Slashdot Mirror
Nicholas Petreley Slams Gnome
FreeLinux writes "Mainstream computer rag ComputerWorld, has posted a review of Gnome 2.6 by Nicholas Petreley. This opinion piece review, titled Living Down to a Low Standard, positively lambastes Gnome 2.6 over the new spatial Nautilus and Gnome's design choices. The review is quite the opposite to a previously reported review from PCWorld, last month. While this latest review is bound to be a polarizing and heavily debated issue (read flamebait), it is important in that this review will be seen by so many mainstream readers and corporate types who may have been considering Gnome."
No big surprise here as Petreley has always been a KDE rulez, GNOME sux0rs guy. The piece isn't even well written or accurate. Here is a decent rebuttal. Petreley hasn't quite figured out that the GNOME v. KDE flamewars are dead yet.
Opinion by Nicholas Petreley
MAY 10, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - I recently spent the better part of a week working with the latest version of the open-source GNOME graphical desktop environment on Linux. I've decided that the only way to explain the regression of GNOME over the years is that Microsoft and/or SCO moles have infiltrated the GNOME leadership in a covert effort to destroy any possibility that Linux could compete with Windows on the desktop.
To paraphrase the humorist Peter Schickele, who was describing what it was like to discover a new music manuscript by the (fictional) inept composer P.D.Q. Bach, "Each time I get a new version of GNOME, there's this feeling of anticipation and exhilaration -- a feeling that this new version of GNOME can't possibly turn out to be as bad as the last one. But so far, each new version lives down to the same low standards set by the previous one."
By the time a software project gets to Version 2.6, a user might reasonably expect that he wouldn't have to adapt to yet another paradigm shift in basic user-interface design, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as how you navigate through desktop folders. Yet this is precisely what users will have to relearn with this latest version of GNOME.
The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer. You no longer browse with all your options accessible in a single window or a split window with a directory tree on the left and icons on the right. Instead, each double-click on a folder icon opens a new window on the screen. If this sounds familiar, it's because this was the default behavior of Windows 95, OS/2 and early versions of Mac OS. The fact that this isn't the default behavior of any mature desktop operating system might have served as a warning sign to GNOME's developers, but never mind that.
Having used OS/2 for years, I found GNOME's retro approach to be a rather pleasantly nostalgic experience. But now that I'm used to navigating folders the way one does on virtually every other desktop, however, I decided to tell the file manager not to open a new window for every folder. But it turns out there is no preference setting that tells Nautilus to use a single window to browse folders.
The only way to change the default behavior of Nautilus is to set an obscure registry key via the command line or the registry editor. Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders. I can only assume that the GNOME developers decided to make Nautilus a worse Windows than Windows. I toast their rousing success.
Granted, there are myriad unintuitive keystrokes and shift-key/mouse-click operations you can use to make it easier to navigate folders, all of which will mean squat to the daft simpletons the GNOME developers say they are targeting as their users. But GNOME developers have long since abandoned logic when defending their design choices. For example, one GNOME developer says there's a good reason why users can't change individual colors in desktop themes: Someone might accidentally make both the text and background white, thus rendering the text unreadable.
Of course, this flaw has nothing to do with the inflexibility of the primitive graphical tool kit upon which GNOME was based. It was deliberately designed to protect users who are invariably too incompetent to pick their own colors but are smart enough to memorize shift-clicks and keystrokes or edit the registry to get Nautilus to work the way they like.
Of all the criticisms one might lodge against GNOME, it's the hypocrisy of its design philosophy that looms largest. GNOME grew out of the desire to free people from Microsoft's ability to dictate what users can or can't do. Yet GNOME is built on the premise that its developers are so much wiser than users when it comes to navigating folder
Jorge Castro, one of the Ars Technica writers has written a very nice article refutng Petreley's claims at his site.
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
What 'this' are you talking about? I assume from your next sentance that you're talking about my claim that Petreley has a pro-KDE/anti-GNOME bias. If that's the case, then the way I know this is I have read his opinion of GNOME and KDE for years. He always criticizes GNOME and always praises KDE. I don't have the time to google all his past articles on them, but you can do it if you don't believe me.
By the way, this is not to say that some of his past GNOME criticism hasn't been justified. But this particular article was pretty bad. Criticising a whole release for a single feature? Come on.
Again, I wish you were more specific. I assume by 'paper bloggers' you are talking about the author of the article I linked to. I probably should have mentioned that he is a well-respected ArsTechnica contributor. I have a lot more respect for ArsTechnica than I do for ComputerWorld. ArsTechnica is very comprehensive and accurate. Your opinion may vary, however.
I've had Fedora Core Test 3 installed for about a week now, and I gotta say, I love Gnome 2.6. It's very clean, polished, and the gnome bundled apps are consistent with each other.
That being said, I still haven't decided if I like the spatial file navigation of nautilus, although I'm trying to give it more time. I'm a command line guy, so I tend to think in "browser" mode, and I think most of the people here on /. are probably command line/browser mode entrained people.
For people who started their computer experience on Mac's, they'll probably love the new nautilus, but I started on DOS 2.0, so I might be to old of a dog to teach.
For a better rebuttal of Petreley's article (and how to access "browser" mode in Gnome 2.6), check out: Crack Pipes for Everyone!
