Slashdot Mirror


GNOME 3.6 To Include Major Revisions

supersloshy writes "The launch of the GNOME 3 desktop environment sparked heated debate and criticism. GNOME developers have been listening to the concerns of its users and it is rolling out several significant changes in GNOME 3.6. The message tray, often called hard to use, was made much more visible in addition to being harder to accidentally trigger. The "lock" screen can now optionally control your music player, the system volume, and display notifications so you don't have to type in a password. GNOME will also support different input sources directly instead of requiring an add-on program. Nautilus, the GNOME file browser, is also getting a major face lift with a new, more compact UI, properly working search features, a "move to" and "copy to" option as an alternative to dragging and dropping, and a new "recent files" section. These changes, among many others including improvements to system settings, will be present in GNOME 3.6 when it is released later this month. Any other additions or changes not currently implemented by the GNOME team can be easily applied with only one click at the GNOME Extensions website."

327 comments

  1. Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha! Gnome. Worst Desktop ever.

    1. Re:Yawn... by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Screenshots are not encouraging...

      I read through some of this and I am a user of Japanese language input. (Output too) In my recent experience with trying to get GiMP 2.8.x compiled and running on CentOS 6.x, I learned that when I was successful, I could only accomplish this feat by compiling many of GNOME's core libraries because the GIMP toolkit (you know, the GUI toolkit intended for use with GIMP) ended up as part of GNOME against the advice of the larger community. The result is that if I try to run a GTK based application in an environment which uses a different GTK, I lose theming... not the end of the world. But ALSO I loose access to my input method! Since I lose GNOME integration, input methods are also lost among other things.

      This is GNOME's fault. They simply aren't mature in their development philosophies.

      And what did I read in the article describing the new changes? "more tightly integrated IME!!" Uh... no. That's a bad idea. If there's one thing I learned from my experiences in breaking GNOME integration, it's that input is something of a low enough level that it should be handled by X, not by GNOME.

      GNOME marches forward ruining things. If they want "a direction" they need to consider moving in a mature direction that unifies the desktop experience with X and with that other thing that is closer to the hardware... freeland or something like that?

      And what was that "GNOME-OS" thing I heard about? Oh crap. Every app and environment thinks they should be an OS. Uh... no. Please no,

    2. Re:Yawn... by someones · · Score: 1

      Thats why i switched to KDE like 1 year ago.
      Its not even eating more ressources than gnome 3.2 did.

    3. Re:Yawn... by usagimaru · · Score: 2

      To be fair you are trying to run a newer version of GIMP than your distro supports. You don't really have the right to complain that unsupported software doesn't work correctly. That being said, I agree that input should not be handled by GNOME, or in the very least shouldn't be "tightly integrated" to the point where it breaks compatibility between versions.

    4. Re:Yawn... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I should be able to compile and run any program I want. The kernel, the Window system and the desktop environment should not limit me. If I were using KDE, I would be able to compile any version of GiMP I wanted and it would have had fewer if any ill effects.

      Or to say this another way: I can run GiMP 2.8.2, the latest version, under Microsoft Windows XP or up. Are you saying that it is because the Windows distro supports it or because Windows isn't preventing it?

      The issue is the use of GTK i the desktop environment. It shouldn't be.

    5. Re:Yawn... by schaiba · · Score: 0

      The Windows *distro*?

    6. Re:Yawn... by olau · · Score: 1

      The issue is the use of GTK i the desktop environment. It shouldn't be.

      This does not make much sense, GNOME is built upon GTK+, and has been from the beginning. If you don't like that, you need to find another desktop environment. GNOME and all the other GTK apps have been the main driver of GTK development for many, many years, not the GIMP.

      I think what usagimaru tried to tell you was that you basically hosed your system yourself and then complained it was hosed. Well, surprise! You can compile and run whatever program you want, but you need to know what you're doing if you are messing with stuff down in the stack.

    7. Re:Yawn... by fa2k · · Score: 1

      If I copied some DLLs from Windows XP to Windows 2000 to get a game working on 2000, I'd be happy if the theme and keyboard language was the only thing that didn't work!

    8. Re:Yawn... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I didn't hose my system. It works fine. I satisfied GiMP's dependencies in /opt/... so that it could find what it needed to run.

      GiMP is an application. It should run under ALL desktop environments. And it does... except for older GNOMEs. KDE? Yup. All the rest? Yup.

      And my beef with GNOME is that the problems didn't raise their heads to my notice until recently after years and years of use.

    9. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should GIMP be dependent upon the entire distro? I can upgrade Photoshop without upgrading my OS. And if adobe can pull something off, anyone half-way competent can.

  2. All two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    GNOME 3 users are extremely excited!

    1. Re:All two by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've been using it for about the last year (occasionally switching to Xfce or Unity when I feel like it), and I'm okay with most of it, happy with a few bits, and fairly excited by the changes. My main complain was *always* the ridiculous notification system. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to hide notifications? When I gen an email while the screen is off, or I'm not looking at it, I want to frikkin' see it. That's the whole point of a notification system. Having to actually see if I have any notifications is only minimally better than having none at all.

      Anyway ... yeah, nice to hear. I'm pleased enough with the rest of it now than the extensions are available that it actually looks and works like I used to have Gnome 2 set up, other than the notifications mess.

      I tried Unity again this week on a new development machine. I tolerated it right up until I added the extra monitors. Global menu is a very silly idea.

    2. Re:All two by epyT-R · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The whole point of locking the screen is so that others can't see what's on it without your permission...that includes emails/messages and anything else. If you just want to see your messages and don't care about privacy or the lifespan of your display, turn off the screensaver and powersave features.

    3. Re:All two by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't see the notifications at all (other than a toaster style warning the moment it happens). You have to 'ask' for them to be shown by putting the mouse in the bottom right corner of the screen. They hide them while the screen is *not* locked.

    4. Re:All two by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I understand..(I'm not a gnome3 user). Everything should be hidden when the screen is locked. That's the point.

    5. Re:All two by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not explaining well. Everything is hidden when the screen is locked. Unfortunately, notifications are also not displayed when the screen is not locked. You actually have to do something to see any notifications that might have occurred when you were not looking at the screen. For me, this nearly completely defeats the point of having notifications. I would like to see at a glance that I have an email, or a chat request, etc.

    6. Re:All two by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Usually, notifications can be set up to pop up for a time, then disappear, or have them stay up until they're dismissed. Gnome doesn't allow this choice?

    7. Re:All two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I'd like to lock my screen and not leak information to anyone that walks by when I leave the desk for a moment?

    8. Re:All two by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Gnome doesn't allow this choice?

      Consistently with the rest of Gnome, it doesn't. And the tray not working is a deal breaker in my book.

      No, requiring ten extensions for basic functionality isn't acceptable either.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    9. Re:All two by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      In order too keep a consistent user interface, they've decided not to add an option to configure this feature either.

    10. Re:All two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile the Cinnamon developers complain the Gnome 3 developers continue to remove features from Gnome 2 which users actively use. Thusly forcing them to fork yet more code to provide features users actually want.

      I'm sorry, but all those who support the Gnome 3 developers are complete fucking idiots. The developers are delusional, egotistical, and stupid. They ignored their own usability group who originally told the developers they are retarded. The developers replied by saying if you can't see their brilliance, you're simply not intelligent enough to understand.

      So lets be clear on this. The Gnome 3 developers literally believe you all are fucking idiots. Fuck you Gnome 3 developers. Fuck you.

    11. Re:All two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      continue to remove features from Gnome 2

      Should have read "Gnome 3"...

    12. Re:All two by juhaz · · Score: 1

      It's not the optimal solution to the problem, but they have attempted to mitigate that a bit, the notification bar does pop up for a few seconds in 3.2+ after you unlock the screen. Only works in the "while the screen is off" case, of course. I think there are some more improvements in 3.4, but 3.6 should more or less fix that once and for all - the notifications will no longer hide while you're inactive.

  3. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over 6 releases to have them starting to listen to their user? I am out!

    1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Over 6 releases to have them starting to listen to their user? I am out!

      By the 8th release they'll take out the options so why bother in the first place ?

    2. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      hmmm.... make it 3.

