coding your self?
Edited 2012-11-28 19:49 UTC
Because the idea that I should have to learn to code to customize my desktop is mind-numbingly stupid?
The Gnome3 team is the George Lucas of desktop UI.
I agree with you, is a lot easier to just talk trash than to learn to do something productive.
Sure its easy to talk trash…
But it you want to contribute to the project and possibly help them get back to what made them so well used… You’ll have *MUCH* better luck and fun talking trash about them… since they ignore sane patches and have a HUGE case of “NIH” and “NIMBY”.
The whole point of Open Source with licenses like the GPL is Give Back… not forking and duplicating effort.
You’ll have *MUCH* better luck and fun talking trash about them
We disagree.
So *YOU* of all people can get Patches and Improvements submitted and accepted by them?
Wow.
Why would they have to be accepted by them? Anyone can use them on their on source tree and make the code public.
Its called Duplication of effort and Only you running your specific variant of GNOME.
You don’t seem to get it. The whole reason of Open Source Licenses, especially the GPL.
Go ahead and make your stuff and compile it… and take all the effort and put it into your build and when they deprecate your “feature” you depend on… have a merry day.
I’m sorry, you are the very reason GNOME is in the state it is in, you just “do it yourself” and duplicate and waste your effort and not try to get things done rather than *REDONE*.
Glad you are not working for me or the company I work for, you’d immediately be unable to deal with our 4 layer stack. Since you’d “have to redo it all by yourself” and you work would *NEVER* get merged back in to the Production Branch. *EVER*.
Its called Duplication of effort and Only you running your specific variant of GNOME.
And why would you care about that? is not what you want? “your” own desktop? what do you care if it is duplication or not?
And now, I doubt that the ERP in the company you work is 100% compatible with the ERP of the company next to yours, so aren’t you already duplicating efforts? There is no comparition.
Edited 2012-11-30 00:08 UTC
That’s why I don’t mind paying for software. At least then, I feel like I have the right to bitch as a paying customer, instead of being told, ‘well, if you don’t like how shitty the software is, why don’t you fix it yourself?’
How do you know he isn’t productive already? Possibly in one of the many fields YOU are not productive in?
And it’s reasoning such as yours, that I believe Gnome3 seems to be such a failure. Of course the developers do the hard labor in an open source project. But without the userbase, there wouldn’t be donations, nor distros and corporations that would invest in paid developers to keep the project going.
Becase we all know they own their life to trolls like you who contribute zer0.
I believe that you’re mistaken. I may not contribute code since I do not have the skillset. But I definitely contribute financially to projects that help me personally and within my place of employment. I also encourage my management to contribute financially to projects that the company depends on. And as such a contributor to a project, if the project, strays too far away from my use cases, then I will abandon all contributions in favor for a project that does. When enough users that financially contribute to a project leave, then the project dies. Since the Gnome project is user-centric, and deals heavily in the user experience, shouldn’t the bulk of users have input in the project? This would be wise if they either financially contribute directly, or by proxy.
We, the users and devs, did. They are called Mate and Cinnamon. This is exactly the attitude that got Gnome into their current mess, with users and devs fleeing and forking. When a single set of decisions spawns two completely separate projects, you obviously aren’t listening to your users.
If your problem is solved, then why are you still whinning?, MATE and Cinammon are not making you happy?
I’m not whining. I am perfectly happy watching Gnome slip into oblivion. Remember XFree86? They were THE X server for almost all distros. Look how quickly they were replaced. XFree86 is pretty much dead now. I will shed almost as many tears when I see Gnome gone too…*sniff*
I’m not whining. I am perfectly happy watching Gnome slip into oblivion
So, in other words, you are nothing but a troll.
You keep using the word “troll”, but I’m not actually sure you know what it means.
You keep using the word “troll”, but I’m not actually sure you know what it means
I wouldn’t spect more from you.
No, I just realize that the Gnome devs are so hard headed that they are not going to listen to reason. Otherwise they would have listened already and changed. As such, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise, as it were, in the software world. They have only themselves to blame.