The tree has not been removed! Right click on something and select "browse" and you have your old Nautilus back. Not enough? Make a launcher on your desktop and have it run "nautilus --browser". Still not enough? Put it in a menu (FC2 already does). Still not enough? Delete all the spatial icons from your desktop and you will never see it again.
Good grief. You would think that "expert users" who can handle the complexities of a browser-based file interface might be able to, y'know, configure their desktops before whining about it in public.
Here's the truth: QT on X11 has been licensed under the GPL for almost 4 years. This means that KDE is 100% GPL and 100% Free, and has been for a very long time. No matter what Trolltech decides to do to stay in business, my KDE desktop will ALWAYS be Free.
Spread your FUD somewhere else.
"Seems like people are always complaining that GNOME and KDE don't innovate, and when they do everybody gets upset."
Did you miss the part that OS/2, Win95 and early Mac OS versions worked this way too? How is it inovation if it's already been done before?
The whole idea of the spacial file management system is to bring the metaphor of files and folders closer to what it is in the real world. However, that comes at a loss in usability, and there's no reason to try to do this if people are already comfortable with the way that file managers work at the moment.
For the record, this column appeared on page 30 of Computerworld's print edition this week, on the last page of our Technology section. Nicholas Petreley is one of several different columnists who rotate writing for that Tech opinion page. (There is an opinion column on the last page of the print publication's Management section as well.)
Our print readers have seen quite a bit of coverage of Linux and open source in addition to this column. Two weeks ago, for example, one of our cover features was A Sunny Forecast For Open Source, about how weather.com has cut IT costs by one-third after moving away from proprietary software and hardware. It was one of the most-read stories on our site that week.
Sharon Machlis
Online Managing Editor
Computerworld
At that time, I didn't even consider using Linux in my place of business. Since then, a lot has changed, but I will fully admit, that from just the text of the article, the summary I got is: 'Gnome is inflexible' and 'backwards'. That's a strong summary, and I'm educated enough (meaning I used Gnome before reading the article) to know better.
On Solaris it isn't a question of Gnome or KDE, it's a question of Common Desktop or Gnome -- I can fully assure you that Gnome is FAR superior to the Common Desktop Environment. Would this article have given me an informed synopsis? No. Would I have taken it for gospel, no - but I would have had the impression that it's not flexible, and no impression of anything good.
To me it's broader than Windows vs. Linux. It's about taking away the ability to process facts, by centering on something that, to me, is the most insignificant feature of a desktop environment ... the file manager.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
I'm not the editor for any columns that start life in print, so I wasn't the editor on this one. But I am familiar with our open-source coverage in general, and I do feel strongly that it's unlikely Computerworld readers will be turned away from open-source because of this column.
First off, a criticism of one particular desktop implementation doesn't imply that the columnist advocates ditching Linux on the desktop; I can't speak for them, but I don't believe many of our readers would conclude that. But even if we had a columnist suggesting that, we've had a lot of other articles with differing points of view. (One recent example: I was the editor on a reader contributed opinion piece, It's Possible to Ditch Microsoft Office.)
In any case, I've sent along the link to this Slashdot discussion to our print Technology and Features editors.
Happier now? I gave you a little more then what stuck in my mind? Would you like me to spend a week with it and give you a list of everything that just doesn't work quite right?
.dotfiles in the new file selector. You can see dotdirs, but that's not good enough.
Yes I am happier now. Don't get upset with me because you can't formulate your criticism in an intelligent manner. Giving one reason why you don't like gnome is not a very good argument. Especially when it's something that is easily fixed/configured.
I don't think gnome is perfect either, there are lots of things I would like it to do better. For example if I was going to pick a list off the top of my head it would go like this.
- Can't see
- Show hidden files doesn't stay selected in the file selector. I'm not sure if I really dislike this or not. Time will tell. It would be nice to have the option though.
- The new file selector doesn't retain it's height and width. This really bugs me.
- Metacity opens windows in the top left, right where I'm not looking for it.
- My panel keeps stealing focus from applications when I switch desktops.
- Nautilus should have a configuration option for spatial/browser mode. This is just something that you have to have both ways. I would have had major issues using gnome spatially, but since I don't have to, I'm not too worried about it.
So there you go, of the top of my head, it didn't take a week to post and really helps make the argument deeper. It lets people take it seriously, instead of saying to themselves, this guy doesn't like gnome, but his example is not very weighty, so who cares? If I were a gnome developer reading your original post, I wouldn't give it a second thought.
I think its got a long way to go til it becomes usable. Too much effort is spent on making Gnome a next generation desktop when its not yet up to the standard of a current generation desktop.
/dev/console themselves all the time, you know, just in case...)
Emblems, spatial Nautilus, contextual sidebars etc are great. So are Evo, Gimp 2, XChat Gnome, etc.
But the current Gnome desktop:
* No menu editor
* No way to modify what a launcher points to
* A file manager that acts like it can display web pages, then can't
* A bloody complex file associations menu that doesn't know about either the programs in my Gnome menu, or $PATH.
* No display of emergency messages when your hard disks decide to melt (apparently users have to be proactive and read
* No decent looking, comprehensive theme. Minor in comparision to the rest, but still...
Thanks for fixing the File Open dialog though.