    3. Re:Too late by tuppe666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Over 6 releases to have them starting to listen to their user? I am out!

      Ignoring the fact that Gnome Developers are Users too; There has only been 3 releases [Odd .1 are development releases]; You never had to run it with Mate; Unity; Cinnomom [my personal preference]. Where are you going to, Seriously put that install Ubuntu on that overpriced Apple now so you know what you are talking about :)

    4. Re:Too late by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Sadly, Debian wheezy doesn't have Mate, nor even poor workarounds like Cinnamon. You'd have to go with XFCE which I find somewhat lacking, or one of fifty or so niche alternatives (I used to be a sworn WindowMaker user until ~10 years ago. It doesn't seem to have improved since then...).

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  4. Iterations by DeadDecoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    After a few more iterations, it'll look just like OS X.
    :P

    1. Re:Iterations by Desler · · Score: 1

      I realize this is a joke but why exactly is it claimed that GNOME Shell or Unity look like OS X? Unity has some superficial similarities but that's about it. GNOME Shell looks nothing like it.

    2. Re:Iterations by DeadDecoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I said this half-jokingly as many of these disruptive changes have been made in response to Apple's popularity and explosion in the tablet/phone market.

      I see these OSs merging in terms of how they perceive user tasks. The old Unix/Windows model was that you had a bunch of applications running simultaneously, which the user had to manage themselves. In Mac, it feels like the emphasis is on working with one application at a time. This can be seen when the (File, Edit, View, etc) menus change context with respect to the selected application. Unity, and it looks like Gnome 3, are moving in this direction.

      For users who are used to one style, completely revamping the UI also means revamping and disrupting everyone's personal workflow. What if I want to browse and code simultaneously? If the UI prohibits such behavior, than I'll have a hard time getting work done.

      I don't have a problem with the changes, but I do have a problem with these changes getting shoved down everyone's throat without proper support to revert to a classic look. A lot of the 'core' features that are being added, could simply be mods on top of the existing desktop instead of the buggy restructuring that's currently going on.

    3. Re:Iterations by uglyduckling · · Score: 4, Informative

      The menu bar following the app has always been a feature of the Mac OS. It's nothing to do with using one app at a time, it's to do with the muscle memory advantage of just shoving the mouse to the top of the screen regardless of which application you're using. It also saves screen space by avoiding having multiple near-identical menus all over the screen.

    4. Re:Iterations by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      I don't know, they sure look similar to me.

      I can only speak about Gnome 2, since i haven't had a chance to play with any Gnome 3 desktops (been playing with Vector KDE Classic, its nice) but the problem with the whole menubar on top bit is cargo cult usability where you copy the look without understanding WHY it looks like it does. in the case of OSX it is a application oriented desktop, the bar on top is supposed to be universal and changes depending on the app. With Linux you have a window oriented desktop where you have each window with its on controls AND the bar on top. It just makes no sense from a usability standpoint.

      Personally I'm hoping we'll see some real innovation, I mean here we are, with systems so insanely powerful they would have been considered supercomputers a decade ago, and what do we get? It either rips off OSX, Windows, or cell phones...ugh. While I can understand where the classic desktop metaphor came from its 2012 folks, surely we can come up with something even better from a usability standpoint. Sadly though as long as iPhone and iPad are racking up the sales I think the only "innovation" is gonna be cell phone ripoff designs, which of course make no damned sense on a 27 inch monitor and is generally worse from a usability standpoint than the standard desktop metaphor.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Iterations by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It also makes it almost useless to have apps on a second monitor. That "feature" was one of the reasons I moved away from OSX a couple of years ago.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great point. The menu at the top was one of my primary sticking points when I play-tested a mac several years ago.

    7. Re:Iterations by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      . Sadly though as long as iPhone and iPad are racking up the sales I think the only "innovation" is gonna be cell phone ripoff designs

      I'm afraid both iPhone and iPad are losing market share. As for innovative, the Gnome 3 desktop is oozes innovation, that is not the problem. Your claim of it looking like an iPad is a little out of place...perhaps you had be better sticking those in the Samsung posts where you usually make them.

    8. Re:Iterations by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > it's to do with the muscle memory advantage of just shoving the mouse to the top of the screen regardless of which application you're using.

      Shhh don't try to confuse users with facts of Fitts' Law ;-)

      Reference:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's_law

    9. Re:Iterations by aliquis · · Score: 1

      MacOS and AmigaOS also got unified menus. I like them. They save space.

      And yeah, some programs on the Amiga ran in a screen of their own, some others in separate windows, all used the same menu method and just because one program such as a painting program or file manager ran in it's own screen didn't mean I couldn't switch to something else. Many X users like virtual desktops and separating tasks within different desktops themselves. It's imho just the same. I'd rather say I don't like how for instance Gimp spreads multiple windows on top of some other windows. I'd prefer one or a clean slate for the windows to show up in. Windows got their modal windows to.

      To me it's also obvious that the Gnome people seem to want us to work in full screen mode. But on the other hand if you want multiple smaller windows you can have those in another desktop or you can tile two windows beside each other. And I suppose you can hold down a key and arrange them whatever way you want without them snapping to the screen edges and change shape automatically to?

    10. Re:Iterations by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Meh, Gnome 3 doesn't ooze innovation, although it does show to be very open to innovation. It's very obvious that that they are trying to do the right thing. They just aren't very good at it. I'm a user, by the way, for nearly two of years now. Their desktop is very modern. Not exactly innovative since pretty much every feature has been implemented elsewhere, usually better. But at least it's modern.

      I really want Gnome 3 to be good but I have little faith in the Gnome team itself, I hope the community can keep them in check. I would love nothing more than they listening to us their users instead of keeping on trying to lure Apple users.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    11. Re:Iterations by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Are you saying the mac doesn't just dupe the top menu across all monitors? Seems like the obvious thing to do.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Iterations by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Meh, Gnome 3 doesn't ooze innovation, although it does show to be very open to innovation. It's very obvious that that they are trying to do the right thing. They just aren't very good at it. I'm a user, by the way, for nearly two of years now. Their desktop is very modern. Not exactly innovative since pretty much every feature has been implemented elsewhere, usually better. But at least it's modern.

      I really want Gnome 3 to be good but I have little faith in the Gnome team itself, I hope the community can keep them in check. I would love nothing more than they listening to us their users instead of keeping on trying to lure Apple users.

      Really it has!? show me where the infinite Desktop idea has been implemented? If your a user why are you not using Mate or Cinnamon [its excellent] if you don't like Gnome Shell. This has nothing to do with Apple users [that is such a strange comment] it looks and fells nothing like OSX thank god. I'm pretty confident they are after the whole market not the few percent that Apple occupy.

    13. Re:Iterations by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having the menus at the top of the screen defined by the active window requires extra mouse antics, so I like the menus for each program contained within its window. I do not work in full screen unless I'm watching a video and doing little else. I have lots of windows open at once so I can monitor output simultaneously and provide input when required. How about some code open with an irc client, video/audio player open as well.. IM chat? video/audio editing software with encoders?

      Some of us actually use the power we have in our desktops. We don't want that power sucked away with useless animations and idiotic limitations designed for constrained input like tablets. Seriously, it seems the current crop of 'designers' (I use the term loosely) working on gnome has never used a computer for anything more than checking facebook and playing music.

      gak...

    14. Re:Iterations by Vegemeister · · Score: 2

      Those menu items are not accessed particularly frequently (at leas in my workflows) and global menu bars fuck up focus-follows-mouse.

    15. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Global Menu also invalidates any sort of common sense assumptions, like when you're working and there are multiple non-full-screen apps, and you have to sort out which one might "own" the global menu at this exact moment. Which will change, if you grab a file picker dialog, but it doesn't change in an obvious or intuitive way.
      This, along with the substandard hardware on my 2012 13" Air, is the reason I'm abandoning OSX at the very beginning of my internship with it.
       
      For fuck's sakes, I abandoned Ubuntu to get away from this crap and then OSX shows up with the same stupid routine.

    16. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Putting a menu-using application on the secondary display is doing it wrong.

      I see.

    17. Re:Iterations by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      No that only still only superficially looks like OS X. There is more to OS X than sleeping Docky on Gnome.Shell.

