Slashdot Mirror


Designer Jon McCann: "More Optimistic About GNOME Than In a Long Time"

An anonymous reader writes "In an extensive interview with derStandard.at, GNOME designer Jon McCann shares his thoughts about all the criticism GNOME 3 currently faces and why he doesn't think at all that GNOME is in a crisis. He also talks about the current plans for GNOME OS and explains why he thinks that Linux distributions should rethink their purpose."

27 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. No, seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Gnome 3 has issues, and the criticisim is legitimate. Why does it always have to look like that? At this point Windows 8 looks easier to customize than Gnome 3.

    1. Re:No, seriously by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit, you've obviously never used Gnome 3. Extensions are as simple to install as going to extensions.gnome.org with epiphany and clicking switching the "off"-button to "on" for the desired extension. It's by far the easiest extension install I've ever seen.

    2. Re:No, seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Linus explains it better why these fabled extensions are horrendous:

      https://plus.google.com/u/0/102150693225130002912/posts/UkoAaLDpF4i

    3. Re:No, seriously by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ostensible forks Cinammon and Mate and other re-works of gnome weren't done for fun and giggles. It's because lots of gnome 2.x users frankly thought that gnome 3 had a touch of hubris and the sort of ugliness that only "visionaries" can bring.

      Linus has great points, but before he laid in on the problem, lots of us complained to deaf ears. And we moved on.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:No, seriously by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm using Cinammon, too, but my teeth are grinding. KDE is starting to look attractive again, although she's put some weight on.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:No, seriously by gmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand the rant: gonomee 2 was for techies-only, GNOME 3 not...

      It's exactly that sort of arrogance that has caused gnome 3 to be dropped from distros(even Debian is replacing it as default). The trouble with Gnome 3 is that they went off on a tangent in search of the "new" and forgot about the existing users.

    6. Re:No, seriously by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not how it looks, but how it works. It is designed around using a single application at a time, and it is no longer workflow based but application based. Some workflows are more than one application... And if you have two separate workflows with some web browsers in them, you can not split those workflows... In other words, it simply does not work the way some people work. And the devs just don't care about those people. That is fine, but they should not be surprised when we don't care about them either.

    7. Re:No, seriously by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm using Cinammon, too, but my teeth are grinding. KDE is starting to look attractive again, although she's put some weight on.

      Actually, if you disable the desktop search function in the settings, KDE uses less resources than Gnome 3 (shell or cinnamon) or Unity. At least that is my experience.

    8. Re:No, seriously by kav2k · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For me, it's not about what it is. It is about what it refuses to be.

      Gnome 3 cut away a lot of sensible Gnome 2 functionality due to developers' own vision of what is right. And any pleas to bring it back are slammed.

      Nautilus: a click on a filename does not put it into rename mode. Something Windows and OS X have, and Nautilus had. WONTFIX: it helps prevent user errors.
      Nautilus: there are no more user-assignable emblems on files. WONTFIX: Come on, who uses THAT?
      Gnome-screensaver: clearly, actually having a screensaver is preposterous. WONTFIX.

      Those may seem like small gimmicks, but they pile on, and leave a sour taste by themselves. But the worst part is their treatment by the developer team. They don't want extensive configuration, they want the one and only paradigm of what is "right".

    9. Re:No, seriously by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, but my wife has no more trouble with Gnome2 than she has with other computer systems. So saying Gnome2 is for techies, and implying *only* for techies, is being stupid, or perhaps just lying. I'll admit she has trouble with thunderbird, but frankly, that program has a few persistent bugs. Modal dialogs that don't stay on top, e.g. (I suppose you could call that a Gnome2 problem..but I wouldn't.))

      What she DOESN'T want is a redesigned interface. She learns how to do things by the positions that things are at on the screen, and if they move, she needs to learn all over again. So whenever I install an OS for her, it needs to be both stable and LTS. I wouldn't even consider either Unity or Gnome3. She would find them impossible, where I just find them ugly and hideously inflexible.

      OTOH, I'm not sure what a good alternative would be. Both Xfce and LXDE have a problem with window title bars getting stuck up under the upper panel. This is difficult for *me* to deal with. She just couldn't. Possibly I should investigate fvwm. Or maybe she'd like KDE4 (I don't, but she might). But Gnome3 isn't even on the list.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:No, seriously by marsu_k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd hate to turn this to another Gnome vs. KDE wankfest... but hey, this is slashdot, what else are we here for?

