GNOME 3.0 Delayed Until March 2011

Julie188 writes "GNOME 3.0 was scheduled to be released in September but during the developers conference, GUADEC 2010 in Den Haag, the organization had to face facts: the much ballyhooed GNOME Shell really wasn't ready. The Shell is supposed to bring 'a whole new user experience to the desktop.' So now, in September, what users will see is GNOME 2.32, distributed as a new stable release. Next target date for 3.0: March 2011."

Comments

Miguel is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

too busy with Mono these days ...

Re:Miguel is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and his boyfriend is pissed about where he got it from!

Re:Miguel is ...

[LizardKing]

Miguel hasn't been involved in core GNOME development for a looong time. He also had a habit of starting projects and then moving on to new ones quite quickly - Gnumeric and Bonobo for example. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, as it's up to him what he spends his time developing. As for Mono, I'm amazed he's stuck with it this long, but perhaps he's finally found the itch he really wanted to scratch.

Re:Miguel is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

what the one on ballmer's ball sack?

Really?

[gbutler69]

I heard it was the CLAP!

Smart

[DoofusOfDeath]

Better than releasing the Gnome equivalent of KDE4.

Re:Smart

[Just Some Guy]

Better than releasing the Gnome equivalent of KDE4.

...unless it ends up as the Gnome equivalent of Vista - late and not what anyone wants.

Re:Smart

[Beelzebud]

That's what I was thinking. No need to rush it out. If they feel it needs more time in the oven, then so be it.

Re:Smart

[linuxgeek64]

They shouldn't burn it either.

Re:Smart

[jadrian]

They wish they had something even remotely close to KDE 4.0. All they have is a new desktop shell.

Re:Smart

[Esospopenon]

They wish they had something even remotely close to KDE 4.0. All they have is a new desktop shell.

You have to remember there is more to Gnome than what meets the eye.

Re:Smart

[Beelzebud]

Agreed, but if they feel it's too buggy for release, I'll take their word for it. They're the ones that are doing the work...

Re:Smart

[akanouras]

Devil's advocate here - two things they have over KDE are:

1. Telepathy
2. gvfs-fuse

Apart from these two, I'd prefer they took the HIG and the other design principles and built a new GNOME over KDElibs.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a robot in disguise?

Re:Smart

[shawn(at)fsu]

What was wrong with releasing KDE 4.0? Yeah it sucked but it's not like once they sent out KDE 4.0 they also removed KDE 3.x from 'the internet'. You have to make a choice at some point esp in an open source product where you you should send it out so at least you can get user feedback on it. I like how OpenSuse handled it. You could install KDE3.x and KDE4.0.

If you try to make it perfect and keep putting it off and putting it off you run the risk of it becoming vaporware.

Re:Smart

[DrXym]

I'd prefer KDE took the HIG and implemented it on their own desktop. KDE is a usability travesty which might explain in no small part why GNOME has gained the upper hand.

Re:Smart

[arose]

So that we can all be stuck with a non-maintained set of libraries when Qt 5 comes out?

Re:Smart

[diegocg]

Telepathy

Kopete is being ported to work on top of Telephaty

Re:Smart

[akanouras]

Qt 4 came out in freaking 2005. Also, it still has the Qt3Support helper classes for porting.

If 5 years aren't enough for you to migrate your app, by all means feel free to mantain it by & for yourself while the rest of the world has moved on.

Re:Smart

[Etriaph]

KDE has never been impressive during it's initial releases of new major versions, and I admit that as a KDE user.  However, overall, once you reach a stable KDE version I find that KDE is miles better than GNOME.  I've tried, many times, to get into GNOME to see what others find special about it and all I ever find is that it's still the same old GNOME.  The only single benefit I credit to GNOME over KDE is speed; however, on a modern PC the only noticeable speed increase in GNOME over KDE is startup time.

If you haven't yet, download Kubuntu 10.04 and patch up to the latest version of KDE.  Once you see how the plasma desktop can be configured I'm confident that you'll begin to reconsider.

Re:Smart

[akanouras]

Sorry, I should've qualified that with "here and now".

The poor chap(s) working on telepathy-qt can only do so much - it's been coming a long time now. :(

Re:Smart

[akanouras]

Funny you should mention that - a lot of the newer apps are definitely influenced by it.

Apart from that, I think KDE should keep aiming for flexibility in the UI just as GNOME aims for extreme minimalism - both have their place for different types of users.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Would say one thing and I've doubt on Telepathy too

gvs-fuse = kio-slaves and ten years later

Re:Smart

[Walzmyn]

I don't aim to start a flame war (Lord knows we've got enough of them around here). But I feel just the opposite. Every time I'm stuck in Gnome I can't find anything. In KDE it has always (with only a few hicups during the KDE4 upgrade) been very intuitive. Obviously you have the opposite experience; 'm just saying it's a personal thing.

Re:Smart

[healyp]

I don't know if I'd call Telepathy an advantage. Once it's actually implemented it will definitely kick ass, but right now it sucks and only supports the full feature set of 1 protocol(jabber) out of the 16 it's supposed to be able to use. In fact I couldn't even get empathy to do something as simple as display an AIM buddy profile. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but as far as I can tell telepathy gives no distinct advantage to Gnome.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

My $ 0,02: The only thing I like (love) about gnome's HIG is the "No ok/no/cancel button in dialogs" policy (the button text is the action that will be triggered). I REALLY hate the lack of cancel/apply buttons in configuration screens, and the file dialog* (it doesn't support custom filters, at least not in an obvious way (ej: you can't put something like *.zip and have it recognized) that work at least in windows, KDE and probably most *NIX toolkits). Besides, core KDE applications (those that come straight from kde.org and aren't in -extragear) seem (to me) pretty consistent

*: Just before posting I re-read your comment, and this isn't quite the HIG's fault. But still, the only part I think it's worth saving over the interface design of KDE are the dialogs

Re:Smart

[the_womble]

gvfs-fuse

For what I want to do (mount remote file systems) KIO works better.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrible advice. Kubuntu is *THE* worst KDE distro out there. It provides such a vanilla experience that it's no wonder Ubuntu users stick with Gnome because their KDE spin is awful.

Rather try something like Sabayon, Mandriva, OpenSuse or Mint. They provide a much better KDE experience...

Re:Smart

[V!NCENT]

Yes. Gnome is about to get Gnome 3 but that will not be comming even remotely close to KDE SC 4.5.

However just the shell is not entirely true. Gnome also gets Gtk 3 and semantic desktop search.

Still a joke though...

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

The GNU version of Valve Time?

Re:Smart

[DrXym]

Besides, core KDE applications (those that come straight from kde.org and aren't in -extragear) seem (to me) pretty consistent

They are consistent, unfortunately that consistency doesn't = usable to mere mortals. GNOME wisely adopted the HIG after recognizing that sometimes less is more. Regular users don't want to wade through a sea of buttons and menus to do stuff, they just want to do stuff.

Look at the number of buttons, menus, settings a typical KDE app exposes vs a GNOME app. KDE apps have so many settings they actually have an explicit Settings dropdown with 2, 3, 4, 5 or even more menu items underneath. Each of those menu items may lead to a dialog with a tree of option pages, many of which have multiple tabs and further popups. Often the common options will be mixed in amongst the advanced or esoteric ones. It's a mess and it's something that a HIG should address.

KDE also has the odd tendency to rip off the latest Windows or Mac feature and then throw the kitchen sink into it. That's great except often times MS / Apple created the feature precisely to simplify their UI and make it more usable. So by tossing the kitchen sink KDE has undermined the reason the feature exists in the first place. The start menu in the plasma desktop would be one example of that.

That's not to say GNOME always gets it right. I think the desktop has stepped over the line between usable and retarded a few times and powershell has the potential to be a monumental disaster. Desktops need to provide the tools to get things done and otherwise stay the hell out of the way. Powershell looked too intrusive to me. If they need 6 more months to get it right I hope they use it wisely.

Re:Smart

[DrXym]

Powershell = GNOME shell. Must proof read.

Re:Smart

[cyclomedia]

I said this before and I'll say it again. KDE did the right thing with KDE 4.0.

Yes the history of software programming has developed into this bizzaro political sport where unles your point-zero release of something is perfect then you have failed but the KDE bods decided not to play that game. It was 4.x because it was different tech to 3.x, and instead of pulling a Microsoft and pretending that their new shiney version was perfect, then needing 3 service packs to get it right (I'm not intentionally MS bashing here, it was just an example I pulled out of my ass) they said, "OK everyone, this is the first release of our new OS Tech, but it's not totally finished yet, so carry on using 3.x for a while if you're worried about that".

What happened is that a LOT of individuals and distros went with 4.0 because of the oh-new-shiney factor instead of actually reading the label on the tin. And then promptly turned around and made a lot of complaining sounds EVEN THOUGH THEY'D BEEN WARNED

calling that release KDE 4.0 was not a mistake. Compared to actual human language sentences describing the software at hand and the state it is in random numbers with/out the word alpha or beta tacked on the end are meaninigless, no matter how much you believe in software politics. Some of us don't.

