GNOME 3 Released

Blacklaw writes "The GNOME Desktop team has sent its latest creation into the wild, officially launching GNOME 3.0 — the biggest redesign the project has enjoyed in around nine years. 'We've taken a pretty different approach in the GNOME 3 design that focuses on the desired experience and lets the interface design follow from that,' designer Jon McCann explained during the launch. 'With any luck you will feel more focused, aware, effective, capable, respected, delighted, and at ease.'"

Comments

Xfce

[Moderator]

There's always Xfce for those of you who still want a traditional, stable environment. Uses the same Gtk+ themes that Gnome used, and the panel is flexible enough to emulate Gnome 2.x, KDE/Windows, or CDE.

I know, they turned their back on the *BSD's with Xfce 4.8, but it's still the only desktop environment worth using anymore.

Oh yeah, and they plan on sticking with Gtk+ 2.2 for the next couple of years.

Re:Xfce

[arth1]

I'm seriously considering switching from Gnome.
The main reason is that I use remote logins and lots of VMware. Gnome shell won't even work unless you have hardware acceleration, so you can forget a consistent UI, and have to fall back to Gnome 2. So you now need both.
Never mind getting the file manager to work remotely. I still remember with fondness how easy it was in IRIX to just enter "fm ." in a remote session, and get the file manager for whichever directory you were in. Try that with cutter or nautilus.

So, yes, I expect I will be migrating. But not to Gnome 3. I'll migrate to something functional, and Gnome ain't it.

Re:Xfce

[arth1]

Doesn't work as advertised. It's a horrible piece of shit, to bhe honest. Unless you have the exact same version of gnome on your local X server as the remote, and the remote also has a head, you get gdbus errors and lock-ups with gvfs, not to mention that the process never exits - you have to ctrl-c it or kill it from a shell.

Is a file manager that works over a straight X tunnel to any X server too much to ask?

Re:Xfce

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Oh brother. Do you know how much flammage GNOME took for 2.0 from slashdot? Everything that was said in this thread was repeated 9 years ago with even more vitriol. Most of the people responding haven't tried it or even intending to try it. They still remember 9 years ago and are rehashing and recycling the same damn emotions back then. I can tell when people haven't even given GNOME 3 a test drive when they only complain about minimize and maximize. Give it a week with an open mind and see how it works. That's what GNOME asks.

It works!

[Locke2005]

I _do_ feel more focused, aware, effective, capable, respected, delighted, and at ease... of course, that might just be the Ritalin...

Re:lol wut

[slaxative]

Actually press release link: http://www.gnome.org/press/2011/04/gnome-3-0-released-better-for-users-developers-3/

Translated release notes

[ReinoutS]

Read the release notes in your favorite language here: http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.0/

Re:lol wut

[Anonymous Coward]

They ran out of features to remove from GNOME itself so they just took down the website.

How To Tweak GNOME 3

[supersloshy]

I wrote a blog post all about how to tweak GNOME 3's hidden settings to be more like how you want it to be. You can read it at my blog, here. To summarize, I explain how to go back to GNOME 2, install extensions, change themes, and much more. However, I do want to note that I don't even use my own tips; GNOME 3 so far has been nearly perfect for me and I see very little need to change the settings I mention, or even use any extensions. In fact, I wrote another blog post detailing the 10 things that I love about GNOME 3 in a sort of mini-review.

To summarize my latter post, I love how GNOME 3 "puts me in the driver's seat". There's no annoying, blinking lights, there's no "are you sure?" dialogs, the design is minimalist and takes up very little screen space, and it only gives me things like the window list, application list, and even notifications when I explicitly ask for them. If I don't want notifications I just mark myself as "busy" and check up on them at my leisure. If I want to switch a window I just tap the Windows key and click the one I want; fast and simple! Yes, that's "one more step", but it takes barely any more time than any persistent window list would take up (and less screen space, too). I love how easy and fast searching for applications and places in the Activities search bar is (you don't even need to click it; just start typing!), which gives it a GNOME Do vibe. Regardless of the search, I also love how easy it is to launch applications with the favorites list on the dashboard. GNOME 3 lets me add extensions as well just like any modern web browser so I can customize it or add features as I choose. No other desktop combines empowerment, distraction-free working, extensibility, and simplicity like GNOME 3 does and I have to say that it is the greatest desktop environment I've ever had the pleasure of working with so far. Even better, it looks like it will only get more awesome as time goes on!