    18. Re:Iterations by afgam28 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure I understand. In a desktop environment that supports overlapping windows, how does a global menubar save space?

    19. Re:Iterations by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I personally don't see any innovation myself, its all WIMP just switched around a little. Where are the truly new designs? How about something truly different, maybe something that uses the scroll wheel as a true control?

      Like say instead of dropping icons on a desktop you would use the scroll wheel click and a series of wheels would appear, like on a slot machine. You would have a wheel for Internet, Games, System Tools, etc and would simply use the scroll wheel to quickly spin between them or drag and drop your most used to the favorites wheel.

      There has simply got to be a better way than either a classic desktop metaphor or another damned cell phone ripoff. Cell phones became that way because of limitations in screen resolution and size, not because it was a truly better UI from a usability standpoint. what we need is someone willing to throw out the entire history of WIMP and start fresh with new ideas. Some may work, some flop, but at least we'd be making real progress.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    20. Re:Iterations by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So true, on a 30 inch monitor, gnome3 is unusable and a pain in the ass to use. But its build for tablets, even the gnome developers admitted it. Music player on lock screen? Tablet feature. Good portion of my developers at work are still using 10.04 due to gnome 3 and ubuntu unity fiasco. Those not using linux use osx.

      Never liked unified menus, hated it with office, hated it with gnome3 and osx.

    21. Re:Iterations by GNious · · Score: 1

      It doesn't - particularly annoying when using a laptop + extra 23" monitor and the OS decides that the laptop-screen is the primary one.
      thankfully, it is easy enough to get around (swap screen assignment), but is a bit silly.

    22. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .In Mac, it feels like the emphasis is on working with one application at a time.

      That used to be the case in Windows also. You know, back before it was called Windows, when it was called MS-DOS.

      Thankfully, Windows, like Unix, has gotten past that a loooong time ago.

    23. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope. It puts it on one special "primary" display. Unity, on the other hand, does duplicate it.

    24. Re:Iterations by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      This is the most infuriating idea since computers were invented - a UI that you cannot tell what app it relates to? How frigging stupid is that? These people should be shoved in a bowl of boiling oil. It is one of the reasons why OSX is only fit for people who cannot manage more than one app at a time?

      The worst feature is that you cannot be sure which app you will close (if you manage to find the menu bar in Gnome on my machine, it somehow decides to hide at times) when you click on the little X - assuming you can find it - I have a high resolution screen, and the menu bar is too damn small. I expect there is a way to increase its size, but the computer KNOWS DAMN WELL HOW MANY PIXELS PER INCH and ought to know that icons 1/20" across are NO BLOODY GOOD TO MAN OR BEAST!

      ok, I promise to take the meds now!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    25. Re:Iterations by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      No! - TAKING AWAY OPTIONS FROM USERS IS DOING IT WRONG.

      and shove the lameness filter where the sun don't shine. How are we supposed to yell if we cant use caps?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    26. Re:Iterations by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2

      By removing the ability to do useful things!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    27. Re:Iterations by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      I'd say it probably has more to do with Apple's "not invented here" attitude than incredible foresight. Even today you still have to manually enable the right click on their mouse.
      The menu bar might stay in the same place, but the whole point of resizable windows is that you applications don't. Instead you have to track across today's huge desktop screens to access features, and it also screws up windows focus.

    28. Re:Iterations by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      The global menu bar seems to absolutely go against that ideal. The average distance to the target is always increased and the menus buttons are tiny.

    29. Re:Iterations by anyanka · · Score: 1

      But the Amiga hid the menus until you right-clicked. So you actually saved some space / got a status bar for free – and it would work with focus-follows-mouse (if you set that up).

    30. Re:Iterations by anyanka · · Score: 1

      But since OSX is more window-oriented than previous versions of MacOS, I'm not sure that the menubar on top actually makes that much sense anymore, even on a Mac.

    31. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which worked fine in 1984 when the Mac's screen was what, 8" diagonally? But today I don't want to click on a window on one part of my 24" screen to get focus, and then have to move my cursor to a distant part of my screen to get to the associated menus. I don't need "muscle memory" to find my menus, when my eyes work just fine thank you very much. If a UI forces me to use a common menu bar at the top of the screen, I don't use that UI and I look for something that works for me.

      People quote "Fitt's Law" as if it were a law of physics, and not what it is - some people's preference.

    32. Re:Iterations by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      By "sort out" you mean look at the application name, which is at the top-left of the screen at all times. Seems pretty obvious and intuitive to me. I agree it's not a perfect system, but for me the pros outweighs the cons especially on smaller screens. Not duplicating the menu bar on secondary monitors is pretty stupid, though.

    33. Re:Iterations by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      I'm confused about why you can't tell what app the UI relates to. The name of the application that has focus is always shown at the top-left of the screen.

    34. Re:Iterations by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      As you say, it's a preference. I find it annoying using operating systems with menu bars all over the screen, as I tend to keep my mouse hovering near the top of the screen and Cmd-tab between applications, which is broken by Windows-style UIs, unless I keep everything maximised.

    35. Re:Iterations by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Actually, pull-down menus were invented there - by Apple, when they were working on the Lisa and Mac GUIs. It's always been that way, some like it, some don't. I find it great on my MacBook Air that screen space isn't wasted by duplicating dozens of near-identical menus, and I personally don't find it a problem when I connect up to my Cinema display. I find it quicker to Cmd-tab between applications and know that the menus are always in the same place no matter how I arrange things on the display. I can also do things like have a window nearly completely off the edge of the screen (e.g. referring to a web page whilst coding) but still being able to access all the menus, so I don't have to drag the window back on to create a bookmark then close the window. There's pros and cons to both models.

    36. Re:Iterations by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Can't take away something that wasn't ever there. The Mac has always had a single menu bar, on the "main" screen, even back in the olden days.

    37. Re:Iterations by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure he was referring to the Gnome changes, not Mac. And Lameness filter or not, I have to agree with him. I feel the same way about Win8.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    38. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Logout
      2. Switch to Gnome 3 classic mode w/ no effects
      3. Enjoy Gnome 3 exactly like Gnome 2 was

    39. Re:Iterations by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Good portion of my developers at work are still using 10.04 due to gnome 3 and ubuntu unity fiasco

      If you're sevelopers aren't capable of figuring out how to type apt-get install xcfe, or even navigating to xfce from the GUI package installer, then you might need to consider hiring sharper developers.

      That's assuming they're sticking to 10.04 purely because of the GUI.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    40. Re:Iterations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me the bigger deal is the mental model of OSX where there is only one instance of an application running no matter how many documents you open. This makes workspaces pretty much useless as it seems like opening a new document by clicking on the icon in the Finder caused the document to show up in the first workspace. This is completely counter to my workflow of using workspaces/desktops to create work contexts, which I have developed over a long period of time (and no I don't buy the "Dinosaur! If you would just do it the Mac way it would all be fine" tripe that I keep getting told by those whose workflow naturally matches that imposed by OSX). In fairness, I understand that the latest OSX does reduce the other annoyances with workspaces somewhat but I am told it doesn't fix this one.

      The real problem for me is the whole "there is a single Word or Firefox or whatever running" idiom regardless of platform. This is idiotic. This is a legacy from the days when you could only run one application at a time on a personal computer. Guess what folks? Those days are behind us. Get a clue and allow the user to make the decision as to how many instances are running at a time. (And yes, I am looking straight at you Firefox, Chrome, etc. Hint: firefox --no-remote opens a window on your local machine when logged in and forwarding X11 from another machine. A work around for a bad decision in the first place.)

      anonymous

    41. Re:Iterations by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      This feature makes menus unusable when you don't enable click-to-focus, something rather common on *nix.

    42. Re:Iterations by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Actually, having a menu-bar per windows comes from *nix, since traditionally, focus-follows-mouse was used, so having a single menubar on top made it imposible to access the menubar of a window at the bottom of the screen.

    43. Re:Iterations by aliquis · · Score: 1

      True that it doesn't remove space from the currently used application.

      Still it makes windows bigger and messy and a lot of menus (and bars) everywhere.

      Personally I'm no fan of it. And applications which look like say Amarok with all shit thrown on top.

    44. Re:Iterations by npsimons · · Score: 1

      After a few more iterations, it'll look just like OS X.