No, I just realize that the Gnome devs are so hard headed that they are not going to listen to reason
Nah, you are troll, and I’m, actually glad that people like you use another DE, because we, the ones we do like GNOME 3 don’t get mixed or confused with the trolls of your kind.
I’m just sorry for MATE and Cinammon for the user they just won, I wish them luck.
Edited 2012-11-28 23:59 UTC
I agree.
Edited 2012-11-29 12:23 UTC
Well, every troll likes to extract phrases out of context to try to validate a lie, so, be my guest.
To most of the Fan Boys of any product a “troll” is someone who doesn’t agree with them.
If you in your magnificent wisdom say it, it must be true.
Edited 2012-11-29 03:04 UTC
While I feel Hiev is being a total douche about this, he’s partially right. If you don’t like Gnome anymore, don’t use it. Xfce is nearly at the feature and stability level Gnome 2 was a few years ago, and even KDE is becoming tolerable enough to use daily (my own opinion there, not a statement of fact).
The Gnome team seems hell bent on doing the same thing the Arch team is: Pissing off all the regular users until there’s only the core development team left. Then it’s their private playground to do with as they wish, the public be damned.
Maybe that’s why Arch has one of the most complete and functional Gnome 3 installations out there. Perhaps the two teams can get together and circle-jerk each other into irrelevance while the rest of us move on to better desktops and distros.
Can you elaborate on the Arch thing ? I’ve only used it a bit, but it seems to have a very good reputation.
It’s a long story, but to sum up: Over the past several months the core dev team has made some radical and abrupt changes to the distro, including changing to systemd (which I personally had no problem with apart from the mishandling of the switch itself) to doing away with the excellent installer in favor of a cryptic script based install. There were some less jarring changes but those two were critical to the controversy.
Whenever they were questioned about the changes, most of the Powers That Be responded at best with “f–k off, noob” even if the user herself was old hat. More than one core member made statements to the effect of “it’s our intention to drive away anyone who doesn’t follow the Arch Way without question” or “Noobs need not apply; if you can’t figure out how the new (lack of an) installer works, you don’t deserve to run Arch”. A few people (myself included, though I was never personally involved in the fight) decided to drop the distro and either take up another pacman based OS or go to another distro family altogether.
All that said, it’s still an excellent OS and one of the best for learning the “guts” of GNU/Linux. I just personally can’t stand the rampant elitism and childish behavior of the leaders, which is mirrored in the Gnome dev camp.
Edit: If you’re curious about alternatives, I’ve found Manjaro Linux to be an excellent replacement for Arch. It’s built on the Arch platform and uses pacman, but has its own repositories. You can still build from the AUR if Manjaro lacks a package you need, and of course you can compile from source as well.
Edited 2012-11-29 11:10 UTC
I actually liked the new installer more than the old one. I’m not particularly experienced arch user, but i had no problem with it.
Same here; while the old installer was excellent and allowed for nearly anyone to install Arch, the new one was no problem for anyone already used to GNU/Linux. I do wish they had kept the old one alive as an option for newbies, but apparently that was against the Arch Way.
Morgan is exaggerating severely. I’ve not seen the traffic on the Arch forums drop. Sure this is anecdotal, but the way I see it, Arch’s userbase hasn’t diminished. Yeah, a few who don’t like systemd or the new install method did leave, but not nearly enough to say the devs “pissed everyone off”. For every vocal systemd opponent, there was at least one person saying they just switched to it and all is cool.
Those “quotes” about what Arch devs supposedly said are overblown too, the Arch devs are not actively trying to drive people away. What is true is that the goal of Arch was never popularity, it was never a user-centric distro. So if a user doesn’t like something and leaves for a different distro, that doesn’t matter to the devs. There were quite a few people (including Morgan it seems) for whom this is news. But it’s always been like that. It just seems that the devs never before did something a vocal group of users would disagree with.