Congrats, GNOME team, for your amazing work! :)

Re:How To Tweak GNOME 3

[O( inf)]

To summarize my latter post, I love how GNOME 3 "puts me in the driver's seat".

My problem with GNOME 3 is that it does put you into the driver's seat alright - that of a train on a single track.

Re:How To Tweak GNOME 3

[techno-vampire]

To summarize my latter post, I love how GNOME 3 "puts me in the driver's seat".

That's not what I see in your review. What I see is a new interface that's designed with the assumption that there's One True Way to configure a desktop and that there's no reason to let mere users decide for themselves how they want things to work. As an example, that "feature" of showing the desktop when you move the mouse to the top right corner of the desktop is the first thing I got rid of when I started using Compiz because I personally find it obnoxious and repellent. If this is how you want your desktop to look and work, enjoy the new Gnome. Personally, I'm in the process of abandoning Gnome altogether and moving both my laptop and desktop to XFCE.

That, I might add, is one of the reasons I use Linux, not Windows: when Microsoft comes out with a new "look and feel" for Windows, you have no choice but to learn how to use it; with Linux, if you don't like one DE, you're free to try a different one.

Re:How To Tweak GNOME 3

[Kjella]

I would much rather have a desktop that only allowed the most efficient ways to do things than one that gave me a bunch of configuration options and told me to "figure it out for myself", in a sense. *cough cough*.

"Most efficient" is highly dependent on the user. For example:
1) Do you have a strong spatial memory of where things are in menus, on the desktop or the taskbar? If so you'll hate all auto-intelligence that keeps adjusting your favorite functions. You'd rather have an ordered alt-tab list than an unordered expose function like OS X.
2) Are you a person who remembers a great number of shortcuts and prefer the interface doesn't use much screen real estate to show you the buttons and toolbars? Or do you prefer most functionality to be visible to you?
3) Do you prefer arranging windows or do you like maximized windows and easy switching? Is it important for you to group windows into virtual desktops?
4) Can you recognize software by its icon? If not you'll hate Windows 7.

The "One True Way" is an illusion which may be true for things like kernel benchmarks. But when it comes to what is best for the user that depends on his mental skills, familiarity with the interface and the software and sometimes simply preference. Sane defaults are important, but if you've built the "perfect desktop" the chances are very high you've built YOUR perfect desktop.

What problem does Gnome 3 solve?

[Duncan J Murray]

I am all for rethinking the desktop paradigm, but I'm not sure whether Gnome 3 is a complete rethink or a desperate attempt to break out of the Windows 95 mould (which I think most linux users, given the popularity of mint and pclinuxos, would grudgingly admit is a sensible way of organising a desktop).

When I moved from Win XP to Gnome 2, I appreciated the rapid access the upper and lower bars gave me to applications, places, open applications, control of access, desktop, shortcuts, other panels and a full calendar - something that greatly improved productivity. Gone were the days of clicking on the same spot in the lower left, and then trying to manoeuvre your mouse around the nested menu upon menu just to find the setting or application you were after, which often led to the mouse losing focus and frustration all round. I feel like Gnome 3 is a step back in this regard, channelling almost all operations through the same spot in the corner could create exactly the same sort of inefficiency and bottleneck.

When I can get Gnome 3 to work properly on my setup, and give it a go for a decent period of time, maybe I'll change my mind. But I think it's more likely I'll find the answer to my own question, and realise that the problem is Linux struggling to clearly define it's niche and uniqueness between Mac OS X and Windows 7.

Re:What problem does Gnome 3 solve?

[Just Some Guy]

Complacency. Gnome users haven't had to re-learn their desktop in a while, and the devs are helpfully breaking those users out of their rut.

Re:What problem does Gnome 3 solve?

[Haeleth]

the Windows 95 mould (which I think most linux users, given the popularity of mint and pclinuxos, would grudgingly admit is a sensible way of organising a desktop).

No, it's a dreadful way of organising a desktop. The "start button" design buries applications deep in menus miles away from wherever your mouse is. The task bar view of running programs manages to display minimal information while also lacking any spatial element that might help you find the window you're looking for. The icons-on-desktop design puts all your files and shortcuts in the single least accessible place on your screen. Etc.