      When KDE4 was released, it was bad. Really a clusterfuck of epic proportions. I migrated from 3.5.x around 4.2 and it was barely usable even then. And I hated Dolphin initially with a passion, thank $DEITY Konqueror was still around. But as new releases kept coming, they kept improving at a steady pace; and now at 4.9, I think Dolphin is my favourite file manager to date. If they took away the split-screen mode, I'd be absolutely infuriated. So the KDE plan seems to be, at least in retrospect, make a new version with some very radical changes, then keep improving on that and adding new features. The Gnome plan seems to be similar, except instead of adding new features old ones get removed. Perhaps my needs as a user differ from those of Joe Average, but I don't need to think twice which approach I prefer.

      (Having said that, KDE is by no means perfect. Arch offers pretty much a vanilla version of KDE, and some of the defaults are just braindead. They can be changed, but if you don't know what you're looking for, the particular settings might not be that discoverable. But that's for another debate.)

  2. Re:Oh what a fucking surprise... by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yeah I kind of thought the same....we have a critisism that says "the gnome leadership doesn't listen to it's users" and it's users saying "wtf, I can't select the font size???", etc, etc, etc.

    then you have an article by one of the gnome team says he's "super confident" about the project.

    doesn't that kind of explain everything, in perfect clarity.....and prove the point beyond doubt that the gnome leadership don't in fact listen....

  3. That is too bad. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gnome 3 is a complete mess. and it's UI is not easier to use or more intuitive, its just trendy and "different" It is 5 years behind Gnome 2.x in usability and polish. A lot of the criticism for Gnome 3 is justified. The problem is knowing how the Gnome team works, they will ignore everyone and do what they want.

    I have tried several times to use it and every time the same parts fall down. Luckily some smart people are picking up the abandoned 2.x line and forked it. So linux will continue to have a useable desktop instead of the wierd social experiments that are Gnome 3 and Unity.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:That is too bad. by taupter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is still KDE SC (try it), LXDE, Enlightenment, WindowMaker, etc. It is still useable. GNOME 3 and Unity are "oddities" we should ignore just as much as Windows 8.

  4. Wow by jbolden · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well OK here are the main points from the interview

    1) He wants to move towards distributing Gnome more directly in particular to Windows.
    2) He likes the fact that Gnome has clear direction. In his mind the crisis was when Gnome 2 started wrapping up and the Gnome developers didn't know what to do. While for the developers Gnome 3 has been full of direction
    3) The Canonical divorce is continuing and Ubuntu will not be the testing platform going forward. Gnome OS is coming somewhat out of the desire to have a stable place to test Gnome.
    4) He really believes the diversity of the open source eco system makes it impossible to support software.
    5) He believes that the Gnome community is responding to the criticism they can extract, i.e. the constructive criticism. For example changes to the UI file movement and getting rid of the "copy and paste" applied to files.

  5. Well that confirms it by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The GNOME people aren't listening. They thought when they had something people were happy and comfortable with that they "lacked direction" so they got together and decided on a direction. So once they got to a point where people were happy and comfortable, they somehow thought it meant it was time for change.

    I think this is where the problem has begun. In my mind there are few acceptable reasons for change:

    1. A brick wall has been hit while going one direction and the previous goal is not achievable
    2. A crisis of compatibility or usability has occurred where the current way of doing things is no longer acceptable, applicable or useful
    3. People are moving away from GNOME because something better has their attention
    4. People are moving away from GNOME because the development team isn't responding to them

    There may be more, but those are just the first few that occur to me. Of those only #4 is applicable and that is only because they decided to change and not listen to the people using GNOME. They caused #4 and persist in it.

    GNOME developers are completely out of touch. They created change for the sake of change and that is a very bad reason for change when people are depending on keeping things as they are.

    The article/interview parallels what GNOME has done with Mac OSX and Windows. Mac OSX changes were... not completely necessary but also not completely alienating to the user from an interface standpoint. Microsoft's changes are perfect examples of end user rejection and how the users affect the marketplace. Shame on you, GNOME team, for not noticing this. No one has accepted Vista. Windows 7 has been accepted because there is no more Windows XP. And Windows 8? Developers are shying away from developing for it. Microsoft at least acknowledges that it is screwing up and has reversed some of the things that have offended developers with regard to Windows 8. We see none of that from GNOME... yet...

    1. Re:Well that confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They thought when they had something people were happy and comfortable with that they "lacked direction" so they got together and decided on a direction. So once they got to a point where people were happy and comfortable, they somehow thought it meant it was time for change.