Re:Smart

[Magada]

Kubuntu is an eldritch horror that I bet has done more harm to the cause of Linux on the desktop than anything else in the past two years. Plasma is a resource hog, pure and simple - all the useless eyecandy of Aero combined with the clunkyness of KDE!

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you haven't been around Linux long or you have a short memory.

GNOME experienced the same headaches / user backlash when migrating from 1.x to 2.x.

It's the nature of things with such a major overhaul / rewrite.

Re:Smart

[Woy]

gvfs-fuse

For what I want to do (mount remote file systems) KIO works better.

No it does not. Seriously. I wish it did. I love KDE and can almost swallow KDE 4.5. However, gvfs allows ANY program access to the remote stuff you mount through it. KDE KIO simply can't match that. You can open a shell and cd into the damm ftp or Windows share or whatever and run commands on the files there.

Just mount something through gvfs, open your shell and type 'cd ~\.gfvs' and you will see.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, Kubuntu has gained a really bad reputation among KDE enthusiast for being an understaffed, second-class citizen in the 'buntu-verse, rife with bugs and weird implementation decisions. Up until I jumped ship to OpenSUSE in late 2008 this was certainly true for me and naturally I'd rather recommend the latter distro to people, as I find it much more representative of KDE's potential.

Re:Smart

[the_womble]

Before someone points it out, KIO does not mount the remote file systems, it just allows you to read and write them through KIO.

Re:Smart

[the_womble]

I did say "for what I do". I should have beena but more specific.

It usually means editing text files on remote file systems, usually over sftp, (which I do with Kate anyway) or managing files on remote file systems so which I have ssh access (which I do with Konqueror anyway).

As for running commands: ssh again.

That would not work well with a Windows share, but that is not something I need to do.

On the other hand, I am not entirely happy with the idea of a remote file system looking exactly like the local one. I like see "sftp://" in the file picker or file manager.

Incidentally, how well does gvfs cope with things like losing the connection to a remote server while you are editing a file? KIO will transparently try to reopen the session.

Re:Smart

[Evanisincontrol]

Kopete is being ported to work on top of Telephaty

Is that some sort of new female rapper? And who's this Kopete that's working on top of her?

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than releasing the Gnome equivalent of KDE4.

Exactly! Very well put man!

Re:Smart

[Etriaph]

I would much prefer to have a plain-jane installation and customize it myself than install whatever the boys over at Novell try to push on me.

Re:Smart

[Etriaph]

You can turn off all the desktop effects and still have a more configurable desktop than GNOME.  If you're having issues running the plasma desktop you should ditch your P133.

Re:Smart

[Etriaph]

From the out of the box distribution of KDE 4 to 3 hours after installation, this is how I configure it for my exact preferences.. http://imagebin.ca/view/xWPU0ck.html

Re:Smart

[Magada]

$cat /proc/cpuinfo

vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 15
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz

Why would I want a more "configurable" desktop? I want a more usable one, for sure.

I can turn off desktop effects, for sure, but plasma (afair) is now an integral part of KDE and so it still starts and hogs resources.

I like a lot of things about KDE (the office suite in particular), but the recent infatuation of the devs with ripping off Apple UI design ain't one of them.

Re:Smart

[squiggleslash]

Sometimes the defaults are better than what you manually configure. For example, the rest of us would certainly appreciate it if you post with the default font, rather than monospaced font ("code") you decided to post with instead.

Re:Smart

[Magada]

Yours is possibly the least useful answer I've ever had on /. and that's saying something.

Re:Smart

[squiggleslash]

It wasn't an "answer", it was a criticism.

Not a huge loss...

[Sheetrock]

I like the looks of the new interface, but am rather concerned it might put people off by being too different from Windows.

I've been playing around with soft lighting in the GIMP, and I think one innovation I'd like to see come up (in X-windows or wherever) would be to allow users to "tint" the whole desktop with a particular color scheme and pattern... something that can hit the windows and wallpaper evenly not unlike the sun is currently hitting my monitor, only not so bright, blurry and distracting.

Think looking at a monitor with the faint reflection of light hitting rippling water... ahh, soothing!

Re:Not a huge loss...

[MBGMorden]

Think looking at a monitor with the faint reflection of light hitting rippling water... ahh, soothing!

I suppose everyone's different and more options (probably) can't hurt, but that sounds more like gouge my eyes out annoying rather than "soothing".

Re:Not a huge loss...

[nyctopterus]

I like the looks of the new interface, but am rather concerned it might put people off by being too different from Windows.

The market for Linux is not mostly made up of newbs who want Windows that isn't Windows, but of power users and people who care about free software. These people are already trying to move AWAY from Windows. Making Linux more Windows-like is no good for usability or differentiating Linux. Gnome should move in it's own direction.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[MBGMorden]

Making Linux more Windows-like is no good for usability or differentiating Linux. Gnome should move in it's own direction.

While true, I also think that it shouldn't go in a different direction just to be "different" from Windows. Windows isn't like the anti-christ. Sure, it's got some things wrong with it from both a technically and political standpoint, but as an OS it also does many things right (as painful as that might be for many of us to admit).

Those things that it DOES to right I have no issue with doing the same way in Gnome/Linux. Afterall, the whole POINT of OSS is sharing ideas and avoiding reinvention of the wheel. We can't do that with Windows' code, but we most assuredly can do it with good UI elements (same with UI elements from MacOS). If what they're doing works, then our own direction should be the same way they're going.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[socrplayr813]

That depends on perspective. Personally, I would love for Gnome to be completely unique (as long as its usability is good). However, among the people that I help with computer issues, there has been a lot of interest in free (no cost) software and I've fairly easily transitioned them to open source Windows apps. A 'close enough' interface for Linux would let a lot of them switch without a significant learning curve, which would reduce their computer problems, make my life easier, and possibly extend the life of their hardware.

Again, I don't disagree (something other than Gnome should fill that gap), but there are people with a different perspective that's perfectly valid.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[afabbro]

I like the looks of the new interface, but am rather concerned it might put people off by being too different from Windows.

Yeah, that's always held Apple back.

Of course, we can always go back to FVWM95 if you want...

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE4 can. You can't tint the whole SVGs and apps. The dialog is buried somewhere around the custom theme blender one.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[LWATCDR]

How about this.
I want an UI that isn't totally different from Windows, Gnome, and OS/X?

Frankly I am begining to feel that OSs are getting to much eye candy at the expense of usability.
What I want from an OS is really simple.
Fast
Reliable
Launches applications
Manages files
Handles IO.

Wall paper is nice and attractive icons are also nice.
Clean readable fonts is a must.

Oh and use the CTRL and ALT keys and not some stupid Windows or Apple key to do stuff. If you start using a stinking TUX key for commands like copy and paste I may have to hurt people!

Re:Not a huge loss...

[SpaceAmoeba]

I understand the concern, but I wonder if being Windows-like is becoming much less important as people do more on netbooks and smartphones. Gnome Shell strikes me as having some inspiration in the interfaces of those devices so it may actually attract people away from Windows. One can always hope!

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the looks of the new interface, but am rather concerned it might put people off by being too different from Windows.

Yeah, that's always held Apple back.

You speak in jest, but until OS X hit, yes. Yes, it did.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[grcumb]

I've been playing around with soft lighting in the GIMP, and I think one innovation I'd like to see come up (in X-windows or wherever) would be to allow users to "tint" the whole desktop with a particular color scheme and pattern... something that can hit the windows and wallpaper evenly not unlike the sun is currently hitting my monitor, only not so bright, blurry and distracting.

I've been doing this for years: PNG wallpaper with an alpha layer running through the entire image. Graduated background fill in the colour that suits your mood on any given day. For bonus points, script a slow colour transition that matches the time of day.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[akanouras]

...one innovation I'd like to see come up (in X-windows or wherever) would be to allow users to "tint" the whole desktop with a particular color scheme and pattern... something that can hit the windows and wallpaper evenly not unlike the sun is currently hitting my monitor, only not so bright, blurry and distracting.

Think looking at a monitor with the faint reflection of light hitting rippling water... ahh, soothing!

xrandr --gamma <r>:<g>:<b>

Tint to your heart's desire ;)

Re:Not a huge loss...

[marcello_dl]

> While true, I also think that it shouldn't go in a different direction just to be "different" from Windows.

Well windows is a moving target as they think it's better to reinvent the wheel by making changes to UI to increase the psychological cost of switching to other platforms. Since windows is different from windows, I hope gnome doesn't share that kind of philosophy. If something needs to change let it change, otherwise keep things familiar- familiarity makes users gain time.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Teun]

I like the looks of the new interface, but am rather concerned it might put people off by being too different from Windows.

You seem to imply Linux is or should be a follower, I'd rather see Linux as a leader.

That's not to say Linux should ditch good ideas even from Microsoft.

