GNOME 3: Beauty To the Bone?

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

Comments

BLECK!

[WolphFang]

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

Re:BLECK!

[icebike]

Ah, too busy to RTFA?

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

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

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

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

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

Re:BLECK!

[Curunir_wolf]

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

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

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

Re:BLECK!

[Shark]

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

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

Re:BLECK!

[houstonbofh]

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

Re:BLECK!

[VortexCortex]

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

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

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

Re:BLECK!

[GoingDown]

KDE is NOT doing perfectly sensible decisions. I have tried it multiple times and here is things that annoy me most:

1. All toolbars are full of crap by default. Way too much icons and things. I want it clean and nice.
2. There is "Activity Cashew" button in desktop which cannot be removed easily.
3. I tried the new Activities, and so far they are totally useless for me (and yes, I did read long tutorials from net to try to get them). And by default there is no virtual desktops.
4. Nepomuk is useless crap if you are not using those KDE applications like mail/calendar. And it cannot be easily disabled (even I disabled it everywhere, it still started up). Manually deleting executables did help.

There is lots of totally redundant cruft installed by default, at least in Ubuntu 11.10, with KDE 4.8 ppa. Why I would need two file managers for example?

It was way worse experience than default Gnome 3. I did get it workable by doing lots of configuration, but it was not "perfectly sensible" defaults!

Re:BLECK!

[arth1]

The side zone is hardly prone to accidents though

Thus speaks someone with a single monitor.

Re:BLECK!

[Jane Q. Public]

A recent usability test (I'm trying to remember who did it... TechCrunch? Gizmodo? Someone else?) involving both new and experienced users, with Unity, Gnome, and KDE, had a clear winner with both new and experienced users. That winner was KDE.

Both Gnome and Unity have been throwing out decades of tried-and-true, very solid engineering in order to try their "new" ideas. They seem to forget -- or perhaps never knew? -- that many of those ideas have been tried already, and discarded... for good reasons.

My money is on KDE. It is based on solid human interface engineering, it was around before Ubuntu, and I think it will be around for a long time to come. Even if Ubuntu were to go away.

Re:BLECK!

[Daniel Phillips]

It's strange to see Gnome returning to the "one activity at a time" methodology that we had with simple DOS programs...

Strange... yes... but it's all just part of Miguel's grand plan to make Linux suck more than Windows.

As long as it isn't the travesty that is 'unity'

[Teunis]

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

Re:To the Bone!

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

It sure isn't usability to the bone...

Re:Do you really?

[WolphFang]

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

Re:Gnome 3 on Fedora & Ubuntu:

[erroneus]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:"GNOME 3 will represent a new approach to GNOME

[Nursie]

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

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

I really dont give a shit how pretty it is

[Osgeld]

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

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

For you, maybe.

[khasim]

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

For you, maybe. Not for everyone.

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

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

Yeah. It's 2012 now.

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

Re:For you, maybe.

[tthomas48]

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

Re:For you, maybe.

[arth1]

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

I'm ridiculously conservative in that I want my car to have four wheels too. Not five, not three, but four. Because it works

With multiple windows, focus-follows-mouse and no click-to-raise, I can mark/paste between them without the layout of my display changing at all. I know where things are, because they're the same place as ten minutes ago. And I can have a window open to a dozen servers at the same time, without running out of screen real estate.
This is known as X-mouse, and was the standard for a long time because it works. It wasn't displaced by something better, but displaced because of a new generation of users who never had a chance to use it,, and grew up with click-to-focus and click-to-raise because that's what Microsoft Windows had.
Then the new genration of Windows users started using Linux, and started transforming Linux into what they knew. I bet you these new Gnome developers haven't even tried X-mouse. Gnome 2 had already made it hard enough to do, and with Gnome 3 it's next to impossible.

Another real killer is dropping DPI support. I can no longer have the same size fonts on my 146 DPI display as on my 90 DPI display. Because some idiot thought it more important that fonts are a certain number of pixels in size to better match graphics. Fuck writers and typographers, who perhaps want a 10 pt font to be around 10 pt, not 20 on one display and 6 on another.

Yes, it's a new generation of programmers. And they are clueless because they are history-less. They don't know why things were done certain ways, and they don't give a damn as long as they can continue their circlejerking.
I wonder how long it's going to take them to realize that their userbase is going, going, gone.

Horrible.

[Alex Belits]

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

Re:Do you really?

[bell.colin]

WHAT THE FUCK?

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

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

Re:Top & Bottom

[poppopret]

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

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

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

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

Mock Up How A Kernel Dev Works

[schwep]

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

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

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

Maximized windows by default?