      This hits the nail squarely on the head, and seems to me to be one of the biggest flaws of the FOSS community (and I say that as somebody with ACCEPT_LICENCES="-* @FREE" in his /etc/make.conf). Maturity is confused with stagnation, especially in user-visible applications. Look at Slackware changing its version number overnight (albeit as a joking nod to this very situation) and the laughable Firefox release schedule. People in the FOSS community are deathly afraid of being branded as "That guy who released something once, then left it for bitrot."

      This also speaks to me of the danger of forming a huge team to work on a project that may not necessarily need one. From my perspective, Gnome 2 was becoming finalized. It wasn't necessarily something I would rave about to my friends, but wasn't something I would complain about (except for this four year, unfixed bug). It had reached a plateau of reliability that most software should strive for. But you can't tell the entire Gnome desktop team "Great job, now get out except for Jim and Mike, you two stay on for bugfixes." A team of such evident drive as Gnome's has to be pointed somewhere - even if going anywhere at all is the wrong decision.

  6. You want to make a successful UI? Clone Windows 7 by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or hellz, XP.

    Make it look and work as close as possible, out of the box. No dicking around, no "Yehbut, we can improve it just a little bit here, maybe a dab there, a sprinkling over that wa- ah, we'll fix that in the next version".

    My wife will use it. My mother will use it. My employer might even take a look at it.

    Stop with your new paradigm fantasies. The desktop isn't broke (until Windows 8). Quit trying to fix it.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  7. The real Gnome 3 problem by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For years, using Linux was something for the advanced users who enjoyed having to dig deep on occasion to make it all work. Then along came Ubuntu and turned the Linux desktop into something that was REALLY a lot easier to install, use and maintain then Windows and yes, even Mac. Can either of those two run from a CD with full access to the HD if something goes tits up? Do either of them have a full desktop available with browser and everything else during install?

    Finally, Linux the desktop. WORKED.

    And then the Gnome 3 team said "nah, it doesn't, we know better how you should work". And they released a badly tested, badly thought out and badly documented product way to early and with no training to get people used to the new interface or any motivation for wanting to get used to the new interface.

    It is like me forcing you to sit upside down on the toilet, with no training or handy handholds all for the pleasure of crapping on your face. Whatever secret benefit it might give, you are not going to be in the mood to find out right?

    It is the same with Windows Metro. WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO FIX? What was missing in the classic desktop user design that is being fixed in by either Unity, Gnome 3 or Metro?

    People are perfectly willing to change for a well known UI if there is a really good reason to do so. Who here still uses rotary dialing on their phone? Touch keys WERE a massive improvement, not just more accurate but also less stressful on your finger if had to dial a lot. The mobile phones and indeed the rise of OSX has shown that people are not stuck to the classic desktop, as MS thought judging by their early attempts at a phone OS.

    But for the desktop, the desktop design, just works well enough. Gnome 3 made its introduction even worse by not being very well put together and doing it while things like Nautilus were still horrid pieces of buggy crash prone slow as molasses software. They then threw out all the good bits all the improvements others had made to make Gnome 2.0 workable and made something nobody wanted instead.

    But all is good. Hello? You have been ditched left and right by distro's. Mint rose as a distro from nothing just because they offered people non-gnome3 despite their insistence of screwing up google searches.

    The Iraqi minister of looking silly couldn't do a better job of dis-information. Gnome 3.0 has not been ditched by all users. Gnome 2.0 fork is NOT eating our lunch.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The real Gnome 3 problem by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ironically that's always what rubbed me the wrong way about Microsoft applications. They were always trying to impose their idea of how I should work on me. Take the most basic example; I'm a programmer, and very often want to type on a window that's partially obscured under another window. Most of the time I'm looking at a list of variables or an API document while I do that. This can be achieved in windows with a bit of work, but how to go about it seems to change in every release. Focus follows mouse without window raising has always been pretty close to the default option (or very easy to enable) on every X11 window manager I've ever worked on. Another good example is using LaTeX after spending a couple of hours trying to get your paragraphs and pages to work out correctly with Word.

      So now the Gnome team comes along and tries to tell me they know better than I do how I should work. I think they'll find I'll say "Fuck you!" to them just as quickly as I did to Microsoft and Apple.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  8. Delusional or paid by Apple by goruka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Either Gnome 3 developers are delusional, or being paid by Apple to screw the open source desktops on purpuse. How, otherwise, did Gnome and Ubuntu fall from the top, while on the peak of success?
    Also, I can understand Ubuntu because the leader drops a lot of $$ on it, but Gnome? I would have thought Gnome was a community project influenced by the community, but if delusional people (and I mean delusional because they state they target laptops, yet make an OS for tablets) is running the project, something must have gone wrong somewhere.