To come back on topic, Gnome's problem has always been it's lack of integration and I doubt they can on that front catch up with KDE.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[HBoar]

it shouldn't go in a different direction just to be "different" from Windows.

Exactly, you only have to look at OSX to see that needlessly trying to be different just ends up making things awkward.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[dunng808]

Being different from Windows is a good thing. I use Gnome because I was looking for a clean, simple UI, like an old Mac, for other people to use. I actually prefer Enlightenment and all those beautiful game-like looks. I am all in favor of creativity.

http://www.enlightenment.org/p.php?p=about/e16

http://e17-stuff.org/

http://www.enlightenment.org/

Re:Not a huge loss...

[nyctopterus]

Who are 'regular' people? Because it really depends...

Re:Not a huge loss...

[MBGMorden]

Actually OS X does it right. It deviates where it needs to, and does things the same where it needs to as well. My current Gnome desktop as it's setup actually looks a LOT more like OS X than Windows does (I'll even link a screenshot below). That metaphor still works well though. It's not different to be different - it's different only when different works well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46649722@N08/4838677771/sizes/l/

Re:Not a huge loss...

[xiong.chiamiov]

Frankly I am begining to feel that OSs are getting to much eye candy at the expense of usability. What I want from an OS is really simple. Fast Reliable Launches applications Manages files Handles IO.

Wall paper is nice and attractive icons are also nice. Clean readable fonts is a must.

Have you ever tried, y'know, uninstalling/disabling the eyecandy? Windows and OS X come prebundled with stuff, but you can still disable much of it. Linux does not have any eye candy, as it is a kernel, and there are many, many distros that don't prepackage that kind of stuff.

It's a bit confusing whether you're talking about OSs, DEs, or WMs.

Oh and use the CTRL and ALT keys and not some stupid Windows or Apple key to do stuff. If you start using a stinking TUX key for commands like copy and paste I may have to hurt people!

What's wrong with using all of the modifier keys available to you? Do you really prefer using ctrl+shift+alt+f to open your filemanager, rather than win+f, because you've already used ctrl+f, ctrl+shift+f, etc.?

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Ankh]

See http://www.stereopsis.com/flux/ for software that does something like this already (although not with patterns), and can also change the colour temperature of your monitor based on time of day.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like what you want is a fvwm2 and midnight commander. Does everything you want.

sri

Re:Not a huge loss...

[the_womble]

The market for Linux is not mostly made up of newbs who want Windows that isn't Windows, but of power users and people who care about free software.

If you want Linux to get more users (which I am sure the Gnome people do), then you need to make the transition reasonably easy.

Similar enough to Windows by default to make it feel familiar, preferably better, but easy to customise is the way to do.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[aaaaaaargh!]

Oh and use the CTRL and ALT keys and not some stupid Windows or Apple key to do stuff.

Principally I agree with you but the problem is that on 99.9 percent of all keyboards the control key is in the wrong place for no apparent reasons except historical ones. Even worse, I've seen keyboards on which the left shift key is smaller than the capslock key, which just doesn't make sense unless you're a Modula-3 programmer who lacks a decent text editor. To make a long story short, I'd like UI designers to think about alternative keyboard layouts from time to time and not just accept the status quo.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[TheSeaCucumber]

I use musca, its an extremely lightweight tiling window manager. No fancy taskbar (unless you install one) and uses a single configuration file that you can write yourself in about 5 minutes. background is easy to do, and the musca wiki is amazingly well done. If you want screenshots, then I can provide. Everything is controlled through a modified dmenu and keyboard shortcuts. In short, it is similar to ratpoison, but, it is lighter (like it matters) and it does not guess tiling arrangements. If you're interested in getting a little more seriously into linux, and you're sick of fancy, bloated desktop environments, give this a try.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[DaVince21]

Can't Compiz do this? I'm pretty sure it can.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Anonymous Coward]

DWM. suckless software. google it.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Anonymous Coward]

applications use control and alt for their own purposes. the OS needs to use a different key.

Re:Not a huge loss...

[Anonymous Coward]

I get most of this from fluxbox. Don't have desktop icons, though, but I hate desktop icons.

I use the Windows key, as well -- as a program launch metakey. Win+B is a browser, win+M is the music player, etc etc. Win+X locks the screen. Win+T brings up a terminal.

And it's very lightweight, at least compared to Gnome and KDE.

Gnome 3.0....

[boneclinkz]

Codenamed "David"

Learn Lessons From KDE4

[SlashdotOgre]

I truly hope the Gnome folks observed the KDE4 fiasco and learned some good lessons. They really need to make sure the product they release is stable and doesn't include significant feature regressions (although knowing Gnome, they'll probably call them usability enhancements...). There's certain types of software that can be unstable, and a desktop environment isn't one of them. I'm very much in favor of them holding off as long as it takes.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[SlashdotOgre]

Actually, I stick by my statement, "as long as it takes," because:
    a) It's an open source effort and if I want to use it, even though they haven't officially released it, I can do it any time I want. In fact I have already tried it using the Gentoo Gnome overlay, and I do agree it's not ready.
    b) They're continuing to work on Gnome 2.XX which is actually my primary desktop. This is very different than the KDE4 situation which basically caused the excellent KDE 3.X DE to be unsupported.

Now I do agree that repeated product delays are not a good sign (although I wouldn't go so far as to necessarily call it a, "sign of ineptness or a demonstration of gross incompetence"). Fortunately with open source software, I can determine for myself when a product is ready for my use regardless of an official release. There may be consequences with that choice (e.g. a redesign causes a significant break or lack support), but it's still my choice.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[Anonymous Coward]

Is gnome a product? Its delay proves gross incompetence to whom?

Isn't this what open source was suppose to be about? No shareholders to answer to, the software is realeased when it's done?

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[ciaran_o_riordan]

What's your opinion on the other hundreds of questions the GNOME project is working on?

Most people don't have any opinion on those. Anyone can give an opinion on release dates, and everyone loves commenting about what colour the bikeshed should be...

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[oddfox]

Is gnome a product?

Yes, it is. GNOME is a product (software project) that is included with various other products into a meta-product (for-pay distributions, as well as distros that offer support contracts). Matter of fact, a product doesn't have to cost money or be proprietary in order to be considered a product, but the GNOME project has to push their product or they risk losing relevance, market share and mind share if they appear to be dragging their feet and lagging in progress.

Its delay proves gross incompetence to whom?

The core GNOME developers and maintainers of the project along with various sub-projects which have fallen behind schedule quite a bit are to blame.

I'm not personally of the mindset that any of these delays constitutes anything more than very bad management and planning.

Isn't this what open source was suppose to be about? No shareholders to answer to, the software is realeased when it's done?

No, it's not what OSS was supposed to be about and it's not what it is about. The shareholders in the F/OSS world are not only the community members but any businesses which have a significant stake in releasing a solid product. Don't think that if GNOME falls far behind KDE or anything else that major distributions won't drop support for it, or simply remove it entirely from its repositories. Case in point -- Slackware. GNOME failed as a product to satisfy the Slackware developers (Meaning Patrick Volkerding, primarily, if I recall correctly) and was thus dropped in favor of KDE. If it becomes a pain in the butt for RedHat to support a GNOME desktop on RHEL because GNOME feels old and/or crusty they will look for other options.

In short, GNOME can take as long as they want getting to 3.0, but other software projects (especially desktop environments and window managers) are not stopping and waiting for them to play catch-up. The lesson to take away from this is to be a little more conservative about estimates for getting projects needing more attention out the door. Maybe they lost a few or many developers or volunteers, but the most likely explanation to a lot of people will appear to be that they underestimated how much time and how many developers and testers were needed.

FWIW, as someone who wants to see GNOME Shell and 3.0 finished, I am at least glad they have recognized publicly that GNOME Shell is absolutely nowhere near ready. I've tried it out a few times in various distros and it's about as disappointing as can be as far as performance and stability. If they would have stuck to their original release schedule this would have been far worse than the reaction to KDE4 when it landed. It would be like the Four Yorkshiremen skit with the GNOME 3.0 early adopters scoffing at how much easier the KDE 4.0 early adopters had it.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[icebraining]

Yes, those 70% of Gnome contributors who contribute in their spare time are highly incompetent. They should quit their jobs to have all day to contribute for free to the project.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[IrquiM]

I don't see KDE4 as a fiasco. It was clearly stated by the developers that they didn't recommend using it in any distro.

The failure wasn't by KDE but the people maintaining the distros!

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[Tetch]

Well ... yes ... but KDE4 did carry on being a fiasco for rather a long time, which has freaked a lot of people out. It's only just reaching a decent state around about now (V4.4.5 / V4.5) - which has been unfortunate - and many of its users consider the many allegedly release-quality previous V4.x versions have been only beta-grade ... and should have been flagged as such.

Distros which included it did so largely in response to user demand, which itself occurred because users were given the impression the beta phase (labelled V3.9.x) was now over, and that "V4" meant "usable for serious purposes".