[caseih]

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

Virtual Desktops

[jbov]

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

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

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

Re:Virtual Desktops

[Anonymous Coward]

Works for you? Great. I use multiple WINDOWS that are logically grouped on multiple DESKTOPS. (hint: d1=jEdit, firefox window w/docs & a terminal running postgres; w2=firefox & tail -f on nginix logfile)

BTW my laptop is a dell M60 -- 1920x1200.

IF I had multiple monitors I could get by without multiple desktops (though I think I'd run opera/safari/ie/firefox on such a setup)

So basically different strokes for different folks; I don't need to "become consistent" because my setup works on XFCE, KDE and E17.

Re:Top & Bottom

[Logic and Reason]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fucking up a perfectly good hammer

[fnj]

Where you see stagnancy, those with actual perception see maturity, competence, and highly optimized design. If it ain't BUSTED, don't FIX it. If it's not only not busted, but in fact is pretty optimal, don't even THINK about fixing it from the ground up. Gnome3 is like trying to turn a perfectly good hammer into some shitty linear monstrosity that you have to punch nails with straight ahead, instead of economically swinging the hammer at it.

Caveat. I do actual work with desktops and notebooks. I have absolutely no use whatsoever for teeny tiny touchscreens, but for those who do, I recognize those need a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT UI with a different paradigm. But there is absolutely no call to DESTROY the oven when you are designing a microwave.

OS UI got stagnant for about 10 years in there, so I'm happy that they're experimenting with things

Re:Fucking up a perfectly good hammer

[gbjbaanb]

GNOME 3 is extensible and there are already extensions that turn it into an experience that resemble GNOME 2

if it ain't broke. fix it, then fix the fix...

Window managers should manage windows

[necro351]

Window managers manage windows:

I use GNOME 2 with Compiz and I'm very content. What are the killer features for me? Focus follows mouse, I can press Alt-click and drag windows by clicking anywhere, I can press Alt-middle-click and resize windows by almost clicking anywhere. I made a shortcut where if I press Alt+Ctrl+Shift+I it maximizes my window only vertically (great for terminals). One big killer feature with Compiz is an OS X-like Expose thing that lets me easily select windows, and shows me everything on my screen at once. What do all these awesome things have in common? They are all about managing windows, and nothing else, which is what a good window manager _should_ do. GNOME should keep going this way and not philosophize over what the default ought to be.

How I use my terminal window(s) depends on what I'm doing (developing, debugging, scripting, writing LaTeX, etc...). I don't care if my web browser is maximized once the fonts are readable, it looks pretty, and I can see everything I need. What do all these things have in common? The window size is _not_ the problem, only the application and the user know how the window ought to be, and only the user knows how it ought to be relative to other windows. There is no good default. I used Chrome OS for a couple weeks and hated it. The window manager ought to manage windows and focus on that.

GNOME 3 Gets Search and Beauty, Good:

What GNOME 3 is getting right is bringing back 'Beagle' and extending it to do more stuff. I love Spotlight on OS X, it has made the Dock, the start menu, desktop shortcuts, the Launcher (in Lion), and all the rest of it obsolete. Spotlight is king, bow down to spotlight. GNOME 3 gets this, good. GNOME also gets that the UI needs to be pretty, its just depressing when its not. My Linux machine isn't as pretty as my OS X machine, and that makes me sad, there is no reason that has to be. GNOME gets this, good.

GNOME 3's Direction:

I guess GNOME 3 should keep making stuff prettier, definitely keep focusing on search, and make me a wizard-God when it comes to managing windows. I want to do Expose, I want to effortlessly save window configurations and have GNOME 3 remember them when I open up the same applications. I want to re-size, drag, tile, layer, focus-follow-mouse, and make my windows do back-flips, effortlessly. I want GNOME 3 to not presume to do anything by default, but listen to the application and me.

Re:Do you really?

[arth1]

Or even servers. Where Gnome shell doesn't work at all, because it assumes that you have local access to the graphics card.
So you have to have two completely different user interfaces - one for local users with 3D cards, and one for everyone else. Yes, that makes it so simple and consistent!

Unfortunately, pride gets in the way of the Gnome devs saying "oops, we goofed on this one". Instead, they will rather see the ship sink, as long as they can blame it on someone else. And sink, it does. There really is one big reason why Mint has floated to the top of Linux distros now, and that's Gnome 3 being unusable. We know it, the Gnome devs know it, they know that we know it, but still they can't lose face by admitting the obvious.

Re:To the Bone!

[synthesizerpatel]

Sarcasm aside, drawing the distinction between why one would do this on a printer vs. why one wouldn't want to do it on a desktop UI.

The reason printers have less and less buttons (when possible) can more accurately be attributed to a cost-cutting feature (less buttons == less hardware to manufacture, less moving parts to replace when they break in the field, less warranty problems, etc). If you don't get bothered by having to hold buttons down to get them to exercise new behaviors - this is all fine and good.

If I had to click and hold anything for 10 seconds in a UI I'd find a new UI. While pixels are finite on a desktop, they're still free.