      That's okay; maybe in ten years OS X will have finished copying all the eye candy from Enlightenment. I doubt it will ever be as fast, though.

    45. Re:Iterations by bigt405 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I use CentOS because of the GUI. Sure, I know how to install XFCE or Cinnamon, but I'd rather not bother learning a new system. This is supported and works fine. It's not that I hate GNOME 3, KDE or XFCE from a workspace efficiency perspective. There wasn't really much broken with GNOME 2. Unfortunately I'll be thrown into the GNOME 3 "goodness" when RHEL decides to upgrade, but I'll make that decision when the time comes.

    46. Re:Iterations by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ..it's to do with the muscle memory advantage of just shoving the mouse to the top of the screen regardless of which application you're using.

      Oh I get it, like the digesting advantage of Pavlov's dog always salivating when the bell rings!

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    47. Re:Iterations by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Fitts' law is correct. What it means for global menus is that they are completely wrong and not helpful to productivity. window menu bars are useful on the window for one reason: When you need them, typically, your pointer is already on the window (ergo: much less distance to travel for same size target)

      One design decision that might have steered towards the global menu bar (in 1999?) was that it would generate a much cleaner UI/window presentation. Plus the side effect that users that were clueless would find it more difficult to accidentally switch on some "pro" feature through the window menu when it is located on the far top left corner.

      --
      -- no sig today
    48. Re:Iterations by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      How are we supposed to yell if we cant use caps?

      You have to insert .25 clue _before_you_start_yelling!!!!@!_

    49. Re:Iterations by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Actually pull-down menus were invented by Xerox. But I was referring to the window-bound menu bar. The Lisa had the global menu bar. When Microsoft put the window-bound menu bar in Windows it was a clear improvement. But even to this day you can't get that functionality on a Mac.

    50. Re:Iterations by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Pull-down menus weren't invented by Xerox, their GUI used a modal button bar at the top of each window. You can see photographic evidence of the Apple development process here. I know Apple get criticised for being derivative, but they did invent this GUI element, and their early attempts used a per-window model, which they eventually rejected for a global bar. You think per-window is better; as someone who used Windows for many years, then various Linux distros exclusively for 5 years, then latterly Mac OSX, I vastly prefer the global menus. It's a matter of opinion.

  5. It'll be tough. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    My Ubuntu box with Gnome 3 is sadly neglected - after I spent days laboriously recreating my working environment on OSX.

    I use docky with Gnome 3. This makes them superficially similar. I re-built the key mappings that I live with.

    We'll wait cautiously and see.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:It'll be tough. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That sort of thing is always doomed to failure.

      If you try to make Linux as close as possible to OSX, you will never replace OSX as it will always be a poor copy.

      Instead, you can enjoy the things it does better.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:It'll be tough. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I have been doing the opposite. Trying to get OSX as close to my Linux environment as possible. ;-)

      But I have better MS office support on Mountain Lion than from Codeweavers. If you work in a comany of more than 1000 people, this is still unavoidable - LibreOffice or not.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  6. Too late. by aussersterne · · Score: 1

    (The "too little" part doesn't even matter anymore.)

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  7. Gnome 3.6 by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Now with only ONE button".

    1. Re:Gnome 3.6 by Desler · · Score: 5, Funny

      It has buttons? That clearly must be a mistake that they will quickly remedy.

    2. Re:Gnome 3.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now with only ONE button".

      One too much.

    3. Re:Gnome 3.6 by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2

      Apple Patented that. And Google patented Smart Phones with more than one button.

  8. Re:ah, Miguel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up.

    This guy knows things.

  9. Don't Care by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Switching to Debian 6 XFCE.

    You had your chance, GNOME, and you wasted it.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Don't Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a silly way to live. Sure GNOME screwed up, but it isn't like you paid for it. Use your favorite and change if you see a better one.

    2. Re:Don't Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Why take a second bite from a $hit sandwich.

    3. Re:Don't Care by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed, Xfce on anything is the one to beat now. It's time we all switched gears and started trying to list significant missing features and capabilities in Xfce so they can be added, rather than trying to fix brain dead DE abortions. I don't think there's very much missing from the latest version of Xfce (NOT the outdated version shipping with the spring release of Fedora and Ubuntu).

    4. Re:Don't Care by Larryish · · Score: 1

      XFCE needs a menu editor.

      Squeeze XFCE does not have a menu editor in the repos, afaict.

      Have I overlooked something?

    5. Re:Don't Care by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      LXMenuEditor works with XFCE, per this article on the XFCE wiki.

      Hope that helps.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Don't Care by fnj · · Score: 1

      I'll add one myself. With Xfce 4.10 I can now make desktop launchers work with single click; Thunar file manager "always" allowed single click mode - but how the HECK do I get panel launchers to work in single click mode?

  10. Canonical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is something Ubuntu (Canonical) never learned when they introduced Unity. Their attitude, according to their Reddit AMA, was basically "Fuck our users. We know what's best for them"

  11. You know what's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the window/desktop manager I'm still using?

    WindowMaker.

    As I have been since 1998 or so, whenever I originally started using X on linux. It was intended as a clone of the NeXT workspace, and was for a time the official windowmaker of GNUstep. And you know what? They haven't fucked with it beyond a few minor usability improvements in 10 years. Basically the only changes were adding truetype fonts (Which helped with a few font related issues on later X servers, but otherwise hasn't added much), 'live' editable menus (previously text files that required a restart to change the right-click/f12 menu layout), and some inter-desktop fixes that came out whenever the release popped up on slashdot earlier this year.

    It doesn't have a desktop shell, and finding updated wmapplets can be a hassle, but the former can be fixed by borrowing thunar from XFCE, the latter by fixing them yourself (or suc...er 'convincing' someone else to), but it'll run on any computer you have dating back to at least the pentium era (and would probably run on older if it wasn't for the 'mandatory' freetype support.)

    Point being: What has gnome offered in either the 2.x or 3.x releases that made it so much better than the original versions, and did any of those features make up for it's unusable bloat on legacy systems?

    I know nobody bothers to code for legacy systems anymore, unless they already were, but the point is program efficiency and usability is being reduced by wasting cycles on things that.... don't add to the apparent front-end usability! A problem that the GNOME project seems to be embracing from the wrong end wholeheartedly.

    1. Re:You know what's... by aliquis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, WindowMaker has always been pretty nice and worked. Can't say I've used it "since" 1998 though. My experience with it may have been just before but I haven't been very loyal to anything.

      Haven't really been an active Linux/*BSD user for the last 5+ years either so until very recently my last real experience was KDE 3.5.

      Anyway. WindowMaker works.

      Personally I think Enlightenment17 is pretty interesting to. It's fast, configurable, most likely coded by someone who knows what he's doing rather than experiment with it. But then it depends on what software and toolkits you bring to your desktop.

      Personally I think Gnome 3 shell is pretty interesting but I've got a Razer mouse which multiclicks so it's not very usable atm. KDE4 seem so heavy on my machine and imho KDE applications look like a mess. I know about the QT XML projects and such which was for a very short while the future of Nokia and I just wish someone made better looking QT applications. I think having one tool kit and an integrated desktop would be pretty nice but I don't want to have to be tied down to poor applications. Guess that's one advantage of the Windows and OS X desktops.

      And I've seen clips on YouTube where they boot a Macintosh Classic (?), fire up ClarisWorks, type something, save it, quit and power down and compare that to a (then) modern PC laptop and the PC was slower. I think it's pretty disturbing a machine with 1 GB of RAM runs slowly now and then I see screenshots of Directory Opus 4 running on the Amiga with 770kB of RAM available. Of 1 MB..

      It's amazing how much crap you can throw into software without increasing usability.

      Had some old simple-wm (don't know what one, there's plenty now anyway, scrotwm, i3, ratpoison, the likes) screenshot with a terminal, screen, mutt and some others (centericq and some command line MP3 playing "service" I think?) and mutt is always such a beauty. And it makes you long back =p, should design a standard reply template for HTML mails which put the reply in a 15x3 characters iframe or something such with a headline informing the reader that's about how readable their HTML mails is in a text based mail client. However today with advertisement it make sense and rather HTML than something application specific / new I suppose.