It's all water under the bridge now, but many users got bitten, and many people think the move was a mistake.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[JohnFluxx]

If you call a product version number "4.0" then people expect a certain level of quality. And people will demand that their distro carries it.

I'm a KDE developer, and IMHO we should have simply called it "KDE 4 BETA 1". And 'released' that. That would have given a platform for app developers to target, while not putting pressure on distros to provide it.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[Anonymous Coward]

Release early, release often. Only in the case of KDE4 this has been seen as a bad thing.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[Magada]

The bad thing was just a numbering conventions issue - 4.0 should have been stable, not a pre-alpha foisted on unsuspecting lusers for further testing.

Re:Learn Lessons From KDE4

[Filip22012005]

KDE 4.0 was released in january 2008, 3.5.10 was released in august of that year. I don't know for how long Gnome intends to maintain two branches.

New GNOME Shell design

[supersloshy]

Another reason they're pushing GNOME 3 back is that Shell's design isn't quite usable yet. I would know because I frequently use daily builds of GNOME Shell for testing purposes. I mean, look at it. It's so... blah and thrown-together. The design team is working on the design, and the final design will look much different. If you clone the gnome-shell-design git repository, you'll get the most current mockups. Here's a link to those of you unable to use git including the latest mockups as of today. These mockups look amazing and make the shell much easier on the eyes as well as usable. Ever since they announced this new design, I've been looking forward to it much more than I already have.

Re:New GNOME Shell design

[MBGMorden]

Totally agree. It's like they all got together and said "Alright guys. People think Gnome is boring. Lets do something REVOLUTIONARY!!!!!". And they then set off to make something that was as "different" as they could. Not useable, not actually "revolutionary" - just different. Personally, I have no qualms with using an old desktop metaphor if it works well, and the current one does. Refine what works - don't topple the whole thing just to try to build a better one.

Re:New GNOME Shell design

[xxdinkxx]

Granted, these mocks look awesome. However, could they possibly rip off OSX any harder? I am really surprised that Apple hasn't tried to sue Gnome.

Re:New GNOME Shell design

[supersloshy]

I am really surprised that Apple hasn't tried to sue Gnome.

Probably because they aren't infringing on any of Apple's property if I remember correctly. I prefer the term "inspired by" instead of "ripped-off". Does GNOME 3 use Mac's icons, sounds, artwork, themes, etc.? If not, they aren't doing anything worse than OpenOffice.org "ripping-off" MS Office or Firefox "ripping-off" IE/Opera/Chrome.

Re:New GNOME Shell design

[jenningsthecat]

I agree fully, and as someone who uses both Windows, and Gnome under Debian, I really don't want the window controls to move from the upper right hand corner, especially to meet some perceived need to be different. Gnome needs a lot of things more urgently than it needs a spurious "Look! I'm different" facelift. For example, how about a full-featured file manager, instead of the current Nautilus? One that has a full file search feature built in, (so I don't have to launch a separate app just to find a file by date or by text contents), that allows click-and-drag file select, and so on. Gnome is so immature in so many ways; they need to get the basics right before they go wasting resources on prettification.

Re:New GNOME Shell design

[Anonymous Coward]

Refine what works - don't topple the whole thing just to try to build a [different] one.

...like the KDE4 developers did.

just how new can windows desktop be?

[Colin Smith]

Lets face it, the windows on a desktop with icons experience pretty much hit it's peak with Windows 3.0. Everything since then has been, well, more windows on a desktop with icons.
 

Re:just how new can windows desktop be?

[mweather]

I use KDE4, you insensitive clod! There are no icons on my desktop.

Re:just how new can windows desktop be?

[Blakey Rat]

First of all: Windows 3.0? Seriously? Never used a Classic Mac?

Secondly: Saying "oh the WIMP interface is so old and tired" is really, really easy. Coming up with something better enough to displace it? Now that's fucking hard. It's been tried many times, and never gained any traction so far.

What about GNOME 3?

[assertation]

I haven't kept up on it. What will be special about GNOME 3, particularly from an end user's perspective?

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Sponge Bath]

It's magical and revolutionary as long as you don't click it in the wrong way.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Monkeedude1212]

It would make Linux Environments less scary.

You might chuckle at this notion, but the longer the thought sits there, the more it creeps in and you know it's right.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[supersloshy]

Have you ever used a Mac? Do you know somebody who has? Macs have a tendency to "just work" much, much more than Windows or most Linux distributions. GNOME 3's their own version of that. See the GNOME Shell design page and the latest mockups for more information.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[doti]

the gnome shell, basically.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Beelzebud]

Using a marketing slogan like "it just works" doesn't describe anything about the new features Gnome 3 has... What is it with Mac users and their eagerness to repeat ad slogans over and over again?

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with Mac users and their eagerness to repeat ad slogans over and over again?

It's called brainwashing.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[afabbro]

It's not hard to "keep up".

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[H0p313ss]

It would make Linux Environments less scary.

You might chuckle at this notion, but the longer the thought sits there, the more it creeps in and you know it's right.

Sometime around Christmas I showed my brother gnome-shell running on Ubuntu 9.10 ... my brother is a mech. engineer and really couldn't care less about operating systems but does care about computing in general since trying to be a physical engineer these days without a computer is like trying to live on the far side of the moon.

I have never seen him react to anything from Linux in that way: "Damn that's cool... "

I strongly believe that it will be a game changer for Linux desktop UI.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[thePsychologist]

Time travel, and it runs in Emacs now.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[LWATCDR]

Okay I have been using a Mac for development for a bit now.
As to it "just working" honestly not anymore than my PC just works.
Getting my cell phone and another device to work over bluetooth? Have not got it working yet.

Networking and printers are working just fine.

But the UI really makes me nuts.
Why must I grab the bottom right corner to resize a window? Under Windows I can do it from any part of the frame,
And why the stinking apple key! isn't alt and control good enough. I keep hiting ctrl c to copy !
And the Menus always at the top. What a waste of time.
I have to click on the window and then move my mouse to the top of the screen to pick a menu item!
Grrrrr...
Yes it works but so does XP and Ubuntu. It is pretty. I will give you that. Better looking than Windows and Gnome.
But usability is making me nuts.
I think the open apple key is the single worst thing about it. I HATE IT. And I am sure I can map the keyboard if I really want to but where?
Oh and don't hand me the "ctrl and alt are only better because that is what you are used too" crap
Yep but it is also what Linux and Windows both use! If Microsoft put a function like copy and paste on their "Windows keys" I would want to hurt them as well!

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite what Apple or any of their apologists say, OSX does not "just work" on any of my machines. In fact it doesn't work at all.

Maybe if Apple let me configure a system with the components that *I* want I would think about getting a mac. Well, they'd have to provide the lube too.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Draek]

Repeat a lie often enough...

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[supersloshy]

What is it with Mac users and their eagerness to repeat ad slogans over and over again?

For the record, I use Linux almost exclusively. I am an Apple hater, not a user. I have tried a macbook before, though, and the hardware and software for it was very intuitive; I can see why people like it. To somebody like my mom that doesn't want to be bothered with updates and interruptions out the wazoo and just user her camera/photos/Facebook, Macs are perfect. Linux, IMO, is in-between Mac and Windows in terms of usability, and GNOME 3 looks very much like it could surpass Mac in terms of usability.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[AresTheImpaler]

Getting my cell phone and another device to work over bluetooth? Have not got it working yet.

what devices are you having trouble with? Some of them require either plugins (for sync) or drivers. It not up to Apple or even MS to make sure every device works with their OS. I had a sony ericsson cell that I had to find a 3rd party plug in for isync to make it work.. I don't see how this is Apple's problem

Why must I grab the bottom right corner to resize a window? Under Windows I can do it from any part of the frame

I dont like this either.. so really, dunno why apple does it this way :'(

I have to click on the window and then move my mouse to the top of the screen to pick a menu item! Grrrrr...

of course, you have to focus on the window you are working. This is the same in linux/windows and any other OS. The difference is that you alt-tab to change between windows in other OS. In a mac, you can use the command-tab to change between apps, and if you are in the application you want to use, but in the wrong window, just command-~

I think the open apple key is the single worst thing about it. I HATE IT. And I am sure I can map the keyboard if I really want to but where? Oh and don't hand me the "ctrl and alt are only better because that is what you are used too" crap Yep but it is also what Linux and Windows both use! If Microsoft put a function like copy and paste on their "Windows keys" I would want to hurt them as well!

I'm sorry I'm going to have to use the "ctrl and alt is what you are used too" crap (I didn't say they are better tho, they are just different). When I go back to linux or windows, I try to use the "windows key" to copy, paste, switch between windows, etc. It's just what I'm used to. The main difference between the command key (used to be the apple key) and the windows key is that the apple key was introduced in 1980 for shortcuts like this. That's 15 years before the the windows key was introduced. I'm not saying it's better nor anything like that. I'm just saying that that key was introduced 20 years ago to be a modifier key. When the windows key was introduced, there was no clear reason it was really introduced for. It sucked back then. I'm not sure if it has any better uses now after vista and win 7.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Kerrigann]

System Preferences -> Keyboard -> 'Keyboard' Tab -> 'Modifier Keys' button.

