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."

12 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Linus explains it better why these fabled extensions are horrendous:

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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".

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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. 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.