    1. Re:Delusional or paid by Apple by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and I mean delusional because they state they target laptops, yet make an OS for tablets...

      Oh don't worry, it does not work great on Tablets either...I tried...

  9. give it a try first by nten · · Score: 3, Informative

    People should try it before they ignore it. It is not ill-suited to everyone. I think its a case of the gnome team thinking everyone works like they do. I use keyboard controls almost exclusively, with lots of windows open, mostly command lines. I start applications from a run box, or commandline, not menus. OSX came along and the spotlight/quicksilver method of starting apps was a big step forward, it would autocomplete the name of the application for me. Gnome 3 and unity are another step forward in that it will give me a nearest match if I mispell something, I can type either the visible name (like "files") or the application name "nautilus" and either works. Or natulius for that matter. Additionally its a single key press to start typing rather than two as in windows7 or osx. workspace key shortcuts haven't changed from gnome2 and the window tiling is sufficient, though usually I don't dock windows. I prefer gnome3 to unity for the shrinky window thing it does showing whats open (like osx).

    If you mostly start apps from the commandline instead of menus or quickbars, gnome3 is for you so give it a try. They should have realized though that not everyone works that way and made it more flexible.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:give it a try first by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Insightful

      /usability-wise, according to my view, it's Windows 7, OS X, KDE on top, GNOME 2 and others at the middle and GNOME 3, UNITY and Windows 8 at the bottom.

      I've been using Unity in 12.04 and I switch between Gnome 2 in Debian and Explorer.exe in Windows 7 multiple times a day and I have to say that the more I use Unity the more I like it. I'd even go so far as to proclaim it the best desktop UI I've ever used. Oddly enough the things I like best are what most other people seem to hate. I'll mention a few and add the disclaimer that Ubuntu works perfectly on my hardware so I'm just going to focus on features.

      Dual monitor support is perfect for me in Unity. I plug in the second monitor and immediately it just works. The second monitor gets its own dock and indicator bar at the top just like I would want. When I open an application from the respective docks it opens on the correct monitor. If you move the mouse below a certain speed threshold, it sticks just a little on the dock on the second screen making it easy to aim for despite essentially floating in space.

      The dock is practically custom made for wide screen laptops that most people use these days. I naturally want it on the side so it doesn't take up precious vertical pixels. It can be set to stay visible or auto-hide. It's trivially easy to add Windows style "jumplists" to icons for added functionality, i.e., when I click the Show Desktop button I get the desktop but when I right click it I can select Invert Colors which does just what it says. It took a couple of minutes to add that. One thing about the dock some people might not like is if a window cannot be minimized by clicking it's icon only focused. I didn't like it at first but after a while I got to where I appreciated the consistency of clicking a button only doing one thing instead of it acting as some kind of ad-hoc toggle. For me it that's a part of the UI just getting out of my way. I don't have to map my brain away from what I'm concentrating on to worry about whether I want to click on another icon to focus or should I click on the current application's icon to reveal the application underneath. It's a small thing but it actually helps.

      The top panel plugin system is a vast improvement over Gnome 2 IMHO. It is consistent, easy to develop for, and just looks nice. Being able to write a quick mail checker in Python and just running it automatically putting it in the panel is golden and much improved over the bonobo framework of old.

      Obviously I like Unity and I think it's a step forward for Linux. It does require a bit of an adaptation and it's non-traditional in ways that will ruffle feathers but if you remember Gnome 2 ruffled feathers of the original Gnome diehards but now people sing its praises.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  10. Re:You want to make a successful UI? Clone Windows by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is one thing the ReactOS guys should do. Have different 'themes' from various Windows versions, all of which can be used for the OS. Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, NT 4.0, maybe even NT 3.5. Let the users select which one they want, and enable that during installation. Or even from the display panel.

  11. What Arrogance by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Linux distributions should rethink their purpose.

    Fuck you and fuck your arrogant decree that Linux distributions needs to match what you believe them to be. I'm going to make my Linux install exactly what I want. That's half the point of using an open source OS. And unsurprisingly it does not include Gnome 3 (other than a fork like Cinnamon) because its developers and "visionaries" don't give a shit about me, so I don't give a shit about them.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  12. Re:Wow - But wait a minute by amorsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is quite amusing to hear Lennart talk about user experience driving everything in the lower level stacks.

    man systemctl and weep.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?