It's nice once you get used to it if you do unix-y things a lot, because ctrl-c, ctrl-z, ctrl-d do not conflict with copy paste undo, etc...

However, I understand completely why you wouldn't want to change from what you are used to. That tends to be Apple's thing, though: sacrifice customizability for the sake of usability. BUT, In this case, it IS very easy to change.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[HBoar]

Yes it really is horrible. I never appreciated just how bad it was until my GF got a macbook pro. Multitasking is only half functional since only one menu bar seems to show at once. It comes with a default media player that doesn't play any videos (just like windows) and when you try to change it to use VLC by default it freezes up. You don't seem to be able to get to network shares from the address bar in the file manager.... the list goes on.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[xiong.chiamiov]

And why the stinking apple key! isn't alt and control good enough. I keep hiting ctrl c to copy !

The apple key (cmd) is equivalent to control on Windows. Control exists to emulate right-clicking with one-button mice, so using it as a modifier key would be stupid.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[lanner]

Stupid end-user. As with KDE4, you're perspective and interest in GNOME 3 is irrelevant. The developers are writing code for their own personal entertainment, not because they want you to use it.

Should your message have been posted on a GNOME or KDE message board, it would have been deleted by an admin for being a troll.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish copy was windows-C (like Command-C) instead of CTRL-C. Then you wouldn't have to remember that it really is Shift-CTRL-C in the terminal because CTRL-C kills your running program.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope you don't use cut and paste when dealing with files or folders, osx doesn't feature that and it was the sole reason I ditched my hackintosh.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[LWATCDR]

Thanks I will try that

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[LWATCDR]

But until you learn all the keyboard commands it can take a lot of mouse moving.
That and I find I really miss MDI All those windows everywhere are just pain. I know that spaces is supposed be the solution but it just isn't as easy for me. Macs have quirks. They are note all fairy farts and unicorn poop.
But I will say that I find the quality of the applications available to be very high. It may be that the best part of the OS is the API

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[dominion]

To somebody like my mom that doesn't want to be bothered with updates and interruptions out the wazoo and just user her camera/photos/Facebook, Macs are perfect.

I was using Linux back when Slackware was the best distribution around, I know how to manually recompile a kernel, I've been doing software development professionally since 1998, and I know how to code in multiple languages, from bash scripting to C++. I was frankenstein'ing machines back when graphics cards had jumpers.

I'm what you'd call a "power user", and I wouldn't use anything but Mac OS X. It's one of the most functional and unified interfaces to a pretty solid UNIX core that I've ever used. Nothing comes close.

So tell your mom I said "Hi."

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[AresTheImpaler]

I dunno if you are going to read this, but:

But until you learn all the keyboard commands it can take a lot of mouse moving.

I agree, again, that goes both ways someone moving form mac to windows/linux will have the same problem... A very handy shortcut if you are using 10.5+ is command-space, to open spotlight and then run an application or document without using the mouse. Most apps have similar shortcuts of course and all use command. for example command-, opens the application preferences.

That and I find I really miss MDI All those windows everywhere are just pain

I guess I got used to it. It makes the screen very cluttered that's for sure. Since I got used to the whole command-tab and command -` I haven't had that many problems. It's all about getting used to it to be honest. One thing I like about the command key as the primary meta key, is that termnial shortcuts do not conflict with the system ones :D Also, if you have used emacs, you should try some of the shortcuts like ctrl-A and ctrl-E work in pretty much every place where you can type at.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[jadrian]

I have never seen him react to anything from Linux in that way: "Damn that's cool... "

I strongly believe that it will be a game changer for Linux desktop UI.

I got that same reaction all the time when showing off the Desktop Cube a couple of years ago. So what...

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[synthespian]

Put USB pen drive in Linux. Where is it? Ah, there. Filddle with something. Loose it. Where is it? Climb, climb, climb the folder hierarchy until you find /whatever/media. The down, down, down to you home. Divide Dolphin. (Note: there's at least one Linux distro who reconsidered exposing the whole file tree to ordinary users - Gobo Linux)
Try Windows. All folders are what MS decided. Whatever you want is in My Documents. But, is it? Search for a item. Retarded interface (in XP, a retarded dog, even).
Use a Mac. Clickity-click. Wife tested. Power-user tested.
And I'm tired of writing scripts. Automator tasks are so much better.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[evilviper]

Macs have a tendency to "just work" much, much more than Windows or most Linux distributions

You're right... Apple does a tremendous job reducing the expectations of functionality and convenience that their users perceive.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[Lord of Hyphens]

I suddenly find myself with an urge to evacuate this small grassy area.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[dylan_-]

Put USB pen drive in Linux.

..and a notification pops up to let you know it's been plugged in.

Where is it?

Just there where the notification popped up. Click on it, and click on the device and it opens in Dolphin.

Ah, there. Filddle with something. Loose it. Where is it?

Exactly the same place it was the first time. Click on it and it opens in Dolphin.

Climb, climb, climb the folder hierarchy until you find /whatever/media.

Or just click on the device button on the left in Dolphin.

The down, down, down to you home.

Or just click on the Home button to the left in Dolphin.

You seem to be doing everything in the most difficult way possible and then complaining that it's difficult. The way KDE handles USB drives is by far the best of the mainstream OSs (yes, I use Windows 7 and OSX as well).

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[MBGMorden]

Indeed - the pissing contest has begun :).

FWIW, my credentials aren't QUITE as impressive as the original posters. I've used Linux as a tinker-toy for about 12 years - as my primary desktop for about 18 months now. In my teen years built computer systems and did the whole "overclocking scene" (though as I've grown older overclocking seemed more hassle than it was worth), have a BS in Computer Science, and work as a developer/database admin.

I, personally, think OS X is a good product from a *technical perspective*. If it was a FL/OSS project, it'd be my OS/desktop of choice. That said, I don't agree with its business model or the general attitude of the company hawking it, so I choose to use Ubuntu with a customized Gnome UI instead. Works 95% as well, and has a long term philosophy that matches my own much better.

Gnome3 skeers me though. If they keep toying around with the UI just to stir things up I will be VERY seriously considering XFCE in the future.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[LWATCDR]

I don't hate OS/X even though it may sound like it. I was expecting the ultimate UI experience and frankly just isn't that great. Not terrible but not great.
The thing about the menus is that I see no benefit to having the menus at the top of the screen vs the top of the window and a big down side.

I do agree that a good part of it is getting used to it but that is not the same as intuitive and just works now is it?

As to Emacs I have not used that since microemacs on the Amiga.
For my light editing on Linux I use JOE because it is fast, light, and works well over ssh.
On the PC I use Notepad++ or HTMLToolkit depending. They are both really good tools.
On the Mac I installed TextWrangler which is a nice little editor.
On Windows for Development I use Netbeans because I tend to do java work on Windows.
On Linux Eclipse with C++ extensions for c and C++ work.
On OS/X I use XCode.

One day I may settle on one set of tools for all of them but I have yet to have that luxury.
Maybe I will take the time to relearn Emacs but not today.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[LWATCDR]

Oh I have a list of things that tick me off in Windows and Linux as well.
The thing is that I find OS/X just as annoying. Maybe if I only ever used OS/X I would feel different but OS/X just doesn't seem that much if any better than Windows to me.
Of course I started on the Commodore 64, went to CP/M and DOS, then AmigaOS, then back to DOS(work), then Windows, then more Windows, then Linux plus Windows, then Linux plus Windows plus OS/X.
So maybe it does something in an easy way that I don't find hard to do under Windows or Linux.
Because compared to DOS most things are pretty easy to do in Linux and Windows these days.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[H0p313ss]

I have never seen him react to anything from Linux in that way: "Damn that's cool... "

I strongly believe that it will be a game changer for Linux desktop UI.

I got that same reaction all the time when showing off the Desktop Cube a couple of years ago. So what...

The difference is the Desktop Cube was cool but pretty weak in terms of improved usability. gnome-shell not only looks cool but also improves usability.

Re:What about GNOME 3?

[jadrian]

Maybe so, but his brother looking at it and saying "damn that's cool!" is certainly no proof of that.

Probably a good thing

[MBGMorden]

I'm a pretty dedicated Gnome user, but I'll admit that the new shell isn't something I'm looking forward to. It's too non-traditional IMHO. Some basic designs have evolved in the computer UI world because they work very well, and this seems to be trying to shake things up for the sake of being different.

IMHO, the current Gnome UI with the taskbar replaced with a dock (I use Docky for this) is nearly perfect from a useability standpoint. Rather than major UI shakeups, what I want is polishing work. Smooth out the eye candy. Font rendering. Better artwork on default themes and icons. Performance tweaks. More work on specific apps.