      I currently have Bodhi Linux installed but I suppose a bigger distribution with Enlightenment would work as well / even better. But that Bodhi comes with some touches (like GTK theme) which make it look nicer together.

      Kinda not that you expected back then / just after the year you mention? That Enlightenment would be one of the lighter window managers in the future..

    2. Re:You know what's... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Btw, awesome drivers for AROS would be awesome. Linux community seem to hate Nvidia and maybe AROS got good Intel drivers to? Or at least can borrow or benefit from them. Personally I've always liked Nvidia drivers since they was available for so many OSes and quick.

      Then if Steam decided to make games for AROS rather than Linux and got some developer support I could finally had come back home =P

      Miss you Amiga :)

    3. Re:You know what's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I also have been using WindowMaker for years... used KDE3 when it was good, KDE4 drove me back do WindowMaker.

    4. Re:You know what's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Directory Opus 4 running on the Amiga with 770kB of RAM available. Of 1 MB.."

      AFTER booting the GUI (Workbench) from an 880K floppy. I prefer Disk Master II, as it uses a bit less memory than Opus. In fact, my go-to utility disk has WB2.1, DM2, Virus Checker (Veldthius' version), disksalv, and a few others that I forget offhand. ONE floppy. 512K RAM (1Meg was better).

      Back to the OP...

      I stopped my upgrading at Fedora 14 because even with the Gnome "fallback" mode, my machines just couldn't handle it. Even running fallback uses the Gnome3 features, and all that bloat brought the system(s) to a crawl.
      Sorry, Gnome, but if you can't get a GUI to run on a Socket-A 512MB system (GEOS could run on an 8086 XT with 512K and mono graphics without any issues), then fsck you.

      Also, if I'd have wanted a fscking smart phone interface, I'd have bought a fscking smart phone.

    5. Re:You know what's... by olau · · Score: 1

      Point being: What has gnome offered in either the 2.x or 3.x releases that made it so much better than the original versions, and did any of those features make up for it's unusable bloat on legacy systems?

      Ease of use for people who don't like messing too much?

      It's good for you you like WindowMaker, but not everyone shares the vision of building software for the past rather than the future. To some people, graphical design matters. Just saying. :)

  12. Nautilus? Compact? No. by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nautilus, the GNOME file browser, is also getting a major face lift with a new, more compact UI...

    Actually they removed compact view. To say it's "more compact" is the opposite of what happened.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good lord... One of the developers says that horizontal scrolling is "horrible", and the other says the comments are unhelpful and tells people to go away.

      Is there even a point in using GNOME when shit like this happens and with people in charge being such enormous assholes?

    2. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by slashmaddy · · Score: 2

      Until now, I had be indifferent to the "radical" changes in gnome 3, thanks to gnome-tweak. Although, thanks to your link, MrEricSir, I now have a faint idea of why there's so much opposition to gnome 3. Left a comment there. Although, personally, I don't know where I'd move from gnome 3. I was never a fan of KDE, and I have tried xfce and lxde, but didn't like them much. Gnome 2 was perfect and if they continue in this direction, all my hopes towards keeping linux as my main desktop would die. After a lot of effort, I was able to convince mom to start using FC17, and with changes like this, it's just a matter of one update when she orders me to install windows on her computer again. Please gnome 3 devs, don't make me commit this blasphemy.

    3. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If GNOME 2 was perfect for you, then why not move to the MATE desktop? It's a fork of GNOME 2. I have used it and it feels just like using GNOME 2.32.

    4. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

      Good lord... One of the developers says that horizontal scrolling is "horrible", and the other says the comments are unhelpful and tells people to go away.

      Is there even a point in using GNOME when shit like this happens and with people in charge being such enormous assholes?

      I have to say I agree that "Compact View" is a waste of time. I personally will not miss 2 panes, because I have always found that a bizarre concept in a Desktop environment.

      Now personally I object to them removing the up directory, because its something I use all day long.

      PS. I think its kind of ironic that you calling people "enormous assholes" for telling people to go away

    5. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Damn that chat bar was a waste of space:
      http://afaikblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/message-tray2.png?w=640&h=400

      Especially on a wide screen.

      Not really a fan of notifications either. In KDE the device information just goes away and I have no idea where to and how to access it again =P, and if they stayed on the screen and wanted me to click them it would suck if say someone pasted something in an IM client.

      What about scrolling a message somewhere and light up an icon to inform me something has happened. Then say left click to show notifications, middle click to clear the icon/message queue and right click to pick what applications I got notifications from with simple list of applications + check marks in front of them for instance.

    6. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say I agree that "Compact View" is a waste of time.

      How can you say that? Compact view is the best view of all systems. I've been using it for years as my default view. I always thought it was stupid on Windows to have each column the same width and use up extra space when one file has a really long name. Choice should be what it is all about.

    7. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by humanrev · · Score: 1

      I personally will not miss 2 panes, because I have always found that a bizarre concept in a Desktop environment.

      It's amusing you suggest that two panes is a bizarre concept, considering the whole of GNOME 3's shell is ultimately a bizarre concept anyway (compared to most other desktop environments), so it's not like keeping dual panes would be out of place in GNOME 3. :)

      I didn't use dual panes much, but occasionally they were useful. Just like the Windows "start" menu - occasionally useful, and it's annoying to have it removed when it wasn't hurting anyone. It's reduction in functionality which made me look into using MATE (which lasted for a while, until I cracked and went back to Windows 7 for reasons of tension with the Linux ecosystem.)

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    8. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with detailed list view? It doesn't take up much space, the file order is always on the same axis (up/down), and you can sort by whatever metadata you want?

    9. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      I personally will not miss 2 panes, because I have always found that a bizarre concept in a Desktop environment.

      It's amusing you suggest that two panes is a bizarre concept, considering the whole of GNOME 3's shell is ultimately a bizarre concept anyway (compared to most other desktop environments), so it's not like keeping dual panes would be out of place in GNOME 3. :)

      I didn't use dual panes much, but occasionally they were useful. Just like the Windows "start" menu - occasionally useful, and it's annoying to have it removed when it wasn't hurting anyone. It's reduction in functionality which made me look into using MATE (which lasted for a while, until I cracked and went back to Windows 7 for reasons of tension with the Linux ecosystem.)

      Please do not confuse the gnome shell experience with nautilus. I use Gnome 3 applications with cinnamon and it is excellent. As for my reasons against two panels and why I think its bizarre. I can open more than one instance of "Files". Two panels made sense in DOS. I got driven to Linux by Windows by the abuses by the company and the Spyware/DRM in their [not your] OS Windows 8 is not where I want to be :)

    10. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      How can you say that? Compact view is the best view of all systems. I've been using it for years as my default view. I always thought it was stupid on Windows to have each column the same width and use up extra space when one file has a really long name. Choice should be what it is all about.

      My opinion is just that an opinion. Although if the need is to have a "Compact View" I would be requesting a better resize "Icon View" [hold down ctrl and move scroll wheel]...and that I would agree is useful.

      The full post on nautilus is here http://blogs.gnome.org/mccann/2012/08/01/cross-cut/ and it does talk about the reasons for removing compact view, and I agree the explanation given is weak, without a better replacement which I still think is an improved Icon View, and this quote "The view itself was not without problems and we would rather focus on making icon and list rock." seems to support that...maybe.

    11. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, the list view is great and I use it all the time.

      But in terms of information density, the compact view lets you see a lot more. It's particularly useful on devices with lower resolutions.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    12. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by humanrev · · Score: 1

      As for my reasons against two panels and why I think its bizarre. I can open more than one instance of "Files". Two panels made sense in DOS.

      Ah yes, "Files". I hate that new name for Nautilus. I think I'll keep using the old name to spite them. :) As for opening another instance, sure you can do that. But that was the same argument that some people used against tabbed browsing when it first appeared. Now everyone uses tabs in a single browser instance simply because it's more convenient.

      I got driven to Linux by Windows by the abuses by the company and the Spyware/DRM in their [not your] OS Windows 8 is not where I want to be :)

      It's hard to care about such abuses by Microsoft when the alternatives have too many niggling issues to use (for me anyway). I'll accept the Devil if he makes my life less stressful. As for spyware/DRM, unless there's a tangible issue that it brings I'll live with it. Linux is just now too painful to use on the desktop, and I'm too old to care about switching anymore.