Re:Dev

[Grishnakh]

They can certainly do what they want, but I think concerned members of the Linux community also have a responsibility to speak out about their crap, and make it known that we don't consider their junk DE to be the standard-bearer for Linux. The problem with Gnome is that, for quite some time now, it has been considered the standard or default, as the most popular distros have pre-selected it to be so: Ubuntu (until recently, and Unity still uses Gnome3's backend), Fedora, even OpenSUSE tried to switch to it at one point as the default. For those who'd like Linux to gain a little more following on the desktop, new users, coming from Win/Mac (esp. Win) might try out one of the popular distros thinking "I keep hearing about this Linux thing, maybe I'll give it a try", and of course use its default DE, and then run away screaming after seeing what a POS it is. Gnome3 simply isn't going to gain Linux any converts, and instead will IMO drive away users.

Why does Linux self-destruct?

[mangu]

I wonder why there's so much drive in Linux to abandon whatever is in the right track.

I used KDE 3 with Konqueror as my main application. There was everything I could want in a computer UI there. Then someone thought Konqueror isn't good because it combines the functions of a browser with a file manager. Well, that's exactly what I want, a system that integrates well with the web!

Then they came up with this idea of getting rid of KDE altogether. The reason I first started using Linux is that KDE is so good to program in, it has, by far, the best documentation system of any GUI I know, Kdevelop is an excellent development environment, and the API is better than any other.

If any company wished to create a new computer environment, the best bet would be to start with KDE and do some small improvements. With the Koffice suite and the other standard applications of the KDE environment you already have 95% of what either Apple or Microsoft have in their systems, all it needs is a bit of polishing.

Re:To the Bone!

[hairyfeet]

You joke Mr AC but this kind of crazy is a prime example of why itch scratching and ignoring the users makes Linux a giant fail on the desktop.

I'm sure i'll get hate for not drinking the koolaid and joining the perception bubble but fuck it, I'm a frustrated retailer and this needs to be said. For the first time in history you are being given not one, not two, but THREE incredible gifts, its like the field has been cleared and you are being given a 200 yard head start on a 300 yard race and what do you do? promptly shoot yourselves in the foot and then plop down in the middle of the field to tweet about the latest idea you have for REALLY pissing the users off!

I mean you have your traditional nemesis run by the most incompetent CEO since Apple had the Pepsi and not only that but he's about to shoot his own company right in the face because he is so desperate to get into cell phones and tablets he's gonna force WinPhone on the desktop, which i predict will be the biggest failwhale since MSFT Bob, that's one, two you have the great XP dieoff giving you all these incredibly powerful machines that MSFT has priced themselves out of the running with, we are talking late P4s to early mid dual core desktops and laptops with 1gb+ of RAM and 40Gb+ of HDDs which is more than enough for Linux, and finally you have a population that NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY does damned near everything online, the one place where Linux has always been strong!

So what do you do? do you give all those businesses and consumers a distro with 10 years of updates so they can be confident they can just slap that OS on and it'll just work? Do you tell Linus to STFU and develop an ABI so the drivers won't break if they DO upgrade? Do you focus on stability and bug fixes and QA to make Linux so damned rock solid frankly no body has to do forum hunts of CLI fixes? NOPE, you throw out BOTH major DEs when they are FINALLY becoming really stable for a blingapaloza that sends you back a good 7 years on the stability front and just to add to the fail replace the sound which again was finally starting to get stable with Pulseaudio which is barely at MSFT first release quality, which is to say it sucks! Oh and if all that weren't bad enough Canonical the ones that were SUPPOSED to be the ones making the noob friendly distro for the masses says "Hey slapping a cell phone UI on the desktop is a GREAT idea, lets do that!" and makes their distro even more of a failwhale than Win 8, which is quite an accomplishment!

I swear the current OS situation reminds me of that old Monty Python skit where the upper class twits couldn't even shoot themselves correctly because they were too fricking stupid and I'm not alone in feeling this way. hell even Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols who is the biggest linTroll and the flipside to the Thurott Wintroll hates the new UIs and for HIM to say anything nasty about Linux is unheard of!

C'mon Linux community, you are better than this I know you are. its obvious the Linux devs are gonna ignore you unless you have a royal screaming shitfit so speak up already! We ALL know what's happening here, its as plain as the nose on your face, Apple released the iPhone and iPad and all the devs done lost their damned minds and are tripping all over themselves trying to come up with the "next iPad" and destroying their core strengths in the process. As someone who has been selling to consumers since before there even was a Windows i can tell you a few things about consumers and the desktop/laptop, 1.-Most of them have NO clue about all the bling bling crap you guys slap in there, and the few bits they know about they don't like. hell they were willing to put up with the Fisher price UI of XP right? all you need is to not make it fugly, maybe a nice metalli