In all honesty, Windows 95's interface was terrible. It managed to be a step back from Windows 3 in many respects. It caught on because Windows 95 was so much better in every other way. It has stuck around because Windows acquired a monopoly and the entire business world would scream blue murder if Microsoft tried anything radical. And Linux distributions that copy it are only popular because it is familiar. People really do prefer the devil they know.

I'm not claiming GNOME 3 is the solution. I haven't tried it yet, and what I've read has not sounded very appealing. But I will give them credit for trying, just like I gave KDE credit for trying even though I'm not a great fan of their interface either.

Shakeups like this are essential. If you only ever go for incremental improvements, you will at best find a local maximum. Your chance of finding the best solution increases if you try radically new ideas. And putting them out as concepts that nobody every really uses won't get us anywhere either -- interfaces can only be evaluated properly if they are forced into mainstream distributions and real people actually make an effort to use them for real things. It has to be this way. This is a good thing. Honest.

Re:What problem does Gnome 3 solve?

[lennier]

In all honesty, Windows 95's interface was terrible. It managed to be a step back from Windows 3 in many respects.

Interesting. I have a contrary opinion: to me, Windows 95 was the high-water mark of Microsoft's interface design and got some things right which everyone else - 2000s-era Microsoft included - have been strugging to even understand since.

Granted, the cascading Start Menu was horrible. But that can be fixed. The underlying "a shortcut on the menu is just a desktop shortcut inside a Menu folder" architecture was a stroke of utter genius, one GNOME completely failed to get. They had to create two incompatible kinds of launchers, and make it near-impossible to edit menus, or to drag one to the other. Why? The Win 95 way was so perfect.

The taskbar, too, is something that was brilliant compared to the Dock or anything else: an area that could show you at a glance where all your currently running stuff is. Yes, it's simplistic, and needs to be expanded - but the basic idea of dividing the screen into separate permanently-there areas, one which gives you an overview, one which gives you a closeup, was awesome. The big win of the Start Button is that (unless you really mess with things) it's always there in a known location. Same principle as Apple's menu (possibly they couldn't just do that because of look-and-feel patents? they were still a big deal in the mid-90s).

What I'd like is an interface which lets me extend this principle, to let me create user-defined fixed 'trays' in various parts of my desktop where I can guarantee that windows can't spill out of. For a while I thought Gnome's panels were going to be this, and I loved having one at the top and one at the bottom, one for menu and one for taskbar, but knowing that under the hood they were just identical instances of Panel.

I think the ultimate desktop still will be document-oriented - something like a Zoomable User Interface - rather than application-oriented, but we seem to have abandoned the quest for this and keep iterating on tiny visual variations of a half-finished underlying architecture, but now with the added pain that the user can't change the visual look and feel anymore. This seems like going in precisely the wrong direction. I'm at a loss to understand why this is. If we'd invested half the effort that's gone into force-feeding rigid visual look-and-feels onto an unwilling userbase, instead into creating an underlying architecture that seriously splits the look and feel from the underlying data and lets the userbase create and remix their own 'look' while the application developers can focus on the data processing - wouldn't we be a lot further ahead?

tldr: I don't want application designers telling me how to organise my desktop. I want them to give me the tools that let me organise my desktop however I want. But they're not. Why?

Re:lol wut

[mmj638]

Why can't I click any links in slashdot comments anymore? I'm using Firefox 4. Can't even right click.

Any why is that yellow box overlapping everything when I'm previewing a message? Slashdot seems a bit messed up

Re:lol wut

[Noitatsidem]

I actually emailed the press team. Here's what I wrote:
"I think a thank you is in order from the XFCE team, as the release of GNOME3 has urged me (and many others) to switch to XFCE. With XFCE 4.8 released, the featuresessentiallymirror those found in GNOME2. With that being said, I think you can confidently send the XFCE team a "you're welcome" message for addingnumerousnumbers of people to their user base. Remind them that without the GNOME team ignoring the myriads of complaints about thedirectionof the GNOME project, none of this would of happened.

Thank you very much for reading"
Anyone here should feel more than welcome to use this message, no credit needed. Spread the word, the XFCE team NEEDS to thank the gnome team for all of their hard work removing everything we needed, and giving us everything we didn't.