How did I exaggerate? I said a few people left, I never said anything about hordes of migration. I also quoted what I read; I didn’t read every thread about it but what I quoted was in several threads in some form as well as on Google+.
My personal opinion was that it became a childish game at that point, and rather than get involved on either side I decided to drop the distro. It’s really no big deal, and I still think it’s a great OS (which is why when I did switch it was to an Arch based distro).
Instead of relying on the opinion from someone who was unhappy with the decision, you can read the original thread here:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=147272
I’ll try really hard to be unbiased: For a long time, Arch Linux was initialized by using the /etc/rc.conf file. The developers changed the default init system to systemd. Some people (I don’t know how many) didn’t like the change and complained about it on the forums. Some people (I don’t know how many) liked the change. At the same time, the Arch Linux developers changed the installation procedure from an ncurses helper application to a more command-line process.
Both the Arch Linux developers and the unhappy users have good reasons (in my opinion) for their actions and opinions.
…there. Hopefully you can’t even tell how I feel about the situation.
As I said above, there was more than one thread on it by far. There was also heated chatter on Google+ about it.
Once again, my problem was with the childishness of it all rather than the changes themselves. I like the switch to systemd and the new installer was a non-issue for me. My problem was purely with the negative attitudes of those involved.
*continues to happily use Gnome3*
*continues to point and look and giggle at the poor user “helf”.
I’ve never ever wanted to not use GNOME, once I switched from KDE v1.1.
I feel Gnome v1.4 was the best as far as being friendly to change what you want and how and when.
I tolerated v2.x very well for a long time.
I’ve switched to XFCE a long while ago before Debian forced Gnome 3 in SID.
Recently, GNOME group decided to remove options in Evolution as well. I’m getting to the point where GTK programs made by the GNOME group. I mean, removing options from programs like Evolution (specifically the setting for the amount of time the highlighted message took before it was read, I had set at 1/2 second.) Now defaults to about 2 seconds and I can’t change it… as its no longer a settable option.
This single removal has cost me a lot of productivity, as I actually have to sit and wait for Evolution to mark the message read… well after I’ve determined what it was and the proper action for it. But the message stays UNREAD if I go forward in less then the time to mark it read.
This is *JUST ONE* of the blatant “We know what is best for you” and “Sane Defaults” mantra and other things they’ve done over the past years.
They have gone to far with this “14 year old Girl, Tablet Interface” thing they have forced out upon us.
Edit: Punctuation use… clarity
Edited 2012-11-28 21:52 UTC
Nope, still a bit incoherent.
I tried Evolution for a while, back when it was THE email client on Ubuntu and that was my distro of choice. But I never really liked it; it tried way too hard to be Outlook and failed miserably. I went back to Claws-mail for email and borrowed Kontact from KDE for the rest of my PIM stuff (and suffered through the ugly Qt/GTK mixture).
These days my PIM and email requirements are met by The Matrix…er, Google, which syncs automatically with my phone. I suppose I could still use the KDE tools since they all play nicely with Google’s services, but why bother? Just load up my browser and all the default tabs with Google apps make it feel like a PIM suite.
I have Evolution 3.6.2 and option to change time to read is still there. Do you use 3.7?
More Fool You.
You guuuuuys!
As someone who uses Linux once in a blue moon, just to see what’s changed I’m genuinly curious what’s so fundamentally wrong with Gnome 3 that it gets so much hate?
Judging from the screenshots and online videos it looks and feels much more modern than Gnome 2 or XFCE. So why are people so pissed?
It’s basically a case of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”: Most users were perfectly productive with Gnome 2 and would have been happy if they just fixed the remaining bugs. It’s also the reason a lot of people are switching to Xfce : it’s very similar to Gnome 2, it just works and doesn’t get in your way.
Now, the thing with Gnome 3 is that they are trying to do much more than just a window/desktop manager. They are trying to build a whole ecosystem of apps with some new UI paradigms. The new UI is mostly targeted at tablet-style use cases, where you have one app fullscreen. The problem is, a lot of Gnome 2 users are engineers/scientists/technical users with multiple screens and a lot of windows.