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    13. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, "Files". I hate that new name for Nautilus. I think I'll keep using the old name to spite them. :) As for opening another instance, sure you can do that. But that was the same argument that some people used against tabbed browsing when it first appeared. Now everyone uses tabs in a single browser instance simply because it's more convenient

      It's hard to care about such abuses by Microsoft when the alternatives have too many niggling issues to use (for me anyway). I'll accept the Devil if he makes my life less stressful. As for spyware/DRM, unless there's a tangible issue that it brings I'll live with it. Linux is just now too painful to use on the desktop, and I'm too old to care about switching anymore.

      I love the new name Files...its a meaningful name. Now "Cheese" "Tomboy Notes" and "Gimp" need to be changed to "Cam", "Notes" and "Image Manipulator"

      Using Niggles as an excuse when Microsoft itself is plagued with Niggles...its constant maintenance alone which is incredibly stressful. I don't think Microsoft Spyware/DRM will ever be acceptable issue especially when the functionality of simply swopping my hardware and carrying on working is so precious a commodity to me If hardware fails on an OEM machine its not pleasant, as for the spywhere. Microsoft has sold out too many times. But even without that their behaviour is simply too awful for any ethical person to accept.

    14. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by humanrev · · Score: 1

      I love the new name Files...its a meaningful name. Now "Cheese" "Tomboy Notes" and "Gimp" need to be changed to "Cam", "Notes" and "Image Manipulator"

      I can understand and agree with that. Program names like "Word" and "Writer" are good because they associate clearly with the function of the program. "Nautilus" does not.

      Using Niggles as an excuse when Microsoft itself is plagued with Niggles...its constant maintenance alone which is incredibly stressful. I don't think Microsoft Spyware/DRM will ever be acceptable issue especially when the functionality of simply swopping my hardware and carrying on working is so precious a commodity to me If hardware fails on an OEM machine its not pleasant, as for the spywhere. Microsoft has sold out too many times. But even without that their behaviour is simply too awful for any ethical person to accept.

      Most software has niggles, it's just a matter of what you find more annoying. If you've spent more time in Windows than Linux (like I have), the Linux niggles will likely be more grating and vice versa. As for the DRM (I assume you're referring to the Window Activation stuff), I have a small program which can activate any version of Windows 7, including the re-activation of a previously activated system. It's great and ensures I never have to deal with these problems. I could move to Linux and not have to deal with it at all, sure, but then I lose the benefits of the Windows ecosystem.

      That last bit though, "their behaviour is simply too awful for any ethical person to accept" - you'll need to clarify that. By your logic, the 90%+ people who are computer users and use Windows, they are unethical? Most of them wouldn't even know of Microsoft's business dealings. Even those who do and continue to use it, maybe they realize it's an imperfect world and when everyone else is using Windows and Microsoft products, it's easier just to go along with the flow? I'm aware of Microsoft's behavior - I just don't think about it continuously when I'm using my computer, particularly when there are far, far worse companies out there. If Linux is stressing me out by being difficult, I'm not able to motivate myself by thinking about Microsoft's abuses - it's not enough to outweigh my issues with Linux, sorry.

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    15. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Is there even a point in using GNOME when shit like this happens and with people in charge being such enormous assholes?

      No. Tell them to stuff it. They are irrelevant. Switch to Xfce.

    16. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by caseih · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Mate desktop runs great on Fedora 17 with a third-party repo, and will be in the 18 repos. You can still have Gnome 2.

    17. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by fnj · · Score: 2

      Did you bother trying the current latest version of Xfce? I did and I was amazed. Steady progress. I don't think it lacks anything of significance now. There are some applets that aren't quite as mature and well developed, and maybe one or two that are missing, but that's it.

      I was a GNOME 2 fan as well; still am as a matter of fact, but I would be happy with Xfce when GNOME 2 is no longer an option (and maybe before that given its steady and rapid and evolution in unerringly the right direction).

      Perhaps it would be helpful if you could say what stopped you from liking Xfce.

    18. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      horizontal scrolling IS fucking horrible dipshit. I don't really know what's being argued about, but you are calling them assholes for thinking horizontal scrolling is horrible... STFU, GTFO

    19. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. The Chatbar should be replaced with a message icon on the menu bar.

    20. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by kav2k · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh god.. I read the bug comments too. The original poster refers to this gem, quote from developer:

      Please go to random forums on the internet instead - there you can add your unhelpful comments that might make developers not want to look at certain bug reports anymore.

      Well, that pretty much sums up Gnome development team's attitude.

    21. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by marsu_k · · Score: 1

      Not really a fan of notifications either. In KDE the device information just goes away and I have no idea where to and how to access it again =P

      Click on the device notifier icon in the systray? It should be visible if there are any devices connected. You can also place the device notifier widget on your desktop, if you are so inclined.

    22. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I could probably be ok with (by choice at least) having the last user and message slide up and let me answer it.

      In KDE + kopete (?) it shows for a short while and goes away. Either you answer or you don't.

      Some people may not want it to cover whatever they are using though. Like if you played a game and it popped up it would be very disturbing. Same for a video clip.

    23. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't think I could find something such but rather some notifier thing which listed 2-3 names but I'm not sure.

    24. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is is really nothing compared to other bug reports you will find in gnome. You wouldn't believe how bug reporters are treated.

      Also, this is nothing new. gnome Users have been treated like scum since day one.

    25. Re:Nautilus? Compact? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see Gnome 2 not being an option considering how active MATE is.

  13. Re:ah, Miguel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's part of it. The other part is that Ubuntu, the de facto consumer-grade Linux distro, doesn't use KDE by default.

  14. Only in software... by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...can (3.0 + 0.6) be less than 2.

    1. Re:Only in software... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...can (3.0 + 0.6) be less than 2.

      In a mod 3.3 number system, yes :)

    2. Re:Only in software... by QilessQi · · Score: 1

      Well played, sir, well played.

  15. Re:ah, Miguel... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    What I want to know is, when is it going to be the year of Windows on the desktop? With the new not-Metro interface, it looks like WIndows is getting pretty close to being as powerful and sophisticated as GNUStep...

  16. Why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hipsters and people that sway easily to trendiness, are why computers are starting to suck. Whoever let these monkeys program needs to be drawn and quartered. "Oooh, let's take the close button, and not actually close or exit the application, let's just make it disappear but still running in the background, because users don't know what they want to do anyway." (Banshee, Pidgin, just to name a few). Let's just throw away 40+ years of HCI and ergonomics because touch screens are the new rage.

    1. Re:Why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they get that behavior from copying os x. if you want to quit an app on os x you use cmd + q not the mouse. the "close" button just closes that specific window not the app. i like it because i know the key commands for os x but i'm always saddened to see even "pro" users like photographers or designers who don't realize hitting the "close" button only closes the windows and doesn't quit the app! i hit cmd + tab on their workstation and there's like 6 adobe apps running in the background. i realize if you're a photographer or graphics designer you don't need to know all the nitty gritty unixy details of os x but you should at least understand how the desktop works! *sigh*

    2. Re:Why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The worst part is that the GNOME team never, ever learns from past mistakes. After all the negative criticism they've gotten since the launch of GNOME 3 they still pull shit like this. Seriously, I don't even know where to begin with that one. Apparently they think it's too much work to navigate a filesystem so they removed the left directory navigation pane. WHY?!! If it's there - they'll make sure to break it (or remove it) just so they can show off some bizarre "idea" about how things should work in la-la-land. If they had just ported Gnome 2 to Gtk+3 and reworked some stuff under the hood, like replacing CORBA and gconf with something sane, they'd still be the most widely used *NIX desktop. But, no - they had to reinvent Gnome 3 into some pretentious bullshit GUI they have to brainwash people into liking.

    3. Re:Why we can't have nice things. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Agree 100%

      > Whoever let these monkeys program needs to be drawn and quartered.
      And flogged.

      I'm looking at you Skype ... and all the retarded UI designers ...