All in all, the BASIC system is is perfect. Now's not the time to be changing it. Focus on the little things.

Re:Probably a good thing

[natehoy]

All in all, the BASIC system is is perfect.

Crap, we were going for FORTRAN. Thanks for the feedback. Back to the drawing board, boys!
  - Gnome Development Team :)

Re:Probably a good thing

[H0p313ss]

I'm a pretty dedicated Gnome user, but I'll admit that the new shell isn't something I'm looking forward to. It's too non-traditional IMHO. Some basic designs have evolved in the computer UI world because they work very well, and this seems to be trying to shake things up for the sake of being different.

IMHO, the current Gnome UI with the taskbar replaced with a dock (I use Docky for this) is nearly perfect from a useability standpoint. Rather than major UI shakeups, what I want is polishing work. Smooth out the eye candy. Font rendering. Better artwork on default themes and icons. Performance tweaks. More work on specific apps.

All in all, the BASIC system is is perfect. Now's not the time to be changing it. Focus on the little things.

I disagree... but I think it's really going to be a user preference issue, some will love it, some will hate it since what gnome-shell does is far more radical than anyone has done in a decade.

The existing menus and toolbars are based on a 15 year old design concept. While, like you, I don't think they should throw out the baby with the bathwater, I do think that something new is in order given all the interesting things that have been done with the OSX, Vista and Win7 desktops.

Such a radical move will only work if it's a better experience all round, and from what I've seen so far the potential is certainly there.

Re:Probably a good thing

[oatworm]

I actually kind of understand the need to rework the UI. The file/folder metaphor was a good starting point back when the contents of a computer system were simple enough where you could organize them by hand. Nowadays, it's pretty trivial to have enough documents, music, videos, photos, and so on lying around where the whole metaphor breaks down because there's just no way you can keep track of everything. Consequently, ditching the file/folder metaphor and instead pushing forward with a "what type of stuff do you want to work with?" approach would be rather beneficial, and is something that Windows and Mac have been slowly but incrementally pushing for quite a while.

Think about it this way - does it really matter where things go specifically, so long as you can get there easily? Do I really care that I can find and open a picture at ~/Documents/Pictures/2010/07/28 in seven double-clicks and nearly as many context changes, or do I care that I can go to "Pictures"->"Sort by date"->double-click on today's photo in four mouse-clicks and get a more holistic view of what's on my machine at a given moment? Do I care that I can find some music at ~/Documents/Music/Artist/Album/trackname.ogg, or would I rather just be able to "Play all songs in album Foo by artist Bar"?

Having said all that, I do think that GNOME and KDE (okay, especially KDE) are jumping a bit ahead of the curve on this, which is fine by me. A lot of computer geeks are only starting to come around to the idea of a "semantic desktop" (oh, how I loathe that term...), or, if you prefer, a desktop that functions more like a local search engine than a filing cabinet, in no small part because the people "in the know" are calling it silly things like "semantic desktop", "NEPOMUK", and so on, then ranting about the power of tuples, metadata and RDF. You can just imagine how the rest of the world feels on the subject. I do think that, over time, this is the direction we're going to end up going, though. If you stop and think about it, it's a little strange that we interact with the Internet in one fashion (search for something->load it->bookmark it if I want to come back to it) and our computers in another fashion (traverse a pile of directories->find something?->load it->create a desktop shortcut if I want to come back to it, unless I overload my desktop with shortcuts, in which case I'll need a shortcut to the folder containing the shortcuts...). Since many people are spending more time on the Internet than on local content, doesn't it make sense to use the same mechanisms used on the Internet to find local content? Might as well, right?

Re:Probably a good thing

[MBGMorden]

Think about it this way - does it really matter where things go specifically, so long as you can get there easily? Do I really care that I can find and open a picture at ~/Documents/Pictures/2010/07/28 in seven double-clicks and nearly as many context changes, or do I care that I can go to "Pictures"->"Sort by date"->double-click on today's photo in four mouse-clicks and get a more holistic view of what's on my machine at a given moment? Do I care that I can find some music at ~/Documents/Music/Artist/Album/trackname.ogg, or would I rather just be able to "Play all songs in album Foo by artist Bar"?

What you seem to be describing is a meta-data based filesystem. Believe me, I have NO issue with that. The filesystem itself I see as outdated. HOWEVER, that's not what Gnome will be acheiving with this. They're shaking up the desktop metaphor, and needlessly IMHO.

I mean, seriously, look at this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/GNOME_Shell.png

Do you realize how much of that screen is wasted by unneeded UI clutter? And none of it is really doing some great revolution in the way we store or perceive our data. It's just goofing around and shaking things up.

As to your statement about the different between the way we perceive information on the net vs locally, I've always viewed that more as a side effect of the limitation of HTML pages. I know that personally, I can typically find something much faster, and have it presented in a cleaner fashion, if it's on my local system vs a web page. Granted, I like the centralized storage options (hence, I do use Gmail), but that goes but so far.

Re:Probably a good thing

[oatworm]

What you seem to be describing is a meta-data based filesystem. Believe me, I have NO issue with that. The filesystem itself I see as outdated. HOWEVER, that's not what Gnome will be acheiving with this. They're shaking up the desktop metaphor, and needlessly IMHO.

True, but a metadata-based filesystem isn't going to make much sense if it's presented in a file/folder context because it's not file/folder-dependent. GNOME Shell, at least from what I'm seeing (including your screenshot) is an attempt at presenting the data in a more metadata-"native" format. So, you have some default categories that make a bit of sense - presumably, you either want to start a program (Applications), go somewhere on your filesystem (Places - not a fan of this, actually, since we're trying to get away from precisely this sort of behavior, but I suppose you have to build a bridge somewhere), or go somewhere you've been recently (Recent Documents). I'm assuming the stuff on the left can be configured to show pretty much whatever you want, so you could presumably show something like "Music" or "Photos" or whatever instead of "Places". In order for these categories to be useful, they have to be big enough to show enough data to be worth parsing.

Now, should they be drawers that slide on hover instead of big, static blocks? Perhaps. Could they use other, more traditional UI elements to show the same information? Probably. I'll grant that execution isn't what it could be; then again, GNOME agrees with us on this which is why they're delaying the project into 2011. Of course, there was a fair amount of deviation between the various file/folder UIs in the '80s and early '90s while people sorted out what worked and what didn't, so I'm not particularly surprised that we're seeing some trial and error now that the underlying file organization scheme is radically changing. At least their naming convention is better than KDE's, though. I don't know about you, but when I think of a Dolphin, I think of a friendly grey cetacean, not a graphical file manager.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Fwipp]

That entire left panel isn't there most of the time. Most of the time, you have your top bar and your active window (of which there are four showing on the right).

Re:Probably a good thing

[arose]

Do you realize how much of that screen is wasted by unneeded UI clutter?

Do you realize what the screenshot shows?

Re:Probably a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because nothing says "file manager" like "nautilus"

Re:Probably a good thing

[HBoar]

Think about it this way - does it really matter where things go specifically, so long as you can get there easily?

Yes. It does.

OK, for some people, maybe it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that a nice organised file/folder structure shouldn't be maintained. If I'm looking for a photo of my house for example, I'm not going to know what date it was taken, I probably haven't tagged or named it at all. How is a search based system best for that? I just want to know where it is and use the file manager to have a bit of a look. Some people may not want to deal with file systems, but I (and a lot of other people) ALWAYS will.

Problem is, OSs like windows 7 (maybe Vista? never used it) and OSX have these multiple "libraries" that don't seem to make any sense when you just use a file manager to look through them. Each user has one, and then there is a central one, and everything seems to be messily split up between them. What's wrong with the structure linux OSs and windows XP used? It made logical sense, everything is in one place. A search engine will work no matter how things are stored anyway.

Re:Probably a good thing

[oatworm]

OK, for some people, maybe it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that a nice organised file/folder structure shouldn't be maintained. If I'm looking for a photo of my house for example, I'm not going to know what date it was taken, I probably haven't tagged or named it at all. How is a search based system best for that? I just want to know where it is and use the file manager to have a bit of a look.

Easy - run a search on all images and look through their thumbnails. That's pretty much what you're doing when you're browsing through the filesystem manually anyway.

Problem is, OSs like windows 7 (maybe Vista? never used it) and OSX have these multiple "libraries" that don't seem to make any sense when you just use a file manager to look through them. Each user has one, and then there is a central one, and everything seems to be messily split up between them.

Last I checked, the "libraries" are just pre-canned and pre-indexed searches for certain items (music, pictures, etc.), of which the ones in their proper locations in the filesystem (i.e. pictures in "My Pictures", music in "My Music", and so on) are a subset of the ones you would find in this pre-canned search. Windows 7/Vista still defaults saved pictures to your "My Pictures" folder or something similar under your Users folder. Outside of that, the only major differences between post-XP Windows profiles and XP profiles is that "Documents and Settings" is now "Users" and all of the little sub-folders under "My Documents" (i.e. "My Pictures", "My Videos", etc.) are now at the root of the profile path. So, you can have your cake and eat it too if that's what you want. The important thing is that, thanks to those libraries, you don't have to have a neatly organized filesystem - you'll find your house picture no matter where you put it.