That’s interesting, but do those people see themselves using Gnome 2 in another 10 years? What about progress?
From what I’ve read about the subject, I’ve got the feeling that the devs wanted to appeal to a broader audience. Unfortunately, it seems that all they’ve managed to do was just to drive away the audience they had.
I think Cinnamon should have been a Gnome 3 project (the fallback option).
Edited 2012-11-29 16:04 UTC
Like I said above, I don’t care that they changed or progressed. But when the devs go out of their way to make sure you can’t change the desktop from the way they want it, then they are going too far. There is no reason why Gnome couldn’t ship the desktop the way they want it, but still make it easy for people to change it to their needs. Instead, they did the opposite, to preserve branding. That way you always know a Gnome desktop when you see it.
Yup, that right there is why I got off the OS X band wagon. I feel you.
I used GNOME 3 (on Fedora Linux) for the first time last weekend. I can give you two very specific reasons why I didn’t like it:
It took more mouse clicks and more mouse movement to use my computer. It was very tiring, but I suppose I may have been using GNOME 3 “incorrectly”.
It came with an “Accessability” icon in the tray area. I have no need for accessability options (I’m not seeing-impared, and so on) so I wanted to remove the icon. To remove it, I had to do an Internet search and then edit an obscure un-documented file.
Not only it is too little, too late, but all extensions I’ve seen so far, to which GNOME3 supporters point out as would be GNOME2 feature replacements, usually provide very poor experience comparing to their GNOME2 counterpart.
Not to say that using more than 2 extensions which put some info on the panel creates complete uncontrollable mess. Yes, ordering of applets in GNOME2 could be messed up at times, but, at least, it could be easily fixed. GNOME3 “applets” simply create mess which can not be fixed unless user is willing to dive into JS coding.
I was not a big fan of Gnome 3 at the beginning… I’m still not, but since I discovered the extensions, It’s quite usable.
And I’m using more than one extension in the top panel without any trouble!!
I must admit that I don’t need a lot of stuff up there:
I’ve my “favorite” links in the top panel, CPU Temp, Net Speed, “Places”, and a correct “Personal menu” with “Shutdown” in it.
Also got a nice panel at the bottom, that does exactly what it’s meant to. And, “Gnome tweak tools” gave me the “reduce window” button back…
I use this configuration on 4 different computer without any trouble and I got my “productivity” back !
So, yeah… Gnome 3 is not SO bad!
I find gnome shell good as well, I don’t understand why people say it is not useable. I have installed a few extensions, but even if I hadn’t it is quite useable.
I think gnome shell is great, but then I never used gnome 2, I also don’t use linux everyday, but when I do use it I find gnome and ubuntu very good.
I think the gnome people wanted to make something different, something that was so good you wouldn’t feel the need to change anything, maybe so that users of macs and windows may try and swap to linux. I find it funny though that after years of reading from linux users in forums that linux shouldn’t try and be like windows and should be different, the people behind gnome get slated by a vocal minority for doing just that. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Personally I have no interest in changing the way an OS looks, and don’t ever change anything except the wallpaper, but I guess if you like to do that kind of stuff that fact that you can’t change it would be annoying. But I have seldom seen anyone with a mac that changes anything about the way the os looks, or anyone on windows. I think this idea about changing the way everything looks appeals to just a tiny minority of nerds and powerusers… unfortunately for gnome, linux’s userbase is entirely this minority, so much so that people who don’t want to change everything are the minority.
I saw on linux action show this month that freiberg is going to stop using OOo and go back to MS office because of the split/fork to libre office. The presenters couldn’t understand this, but normal people have no idea what a fork is, and to them there is a great deal of difference between OOo and libre office.
Forking gnome and having all these different desktops and projects just being abandoned by developers scares normal people… they want consistency and people don’t see that in linux or open source.