    4. Re:Why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hipsters and people that sway easily to trendiness, are why computers are starting to suck. Whoever let these monkeys program needs to be drawn and quartered. "Oooh, let's take the close button, and not actually close or exit the application, let's just make it disappear but still running in the background, because users don't know what they want to do anyway." (Banshee, Pidgin, just to name a few). Let's just throw away 40+ years of HCI and ergonomics because touch screens are the new rage.

      Process management has been abstracted away from end users for a long time now. UI and kernel scheduler view of what tasks are running are different in all but the most basic systems.

      So, what is your definition of an application, an X window? A single process can draw multiple windows, an application might have many different processes and IPC.

      There's no reason to shove low level process management in front of the user and make it part of their every day computer usage. Sorry bro, move on.

    5. Re:Why we can't have nice things. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, you are an idiot!

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  17. Copy to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm glad to see GNOME finally adopt Copy To and Move To in their file manager. That was one feature which I loved in KDE and drew me away from GNOME, oh, about ten years ago. Odd it has taken them this long to include the feature, but I'm glad they finally did. The summary doesn't mention it, but have the developers finally enabled the shutdown button by default? The "press ALT to show" concept was really silly.

    1. Re:Copy to.... by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see GNOME finally adopt Copy To and Move To in their file manager. That was one feature which I loved in KDE and drew me away from GNOME, oh, about ten years ago.

      Even 10 years ago you could simply use another file manager (KDE's Konqueror or even something completely different).
      I never understood why people change their whole DE when they just like a single application better.

      Why not judge each component on its own merit? In my case most happens to be KDE-based but not everything. (eg. I use Firefox and GIMP)

    2. Re:Copy to.... by someones · · Score: 1

      10 years ago: yes.
      1 year ago: not anymore, thants to the intagration of filemanagers to DEs...

    3. Re:Copy to.... by unapersson · · Score: 1

      It's had it for years and I use it all the time, it's just a bit hidden: middle click and drag. Which gives you (if memory serves): copy here, move here or link here. Haven't checked yet what's different about the new implementation.

    4. Re:Copy to.... by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      1 year ago: not anymore, thants to the intagration of filemanagers to DEs...

      WTF?
      Dolphin still runs under GNOME.

  18. This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...and Gnome in specific.

    Some rogue programmer often makes it his or her holy mission to force everybody to use the software the same way that THEY USE IT. This means that something I've used for a while might suddenly lose functionality in the name of a "bugfix". Also, these programmers almost never consult usability groups in order to figure out how peopole ACTUALLY use the software.

    And yes, I realize that this is going to be -1 (troll) within a ten minutes. I do not care.

    1. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the programmer, if it was just one lunatic, then there would be other sane who would counter him. No, the problem is people like these on /. who criticise everything. Eventually, they'll give in and do as the "users" tell them.

      The most vocal are usually the fanboys from whatever fringe cult, and manage to make it look how they wanted, then they start bashing it for looking too much like whatever they were thinking of.

      I was very happy when, after they made Gnome 3 managed to stayed with it for so long. They were truly making a path unique to Gnome.

      Compare this to games developers that give in to their fans and give them whatever they want, usually go bankrupt.

    2. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Write post

      2. End with "I'll probably get modded -1 troll for this..."

      3. ...

      4. Profit!

    3. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the problem is people like these on /. who criticise everything.

      That's stupid. You're stupid. Everything is stupid. Nyah :P

      Compare this to games developers that give in to their fans and give them whatever they want, usually go bankrupt.

      Like how Valve started circling the drain the moment TF2 went free to play?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by poisonborz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't want to mention the Apple Effect, but still, I mention the Apple Effect: it's the Apple Effect. Developers think more and more often that there exists a holy path of usage, one that is so smooth, elegant and minimal that everyone finds it pleasing. Mayor usage patterns are becoming linear, and the user is left with the fact that changing background, color, and font-size are now billed advanced and sophisticated personalization options. Less options, less support problems, less things to understand.

    5. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should be labeled troll, because this is a problem with software everywhere. Apple one day woke up and decided they wouldn't support any software compiled before 2006. OK, now there's nothing you can do about it. This happens with closed source and open source.

      The difference is, with open source, you can actually do something about it if you're willing to put in the effort.

    6. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fortunately, FOSS provides a solution as well, called forking. For example, MATE is a fork from GNOME 2.0 and will continue development the way GNOME SHOULD have.

      Unlike proprietary software where the users may find themselves at the mercy of a chair throwing nut case, nobody can actually force the users to follow them down the rabbit hole.

      As for usability groups, they must have an uncanny knack for never including people who think the way I do in their focus groups because I find FOSS much easier to use in most cases.

      But if neither MATE nor GNOME is your cup of tea, there's also KDE, XFCE, FVWM, and a great many others you can try. This isn't some sort of one size fits none dictatorship, you have choices.

    7. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same thing with commercial software. Some company forces Metro down the throats of most of the world and most of the world has no choice but accepting it. BTW, you got +5 Insightful, maybe I'll get -1 Troll if anybody notices this AC post.

    8. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? The majority of F/OSS projects do not suffer from this "my way or the highway" attitude. I've really only seen the attitude when it has to do with (G)UI design (presumably because it is so subjective). And there are a TON of different "desktop environments" that cater to our individually different tastes, so its OK. Heck, even GTK and QT apps get along pretty well nowadays. Tolerance and coexistence are the values we need to promote, so that diversity can thrive (without weakening the ecosystem). Of course, it would be best if we could avoid duplication... but that's another discussion.

    9. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only should be labeled troll if you are actually trolling, not giving your opinion.

    10. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by collet · · Score: 1

      extensions.gnome.org

    11. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

      I don't want to mention the Apple Effect, but still, I mention the Apple Effect: it's the Apple Effect.
      Developers think more and more often that there exists a holy path of usage, one that is so smooth, elegant and minimal that everyone finds it pleasing. Mayor usage patterns are becoming linear, and the user is left with the fact that changing background, color, and font-size are now billed advanced and sophisticated personalization options. Less options, less support problems, less things to understand.

      ...but that is not what is happening or has happened. Its nothing to do with Apple. In fact the Human Interface Guidelines are written by people [Gasp] with nothing to do with Apple. What Gnome is doing is removing clutter...and having sensible defaults, and on the whole I would say they have done an excellent job until recently.

    12. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and Gnome in specific.

      Some rogue programmer often makes it his or her holy mission to force everybody to use the software the same way that THEY USE IT. This means that something I've used for a while might suddenly lose functionality in the name of a "bugfix". Also, these programmers almost never consult usability groups in order to figure out how peopole ACTUALLY use the software.

      And yes, I realize that this is going to be -1 (troll) within a ten minutes. I do not care.

      You do realize people write free software to solve their own problems right? I mean what did you give in exchange for it? Write your own software and you're hear moaning and bitching about how it doesn't do what other people want. Nothing against solving your own problems and sharing the work with others, that's very noble, I do that myself.

      The problem with F/OSS is it's self-serving right to the core, where the source code is only valuable to people with software development experience. It's a great idea, free stuff (for the needy), and open source for other developers pretty much, but IMO, you have to be _completely_ deluded to see F/OSS purism as an end-state.

      Money, exchanged for goods and services, is an incentive to appease the person holding money in his hands and not yourself. It's very simple guys, you trade something to get what you want. The world isn't going to slow down while everybody suddenly starts doing what everyone around them wants.

      I take free software more seriously when it is supported by professional developers with a guiding purpose and a specific interest in helping _other_ people, like a non-profit organization. Even then, I have to wonder just how committed say the Apache Foundation is to helping me when all I do is download their stuff...
      But without that, it's just someone else's hobby dude, you have no right to complain.

      Speaking of user interfaces, why is there a Cancel button right next to Quote Parent that instantly throws away your work in progress, I have to question the logic.

    13. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Shut up, hairyfeet!

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    14. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      You do realize people write free software to solve their own problems right?

      And those are not the people who write GNOME 3. GNOME 3 developers write free software to feel important and powerful, just like all other pretentious assholes.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    15. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's 'useability commitees' that are usually the source for asstarded designs. The kind that only really make sense in the highest reaches of the ivory tower where they huff mostly vacuum. Everyone at gnome considers themselves 'designers' who apparently don't actually use the software they create. Just watch those 'this is how we made gnome...better" youtube videos to get an idea.