What's wrong with the structure linux OSs and windows XP used? It made logical sense, everything is in one place. A search engine will work no matter how things are stored anyway.

The structure isn't enforced strictly. Consequently, though you're encouraged to put pictures in "My Pictures" or something similar, you don't have to and there's nothing stopping you from exercising bad folder discipline and consequently losing your files. In the past, finding a misplaced file meant manually looking through every conceivable directory where you might have saved something and hoping you found it (blech!). Now, we've upgraded to file searches and indexes, which is an improvement. The future is increasing the range of attributes that you can attach to a file and utilizing those attributes in clever ways - not just "this is an image" and "this is a Word doc", but "this is an image that was created from a picture that was taken outside, which I can determine by the heavy use of light blue in the background and the ISO 100 exposure used by the camera, and I know the camera used ISO 100 exposure because it attached that information in this image's metadata". Instead of searching for a picture of your house by browsing through everything in %userprofile%, you can instead search for "pictures taken outside", the computer will figure it out for you based on a preexisting metadata query ("outside"="SELECT * FROM Filesystem WHERE filetype=image AND metadata="ISO 100" OR metadata="ISO 200" AND/OR..."), and you can then find your house from a much smaller yet more complete subset of pictures.

Re:Probably a good thing

[HBoar]

All that is fine, but functionality should still be retained for people like me who know how to, and want to, maintain a good tidy filesystem. I don't think OSX or windows 7 has done this well.

Re:Probably a good thing

[synthespian]

I fully agree. This GNOME thing is moronic. Like so many of their stuff, it reveals utter lack of clue wrt to usability. Yes, I hate GNOME. They are so Mac OS 8 interface guidelines...

Mandriva's Smart Desktop looks way....smarter.

This ain't free-as-in-Shuttleworth-candybar software, though. Mandriva being a company, and people actually having to work for a living to feed the kids, they reserved this for their paying customers (me, for instance). Those who oppose such model can grow a beard and use a notebook with a lame Linux and no GUI (i.e., emulate Stallman) or seek to hit the jackpot and become an instant millionaire (such as Shuttleworth). PS: How such people manage to not pay for their actual hardware is beyond my comprehension? Using their shirts? Large pants?

Re:Probably a good thing

[synthespian]

Uh, I should probably link to Nepomuk, as Mandriva's Smart Desktop riles on it. Nepomuk is " Networked Environment for Personalized, Ontology-based Management of Unified Knowledge

NEPOMUK brings together researchers, industrial software developers, and representative industrial users, to develop a comprehensive solution for extending the personal desktop into a collaboration environment which supports both the personal information management and the sharing and exchange across social and organizational relations."

Now, when will I hear big buzzwords like "ontology-based management" in Gnome?That's right...Never. They're not cutting edge. Never were, never will be...

Re:Probably a good thing

[Risen888]

Do I care that I can find some music at ~/Documents/Music/Artist/Album/trackname.ogg

I definitely do. It means when I put it on my mp3 player, I just throw it into the Music folder and everything's already in order and I don't have to hunt around for anything. I have a hell of a lot of music on my machine. If it's not in sensible order it's lost forever.

would I rather just be able to "Play all songs in album Foo by artist Bar"?

That works great as long as all your metadata is in order. Which, especially once you amass any sort of large media collection, eventually it's not.

What's easier? Searching through your Artist list through "Guns and Roses," "Guns n Roses," "Guns 'n' Roses," and "GnR" for the song you want, or going to "~/Music/Guns n Roses"?

Paradoxically, the more data I amass, the more important manual sorting and a sensible directory structure become. I eagerly await the day that that isn't necessary, but that day hasn't come.

I really like where the KDE team is going with Nepomuk, and I do try to use it just for the sake of banging on it, but practically speaking, as long as I have to manually tag files, honestly, I may as well just be using that time to sort the files out myself.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Woy]

It is really really bad. KDE is gone. I mean sure, it is more or less workable now, with glaring imcompleteness in some areas, and ZERO fucking polish. Gnome 2.x works very very well and is quite polished. I wish they were a bit more adventurous with options, like old KDE used to be without fucking up functionality.

Now gnome will die too. KDE will take years to reach a state in which i do not feel embarassed to use it almost every other day. XFCE has nowhere near enough functionality for what I need in a Desktop Environment and what KDE and Gnome got me used to.

And the KDE name change? That is the sign of a project with no leadership, right there. I thought germans had outgrown making big efforts for completelly stupid and useless things, but i guess that is just in automobile design.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Woy]

I just noticed i didn't rant much about Gnome, just declared it dead. If you look at the screenshot in the grandparent comment, and the critique posted there you will understand. There is no way anything good will come out of that screenshot unless they delete all the sources for Gnome 3.x and kill themselves.

Re:Probably a good thing

[colinrichardday]

Nepomuk is " Networked Environment for Personalized, Ontology-based Management of Unified Knowledge,/i>

Buzzword Bingo! Ah, that's how Mandriva pays for it.

Now, when will I hear big buzzwords like "ontology-based management" in Gnome?That's right...Never. They're not cutting edge. Never were, never will be...

If buzzwords could make something cutting edge, we'd have a much higher rate of technological progress.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried GNOME Shell? The picture you linked to is an older version, plus the fact most of what is in the black area (called the overview) isn't present the entire time. GNOME Shell has its issues, but don't base it off of a single, outdated, image.

Re:Probably a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

True, for instance better Word Export/Import of Abiword would be greatly appreciated. I do not need more eyecandies.
They should better fix the bugs which exist for years.

Havoc Pennington?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they got rid of that guy yet? When he took over he destroyed GNOME and I quit using it. If he's gone I might consider switching back from XFCE.

Re:Havoc Pennington?

[pavon]

If you didn't like the UI simplification that occurred in GNOME 2.0, you will positively hate the new Gnome Shell that is being introduced in GNOME 3.0. Just stick with XFCE.

Re:Havoc Pennington?

[diegocg]

He is one of the main programmers of gnome-shell.

By the way, do you know what language did they use to program gnome-shell? Javascript.

Re:Havoc Pennington?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your not alone, that and the introduction of a windows registry for a linux desktop. Oh dear.

Re:Havoc Pennington?

[akanouras]

+5 Hilarious :D

Re:Havoc Pennington?

[Wyzard]

By the way, do you know what language did they use to program gnome-shell? Javascript.

The JavaScript is the high-level "business logic" that manipulates nodes in a scene graph to move things around on the screen. The actual scene-graph library, Clutter, is written in C and renders via OpenGL.

I think it's a pretty reasonable design decision, actually. High-level behavior in a high-level language that's easy to maintain, lower-level implementation details in efficient compiled native code. It's similar to what browser-based apps like Google Maps do, with Clutter taking the place of the HTML DOM.

Re:Havoc Pennington?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is one of the main programmers of gnome-shell.

Where did you get this from and who the hell modded you Informative?

The top 10 contributors to gnome-shell since last years GUADEC was presented in the talk this year. It certainly didn't include Havoc.
If anyone would even bother to look at http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell/log/ they would realize not a single commit has been made with Havocs name on it.

What's a "main programmer" anyway?

Oh well, why bother.... I'm just feeling sorry for people who thinks anything written on slashdot is even remotely true... this article certainly drew alot of crappy comments.

Re:Havoc Pennington?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you didn't like the UI simplification that occurred in GNOME 2.0, you will positively hate the new Gnome Shell that is being introduced in GNOME 3.0. Just stick with XFCE.

Less is more. Windows always has more and more crap to offer you, more steps to get anywhere, and when it's fewer steps, the path unfortunately becomes abstracted to the point that it's hard to work out first off what they mean, or how to use an interface. Apple has some similar problems but generally less so. Gnome at the moment is the simplest and the visual language and format it uses is a middle ground that is instantly recognized by people using either Mac or Windows.

The gnome designers should go around and ask people in the real world to send screenshots of how they are using their desktops. You might think people everywhere are cluttering up their desktops with widgets and gadgets, but from what I see, most people really want a desktop that keeps itself tidy, that gets crap you don't need right out of the way until you ask for it. They want a desktop that changes depending on what's being used - simple things like getting rid of menus when being in full screen is an obvious example, or showing files of a certain kind depending on the usage context, or shaking off the concept of folders and going for tags to organize information. It needs to go further than this, yet without visual clutter, without compromising simplicity of use - the thing should flow without people having to think too much.

A user interface should be like going to a good restaurant - you sit down, the waiter offers you what the restaurant knows you already like, but offers you something else that might be interesting, the place keeps you entertained and you barely notice waiting for your meal, or the refilling of your drink, and the bills and everything else are sorted out for you and so you can get on and enjoy whatever company you are having, etc.

preview.