Edited 2012-11-29 09:51 UTC
Maybe not so any more… Ubuntu & Unity doesn’t seem to target them for example, and it might be the only non-Android distro with a nice growth (compare the shares of all Linux distros from http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2012-10/SquidRepor… with http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-10/SquidRepor… )
Oh yeah, and do we include Android or ChromeOS?
Don’t care about Gnome 3 anymore. I’d actually love to use it on my phone but as far as my PC and laptops are concerned I don’t want to be bothered with useless eye candy that just slows down my machines that I can’t completely disable. Plus, I’m perfectly happy with Xfce. It manages to stay simple and stay out of my way while still getting better with each new release. ie. single click now works with 4.10 and with 4.12 it seems that Thunar is finally getting support for tabs.
I wish the Gnome devs and their new userbase the best. Gnome 2 was great to me for many years, but Gnome 3 is just not for me. I moved on, and I’m not looking back.
Everyone here knows users are defecting. Don’t need to hammer each other about it so much.
This news story, if one were to talk about it, is actually positive
Everyone here knows users are defecting.
Correction:
Everyone here likes to think users are defecting.
the linux desktop isn’t growing in users fast enough for gnome to not be losing users to all the distros that are switching off gnome
I’m glad you backup your statements with factual data and not just with empty words, oh waith.
gnome losing share over time is self evident like the sun shining. if you don’t believe that then nothing will convince you. delusion can’t be turned by facts.
Edited 2012-11-30 03:18 UTC
delusion can’t be turned by facts.
What facts? you haven’t showed any?, what is your source?
I think that you are the one with the delusion right there.
Well, as a single data point, I defected. Anyone want to add more points?
Another Data Point.
I was a HUGE GNOME Fan. All about it early on. even the 1.4 version (which I think was the best one ever). 2.x began to grand on my by about 2.10, with the The vaunted Jeff Waugh and other (who shall not be named) decried “SANE DEFAULTS” and “MINIMUM CUSTOMIZATION TOOLS”
Bleah.
I can add several data points. I know few linux users, and all of them were using GNOME2. None of them uses GNOME3.
And I know several that made the jump from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3 or even from others DE, but you don’t see them posting in troll nests like this one.
r_a_trip challenged back…
I guess that depends on what we’re talking about Arch or Gnome 2.x? Never was much of an Arch user, at the time it hit its height in popularity I was still stuck with a crappy DSL connection and it simply didn’t make sense for me at the time. On the other hand if we’re talking about Gnome 2.x…
Yeah count me in as another data point. I’m currently on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and while I have been searching through the alternatives I intend to stick with this version as long as I can before I am forced out of both Ubuntu and Gnome. I’m keeping an eye on MATE as a replacement as well as looking to several other desktops like XFCE and LXDE as potential replacements. Mostly what I’m doing is waiting, to give MATE the time it needs to mature enough that a seamless switch with everything I have currently working will work well.
The thing that really gets me though is having to relearn all the application names, now that they’ve been fractured so badly in an attempt to kill Gnome 2.x…so now I have to remember pluma = gedit, caja = nautilus, etc. When testing MATE I often find myself staring dumbly at the terminal wondering why a commend didn’t work until I realize yet another app has had a name change to make it compatible, then I have to hunt down what that new name might be…
One of the earlier commentators had it right, if the GNOME developers wanted to redesign everything they should have forked the project and handed over 2.x to those who valued it. The fact that they didn’t only makes it clear how much they anticipated the dislike for the direction they intended to take the project and their acknowledgment that they’d have to force it on their users by removing other options… Not cool guys.
–bornagainpenguin
It is true, Linux should really return to the fine old Gnome 2 days, when it was king of the desktop and seemed unstoppable. It was always foolish of the Gnome devs to piss off that 0.3% of the market they had in the bag. When you are winning with that kind of numbers what you do is sit still and consolidate.
