Slashdot Mirror
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."
Developers at Gnome have reduced the entire UI to a single button and they're even trying to get rid of that.
It takes just a minute to make XFCE look and act pretty much like GNOME 1.
I think you can clone GNOME 2 as well, but I always configured that to be like GNOME 1 so quickly that I barely saw it. :-) Why you'd want bars at top AND bottom of the screen is a mystery to me, but XFCE does support it. The same goes for desktop icons: you can have it if you want it.
I have my menu, my task switcher, my desktop switcher, my clock, and my xterm launcher. Life is good with XFCE.
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.
I see that the GNOME 3 developers have resorted to posting anonymously.
But that's what the usability studies indicate that users want this.
The ONLY reason you don't love it yet, is because you haven't learned the new paradigm, or you're too stupid to do so.
Ok, no more negative feed back please, La la la la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
I for one, love cinnamon. http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/ :D
g0t b33r?
Just when I thought I could maybe settle in with Gnome3 on my Fedora 16 running, 11" laptop, I read this and was reminded why I hated Gnome3.
They go on about the efficiencies of maximized windows? REALLY? I'm not one of those users. I prefer overlapping windows so I can see movement in them when something changes. Yes, I know I can still do that, but tweaks are necessary.
Another thing that's getting to me is the wild mouse movements required to navigate around. Go to one corner to change to the window changing mode, then go to the opposite corner to do something with the windows like move it to another virtual display or something. Did they consider what a pain that actually is for people with touchpads or those stupid keyboard joysticks? Worse, what does it mean for the disabled?
It's not just different. It's different without a cause or a purpose. It's really stretching things to assert "an old person's user philosophy" where windows should always be maximized over others where people like to be able to easily and more quickly select and work with objects between windows. (Ain't much drag-n-drop with maximized windows is there?)
Linus Torvald's words keep coming back to mind... "unholy abomination" I believe they were.
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)
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!
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
I can't wait for a system where each application automatically takes up the entire screen!
Just imagine, reading facebook.com on my 30 inch screen, FULLY MAXIMIZED, so that no other applications can distract me. Or, if I decide to code, EACH terminal could span the entire desktop. No longer will I have to struggle with seeing two things at once -- from now on, it's peace of mind with GNOME 3.
Thankfully I can now give gvim the space it has always deserved -- a fully uncluttered 2560 x 1600 space. And when I decide to listen to music, my music app can take up the entire space too! Imagine, seeing nothing but whitespace. Thank goodness someone thought of this. I can finally relax and do what I've always wanted to do: use my computer, one app at a time, in FULL SCREEN!
If you think about it, this is almost as good as DOS. No more annoying window title bars and multi-app desktop usage. No more extra buttons and widgets. Just one thing and one thing only -- what you're going to work on. I can't wait to develop kernel drivers and work on my apps this way. The fact that when I currently work I can actually see (and be distracted by) about three to four windows at a time is just devastating. I have to (currently) *navigate* to each and every window, and precariously drag the window across my entire desktop to achieve this effect, only to remain haunted by menu bars, title bars, and application switchers.
If only they could put a stop to all those pesky background processes and really get it down to just one single process. Then all the processes on my computer wouldn't have to compete for computer resources. Just like DOS, I'm telling you, I can't wait, we're getting back to the single-purpose one-thing-at-a-time operating system!
Obligatory slashdot sayings:
I for one welcome our maximized-app overlords!
In Soviet-Russia, window manager maximizes YOU!
One app to rule them all!
It was as if millions of apps suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, replaced with calming whitespace.
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.
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.
Sorry, I take exception. :) I'm one of those old farts, and I've been using and advocating multiple screens since at least 1978. Some folks are visual thinkers, some are linear. I'm definitely in the visual group. Those others, I think, are in the linear group. And Emacs has supported multiple windows since the beginning, IIRC. So even the text-mode types are not necessarily linear either.
In 1979 I was using three graphics terminals side by side (each of them 640x480 to 1280x1024). I hacked up a custom RS232 switch to direct output from the mainframe output to each one as needed, while input to the mainframe was always from one of them for the keyboard. On one terminal I had the code I was editing, on the second was my command line interaction, and on the third was the 3D graphics output that resulted from running the code.
Today in my normal workspace (a Compiz cube on dual 1680x1050 monitors) I have four virtual 3360x1050 desktops, all visible in the background in my transparent cube (when there aren't working windows in the way). I can spin the cube with one middle click & pan. The first desktop has housekeeping - mail, timeclock, Pidgin, sometimes a web page open, sometimes a terminal as I deal with email and office matters. My second 'working desktop' has one (sometimes two) Terminal, usually with three tabs for three different machines I'm logged into, two GVim windows one of which is broken into from one to several separate subwindows (vertically and horizontally) for different class files and the other of which contains one to three output log files. At any given time there may be diffs of log files or diffs of code files. Then, because I don't have a third screen, I keep three Firefox windows rolled up except when I'm using them, each of which has several tabs. One of the three, visible on all four sides of the virtual desktop, contains database interfaces for two machines (phpMyAdmin), dotProject, Trac, Mercurial, and the development portal. The second contains tabs for various sorts of documentation, the third contains reference material for the project I'm working on - usually web pages that I'm either scraping or reviewing.
If I'm working on more than one project this week, I will have a similar setup open on the third face of the cube, and the fourth usually has some more casual stuff such as a webpage that shows Slashdot, the news, etc.
I'm seriously considering going to a third screen (and 1920x1200 monitors), so I don't have to flip between windows for the Firefox stuff and the logfile views. Why should I have to flip between windows instead of just scanning my eyes over to the right? I want CONTEXT, dammit! :D I guess my workspace is more analogous to the bridge of a ship than a computer terminal. There's a lot going on, and I want access to all of it right now, and a visual indication of everything that's going on while I work on each individual task.
If you have sufficient resolution, the only reason to use a single window full screen is to get the maximum amount of data for one application on there, temporarily. I sometimes do this with an editing file, because I need just 'one more line' of text for context.
I think the ideal progression would be to stop trying to squeeze everything into a single screen, and instead make that screen a true viewport into an unlimited virtual space. As we move to head-up displays, we should be able to hang a window anywhere in space. The real world is a big space that surrounds us - why not our 'desktop' as well? And why can't I read a virtual newspaper the same way I do a real one, with the full spread visible and readable? And other parts of my environment visible around it - the stove, the clock, the coffee pot, my SO, etc.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/