[IMightB]

I've been using gnome-shell off and on again since f12. It's real easy just yum install gnome-shell

ironic

[dicobalt]

I hope there are different operating "modes" for Gnome3 because that screenshot displays a huge waste of screen real estate. It also looks way too much like a cell phone interface. Ironic how a Linux GUI can get so obscenely dumbed down while the core is as difficult as ever to configure.

Re:ironic

[0123456]

I hope there are different operating "modes" for Gnome3 because that screenshot displays a huge waste of screen real estate.

Indeed. While that may be OK on a 1920x1080 or larger LCD, it looks like a horrific interface for a laptop or netbook with limited width and even more limited height.

Re:ironic

[Tubal-Cain]

That interface recedes auto-hide style from your active window. The real estate wasting view is for switching between apps or opening a new one.

Re:ironic

[arose]

I guess in a sense it does have different modes. The screenshot is of the "high-level overview mode" where you switch between applications/windows (my favorite part by far, think expose over all of the desktops), start applications, open documents, log out, etc. The typical "working on this-or-that mode" only has a bar on the top (and an optional, collapsible sidebar).

Re:ironic

[Draek]

Why would it be ironic? regular users aren't interested in configuring a system so it's irrelevant how "easy" or "hard" it is as long as it's done automagically for their limited usage scenarios, but they are interested in *using* a system so they'll need an interface that's simple and "friendly" enough for them.

Gnome stopped being aimed at power users with version 2.0 *eight* years ago, so you really have no excuse. I'd suggest using Xfce or Openbox instead, perhaps even a tiling WM like wmii or awesome if you're feeling daring.

LDAP based auto-configuration of gconfd.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Does anyone know if more of Gnome will support LDAP auto configuration?

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what are you talking about? What is this "more" that you speak of?

Re:What are you talking about?

[V!NCENT]

Probably the advanced mode where a lot more features are enabled that are not 'user friendly' enough.

Re:What are you talking about?

[X0563511]

... like a functional screensaver dialog?

Need to look like windows

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone wants his/her desktop environment like windows, then use windows. Gnome is not developed to imitate windows.

Re:Need to look like windows

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Is there a Windows that's free (as in freedom) and uses the Linux kernel?

Re:Need to look like windows

[Draek]

Or use LXDE, in its default form it looks and feels pretty close to Win2K or XP's Classic interface, plus a few traditional Linux goodies like multiple desktops, a terminal that doesn't suck and the ability to put any and all applications in full-screen.

Best of all? it's modular enough that, if you've ever thought "gee, Windows would be great if only its $X did $Y" you can have that in less than five minutes simply by reconfiguring the appropiate program, or replacing it altogether if necessary.

Re:Need to look like windows

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yes! There's Microsoft Linux. It's only $249.99. Make sure you provide all your credit card details!

Re:"just to be different"...

[Anonymous Coward]

it shouldn't go in a different direction just to be "different" from Windows.

What about "just to be Gnome"? Allowed?

There seem to be a lot of people 'round here now for whom Windows is a universal and sole reference point.

Why upgrade if the current version works fine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they need a new version all the time if it works don't break it.
My Linux machine works just fine I only have problems when I upgrade. Think I will just turn off upgrades fuck it.

Re:"just to be different"...

[lennier]

There seem to be a lot of people 'round here now for whom Windows is a universal and sole reference point.

That is entirely practical and will continue to be as long as Windows is the dominant legacy system.

But Windows Vista/7 have really broken some of the UI design which made Windows 95 and up great, so as long as GNOME isn't following Apple and Microsoft's trend toward making interfaces more obscure and less powerful, there's certainly room to improve.

(Seriously, Microsoft, wtf. You removed the 'go up one directory' button in the Windows Explorer, and why? I *use* that button! A lot.)

Did they ever ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they ever fix that "open file dialog" thing?

What's the point of GNOME Shell???

[Nutria]

as someone who wants to see GNOME Shell and 3.0 finished

How is it that much better than the current paradigm?

Re:What's the point of GNOME Shell???

[oddfox]

I don't think it should deviate the way it has so far with Shell on desktops, and have other hopes for GNOME 3.0. :)

Re:"just to be different"...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Seriously, Microsoft, wtf. You removed the 'go up one directory' button in the Windows Explorer, and why? I *use* that button! A lot.)

Because address-bar now allows selecting "directly-above" and "x-levels-up" using one click so removing unnecessary button reduces clutter.

It's small change in how to use explorer but IMHO is more powerful and usable now.

Re:"just to be different"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because address-bar now allows selecting "directly-above" and "x-levels-up" using one click so removing unnecessary button reduces clutter.

Which is great, no doubt. But because the path varies in length, I have to go hunting for the right spot to click to go to the parent directory. It's much nicer to still have the dedicated button.

Re:"just to be different"...

[RPI Geek]

(Seriously, Microsoft, wtf. You removed the 'go up one directory' button in the Windows Explorer, and why? I *use* that button! A lot.)

That was my biggest complaint with 7 until I found I could click on the directory names in the location bar; it's simplicity itself.

Re:"just to be different"...

[21mhz]

That was my biggest complaint with 7 until I found I could click on the directory names in the location bar; it's simplicity itself.

I wonder if this idea has been borrowed from somewhere... like the GNOME file views.

GNOME 3.0 was supposed to be in Mono, wasn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall when Miguel de Icaza first worked on Mono, he announced that GNOME 3.0 would be 100% Mono code, but for the life of me I can't find this quote. Does anyone else remember that?

AC

Classic Shell

[Anonymous Coward]

(Seriously, Microsoft, wtf. You removed the 'go up one directory' button in the Windows Explorer, and why? I *use* that button! A lot.)

They expect you to use the 'breadcrumbs' where the address bar used to be (and is if you click on it). Just click the button of the directory one above where you're at. Some arguments could be made about this being more efficient once you've adjusted too it, since you can jump multiple directories 'up' in one go.

The main advantage of the previous system as far as I can see it is that once you're accustomed to thinking in terms of how many directories you need to go up, it requires more mental gymnastics to figure out which 'breadcrumb' to click on rather than use your muscle-memory to subconsciously move to the 'go up one directory' button and click it the appropriate number of times. This is especially true when the number of times is one.

There is a F/OSS program called "Classic Shell" which has the ability to add(/restore) the 'go up one directory button'. I haven't personally tried it but it may be worth looking into.

http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

Who cares

[xmorg]

everyone is using sawfish, mwm, or openbox anyways.

xfce4me

[Anonymous Coward]

Unitil I pare down the auto-install and settle for an even more minimally invasive usable GUI for GUI programs. Probably the same year I clean up the garage. The year after I finally buy a garage.

KDE is pratically unusable due to Akonadis and all sort of (to me) totally usesless obnoxious clutter. Should there be a "Lean Clean (Graphic) Install Authority" in each distro to insure a - usable - no-clutter version. DSL, SLAX and others are is fine, but tend to lag on certain fronts. Ubuntu has also joined the "too heavy for comfort" category, albeit with more sweetners.

Re:"just to be different"...

[flabordec]

Have you tried pressing Alt + Up? I'm addicted to that shortcut.

Re:"just to be different"...

[nicklikesfire]

I had the same complaint, but then, after a few seconds I discovered that you can click back one directory (or as many as you like) using the address bar. It shouldn't be too far from where you would have had to click that little "go up one directory" button.

Well, whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm already using GNOME Shell on a regular basis, and I've got to say it:

They should take as long as it takes to get it polished, because it's totally worth it. It may be different from Windows or OS X, but that's not a bad thing in this case. Once you've worked with it for a bit, it's super-intuitive.

I don't know it it'll completely replace my use of GNOME Do (which is second only to Quicksilver imho) but it's danged nice, intuitive, easy to use, and yet powerful enough to satisfy someone like me (and I used to use Openbox with all kinds of keyboard shortcuts to do everything!)

Re:"just to be different"...

[jackspenn]

You are aware they added a method to go anywhere in the tree by clicking on that part of the path in the Window?

So if you are in explorer and your listed path is C:\users\corndog\Documents and you want to go to the corndog folder, you can just click on corndog. If you want to the users folder, you just click on users and if you want to change form Documents to maybe Downloads or Pictures, you can click between corndog and Documents and it will give you a dropdown list of the available folders wihtin corndog (same works between users and corndog if you wanted to switch to an different user's folder).


For the record this message was posted from my ubuntu 10.04 laptop, it could have easily been posted from my dual boot work laptop using either Windows 7 Professional or Fedora 12, my Vista 64bit workstation at home, my Windows 7 64bit workstation at work, or my Android phone.

I honestly love linux and Windows because I like the power to customize my environment and apps, which, is why I hate Apple computers and iDevices.

Very Content

[Spectre4]

I'm very content with the current state of the Gnome Desktop. It's usable and looks good. I'm wary of change for changed sake. Hopefully the Gnome devs can keep it fast and usable.