Regardless of how much market share Gnome or Linux actually has, Gnome is probably the most financially backed DE for Linux. Second I would say was KDE. Gnome will probably not continue in its role if no one actually wants to use it. I think the real question is: “Will Red Hat ship Gnome 3 in RHEL 7 as the default DE?”
Edited 2012-11-29 18:06 UTC
Gnome will probably not continue in its role if no one actually wants to use it
That is what you haters can’t understand, that there are users who likes GNOME 3 and want to use it.
Are those Gnome3 fans outside of the Gnome Dev circle?
But seriously, What is the ratio of the Gnome3 fans verses detractors?
I believe that the Gnome3 project should have been more of a fork in itself aimed at the Tablet/touchscreen market as opposed to aiming for the mainstream Desktop arena.
Are those Gnome3 fans outside of the Gnome Dev circle?
Yes, I’m one of those.
But seriously, What is the ratio of the Gnome3 fans verses detractors?
There is no way to know, and honestly, I don’t care.
Yes, they are: 14 year old Girls
They are using some type of Touch Tablet interface, since they’ve never used a desktop in their life for anything other than games… and oh wait that is all they do on the Tablets and IM and send SEXTING pictures.
AWESOME USER SET.
Nah, it runs awesome in my laptop and is not a touch device.
There is a concern about that. Fedora & CentOS already started to lose ground, this will eventually reflect on RHEL market. I am sure a company will understand this more than a few self-proclaimed god-like designers.
Edited 2012-11-29 21:17 UTC
Ha ha ha ha, I’m sorry man, I just couldn’t avoid it.
RedHat and CentOS are server OSs, some installations doesn’t even use a DE or need it, if they are losing ground GNOME 3 is not the cause.
If there was no need for GUI, then the GUIs wouldn’t even be shipped, right? They would be server distros, as you say in console based distros, right? And no one would care about, right?
Wrong…
Edited 2012-11-30 21:32 UTC
Dude, just give it up, you have no idea of what are talking about, stop humulliating your self with your ignorance already.
Can you please just stop polluting the forum with your rude comments? I think by now everybody knows that Gnome Shell has a devoted user.
As for Redhat, I wish them all the best. But at least at my work place there is no use for Gnome Shell (to say he least). There are zero RHEL servers here, one hundred RHEL desktops, and a dozen of large number crunching machines that need remote X access. The whole industry has just started transitioning to RHEL 6 so whatever comes next must look like UNIX (that’s why we started using RHEL in the first place).
Calling someone ignorant is not an insult, and now, about the RHEL, they will prolly use GNOME 3 also, because, in corporations, they don’t care about childist complaines or trolls, you know. I bet you $50 they will deploy GNOME 3.
Edited 2012-12-01 01:28 UTC
Don’t know about RHEL 7, but Fedora 18 Beta has released with Gnome 3.6 as default DE. However, MATE, KDE, XFCE, LXDE, and something called SoaS (Sugar on a Stick) are options. Personally, I’m torrenting F18 Beta with XFCE … cool, the dl just finished as I write!
I just tried Gnome 3 on fedora 18 beta. I hadn’t used it since it was first released. The one thing that struck me was the number of mouse clicks to do anything. Click on “Activities” to get an overview of your open window, then click again to select a window. I don’t see how this superior to a task list at the bottom of the screen.
To find an app not in your launcher, you have to click “Activities” then click on the little boxes at the bottom to see all installed apps (this may not be a feature in previous of Gnome). Or you can click up in “search” and type.
To see your desktops, move your mouse to the right side of the screen and click on the desktop you want.
This a lot of clicking and mouse movement. This environment would be great for a tablet but for a desktop? I’m not sure.
That said, I don’t find Gnome 3 hard to use, I just notice all the mouse movements and button clicking. Gnome 3 definitely has it’s own way of doing things.
I don’t like the workspace placement either, but a few suggestions will cut down the number of actions easily
1) you don’t really need to click the activity button, just hit the very corner with the pointer or
2) hit the super ( windows) key to open the overview, and then
3) you don’t need to click on the search box, just start typing right away and press enter to launch the first result, or use cursor keys/ mouse to select one of the filtered items
So it’s basically like gnome-do for launching ( hit a key, start typing, press enter ), and a single click to launch from your favorite apps or to select a window exposé-like.
I actually find that quite good, just don’t get me started on the alt-tab navigation. Now that’s clumsy.
I actually find that quite good, just don’t get me started on the alt-tab navigation. Now that’s clumsy.
I like the new alt-tab, cause using alt+(the key above tab) will switch only betwen the windows of the same application.
Ah, those do make it a lot easier. Maybe Gnome should have some sort of introductory tutorial?
I am using 3.6 and it’s the first version of Gnome 3 I’ve liked. Its not a bad environment to work in and I am using it daily as my main PC is in repair.
You might find useful this slightly outdated (3.4) page:
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/CheatSheet
And afaik jimmac is working on tutorial videos for first-time users; you can see a work-in-progress cut here:
http://worldofgnome.org/gnome-getting-started-an-intro-to-gnome-wor…
Here we are talking about GNOME again. I think the best answer we can give to the GNOME developers is to literally forget it, let it fade it away. Those developers even love discussions like this, you know, it massages their ego when we say how upset we are about their new desktop paradigm. Distros are pulling it away, and soon everyone will look around another corner. Expect Red Hat to take some measures on this matter soon.
The problem is, we can’t. Gnome 2 was the face of Linux. It wasn’t perfect (I preferred Xfce even then) but it was familiar to newcomers and sufficiently unobtrusive for experienced users.
Now, new users are presented with either unfamiliar Unity, KDE which is an island of its own, or a whole slew of more or less niche desktops: Mate, Xfce, Gnome 3, Cinnamon etc. This is now how you gain mind and market share, and without it we will all soon be like ham radio enthusiasts.
The biggest mistake was to allow Gnome guys to destroy Gnome 2. They wanted to play with something new? Fine, but the rest of us should not distribute it until they have resolved naming conflicts with Gnome 2. Pushing this task to Mate developers was simply wrong. Not only they wasted a year of work but also we’ve all lost a popular brand.
Another solution to naming conflicts would be to change the directory structure and install each group of packages in its own –prefix. This is what every single UNIX workstation is using for managing third-party applications.
Talking about workstations, I’m also interested in what we’ll get after RHEL6. I can’t really see Gnome Shell in this role. Not that I have to worry about it – it wouldn’t be qualified by our software vendors anyway. And since an OS is either qualified in its default configuration or not at all, it raises an interesting question about the future of RHEL.
You just made a very sensible point. I am sure Red Hat is looking into this. Don’t be surprised if tomorrow Red Hat announces XFCE as their new default user interface. If they did something like they did in the past, with Bluecurv’ing KDE and GNOME; tweak XFCE and clean up its rough edges, then XFCE would gain real momentum.
Debian has already changed to XFCE as default, although being pretty cynical about the real motives.
I have no idea what they are going to do next. Until recently I thought they would simply deploy an improved Gnome Fallback-Mode and I was really surprised they let it die so easily.
Maybe they just don’t care about the user experience and will keep shipping their rusty version of Gnome 2 for the next decade? If so, including a new-ish version of Xfce as an alternative to it sounds like a good idea.
Red Hat has announced That RHEL 7 will ship with Gnome 3, but most system admins don’t use a graphical interface very often so I doubt they’ll care too much. There were rumors that Debian was going to change their default to Xfce because they were having trouble fitting Gnome 3 on one Live Cd but I guess they figured out a way to do it and Gnome is still their default at the moment.
The interesting one to watch will be Red Hat. They’ve always been a strong financial supporter of the Gnome Project and if the Shell does actually end up cutting into their profits and they drop support for it. Gnome is going to have some real problems…
after the rain – hood..what do they want – to ignore the user opinion and to became more popular? nice, but this does not work. i quit gnome.
Edited 2012-11-30 03:33 UTC