    16. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Uniqueness doesn't guarantee success nor should it be a measure of it.

    17. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yes.. and if osx is the shining example of a good HIG, these people are high on crack..or vacuum..or something. What they consider clutter is to others, a needed part of their workflow that makes things a lot easier. For example, the menu-at-the-top concept sucks for workflows with lots of applications and/or windows open.. On a 24" or larger screen, why should I have to click a little window on the lower right, then go all the way up to the upper left of the screen to access its menus? asinine.. Of course, if you accept the HIGs (apparent) fisher price attitude towards users, where fullscreen one-task-at-a-time rules the day, it doesn't matter so much since the menus will always be right above the 'window.'

    18. Re:This is my problem with F/OSS in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So maybe when someone makes a really good fork, they should adopt for an icon an Orange...

  19. Re:ah, Miguel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh man, and this AC above me is a genius! We should all donate money to their retirement fund!

  20. Performance? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nowhere in the post does the word performance even come up. As computers become faster, there are those of us who want to use that increased speed and power for the applications we run (whether it is video processing, video games, or just a ton of youtube tabs open in our bulky web browser of choice). Don't get me wrong, we want a desktop environment that is aesthetically pleasing and intuitive to our workflow. I just don't see why we need to keep significantly bumping up the performance cost of the desktop to get there.

    1. Re:Performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i wish they stuck to ripping off windows 98. seriously, windows 98 might have been missing some "pro" features but the desktop was lean and mean. now with windows 8 on the horizon i bet a lot of people are going to have nostalgia for the good ol' windows 98 design. trying to copy windows 98 made you think about how good linux is, trying to copy os x just makes you think how shitty open source desktops are. i'd rather have a better windows 98 than a shittier os x, know what i mean?

    2. Re:Performance? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Enlightenment or a tiling window manager?
      Qupzilla?
      Minitube and no flash?

    3. Re:Performance? by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people keep bringing up performance. Yes, Gnome 3 has a lot of animations, but this is done by the GPU which would otherwise sit idle.

      Gnome 3 feels much faster to me than Gnome 2. I think a big part of this is that Mutter is much faster than Compiz. Maybe this is why Gnome Shell feels faster than Unity (which uses Compiz)?

    4. Re:Performance? by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      If you really believe what you're saying, you could install FVWM95. But few people use it, probably because Windows 98 sucked.

    5. Re:Performance? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Yes, Gnome 3 has a lot of animations, but this is done by the GPU which would otherwise sit idle.

      And not wasting ENERGY on useless fluff.

    6. Re:Performance? by Yahma · · Score: 1

      Phoronix ran benchmarks of all the popular Window Manager and Desktop Environments, that included: Kwin (KDE), Mutter (Gnome-Shell), XFCE and Unity. Guess who came out on top, in terms of performance?

      XFCE won, with Mutter (Gnome-Shell) a very close second. The conclusion was, XFCE and Gnome 3 performed best across a wide variety of graphic drivers.

    7. Re:Performance? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. performance extends battery life..
      2. performance expands applications' potential..
      3. performance is vital to all users..

      I'll bet all the GL accelerated window managers have much higher, perceptible latency than the old 2D accelerated blitter that comes with X. I even notice it on relatively powerful gpus, and on the typical gpus found in laptops, it's painful. This happens when a comparative metric fuckton of extra data gets shoved every time a window is moved, button clicked, or menu animated.. Sure, the bitmaps (or vectors) are in the gpu vram, but there's a lot of overhead in system land, and pixel shaders+layered surfaces have a way of bringing nearly any gpu to its knees. The shading and effects are not worth having my system taxed like this just to render a window. Not being able to turn them off is a deal breaker.

    8. Re:Performance? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Thus ensuring the system wont work on most GPUs as they are not properly supported on FOSS.

      (Desktop switching fails massively in "Gnome classic with effects".)

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:Performance? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      The performance cost of GNOME 3 is not high. I run it on a 4 year old laptop with an IGP and it works pretty well. In fact, if you have a GPU you should be glad that desktops have begun making use of it. Compositing pushes a lot of the work of building the desktop onto the graphics processor freeing up the CPU to be doing other stuff.

    10. Re:Performance? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Compiz seems to be missing, and it's really a major WM.

  21. Windows 8 by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please enforce a 12 month moratorium on copying anything, absolutely anything, from Windows 8 that is not already in common usage. Do not under any circumstances tolerate or condone Windows 8 penis envy.

    1. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I searched my win8 box and I can't find a penis but it does have something on the front that looks like a very uniform vagina. Can't penetrate so far... perhaps with more lube?

    2. Re:Windows 8 by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2

      I suspected Win8 was dickless, thanks for confirming it!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  22. Why Linux? by jones_supa · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why are you using Linux desktop? Windows 7 and MacOS X deliver you a premium experience without having to worry about broken shit like this.

    1. Re:Why Linux? by theskipper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Protip: The "Post Anonymously" checkbox is located above Comment Subject ;)

    2. Re:Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get back to me when Windows can run WindowMaker, OpenBox, e17 or Awesome.

    3. Re:Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't stand by your statements, don't say them.

      By a guy without a /. account

      *Waves finger at all the people complaining about data mining while using named accounts*

    4. Re:Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because OSX has a shit window manager. (Although Gnome 3 also has a mediocre one.)

    5. Re:Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left Windows at its XP iteration and Gnome 2 was so much better at that time. Don't know about Win7 but who cares, my Linux desktop (Ubuntu 12.04 Classic Desktop camouflaged as Gnome 2) is doing everything I need.

      OSX always had a broken UI as far as I'm concerned.

    6. Re:Why Linux? by collet · · Score: 2

      Why are you using Linux desktop? Windows 7 and MacOS X deliver you a premium experience without having to worry about broken shit like this.

      Premium experience? More like "experience forced for every single user because they all totally use computers in the EXACT SAME WAY".

      Where are "extensions for OSX", eh? I have to use an iMac in my design class and I really, really would take Windows 95 over that "experience".

    7. Re:Why Linux? by cecom · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't really realize what a premium experience means... I don't want to restart the OS when I install a browser, for example. Don't get me wrong, the Linux desktop has way too many kinks, but the problem with the Windows mono-culture is that people don't even see the huge problems because they are so used to them.

    8. Re:Why Linux? by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

      Why are you using Linux desktop? Windows 7 and MacOS X deliver you a premium experience without having to worry about broken shit like this.

      Because they don't offer me a premium experience. They offer me an expensive underwhelming experience.

    9. Re:Why Linux? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why are you using Linux desktop? Windows 7 and MacOS X deliver you a premium experience without having to worry about broken shit like this.

      I like Ubuntu + Unity very much.
      And Ubuntu is more secure, has less malware, and is open. It is better than Windows.

    10. Re:Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to restart the OS when I install a browser, for example.

      Seriously? At least 99% of the programs I've installed on windows don't require a restart.

      Nor did installing Firefox or Chrome browsers require a restart, they just worked.

      Yes I know a few programs do require a restart, but you're allowed to like Linux better than windows without coming up with a fake reason like that.

    11. Re:Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to restart the OS when I install a browser, for example.

      Beside after a Windows Update, I never ever reboot. Windows 7 is very stable and effective. IIRC Ubuntu also ask to reboot after some updates.

    12. Re:Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have never upgraded IE. Moron.

    13. Re:Why Linux? by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      When we say Gnome sucks, we're talking relative to other open-source desktops. Gnome 3 annoyed me, so I'm now a happy XFCE user. At work I'm forced to use Windows 7. Now that really sucks. When Windows finally figures out how to delete/move a couple of thousand files in less than half an hour, then maybe we can start talking about a 'premium experience'.

    14. Re:Why Linux? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Why are you using Linux desktop? Windows 7 and MacOS X deliver you a premium experience without having to worry about broken shit like this.

      So, I can finally define window rules in Windows 7? Or deactivate those shitty effects? Or make the window borders 1px wide? Or move windows with Alt+LeftMouseButton and Rwsize with Alt+RightMouseButton anywhere on the window? I can have finally multiple desktops? Or a sane window management behavior (windows can draw over their decoration, wtf?)? Can I finally move windows which are not responding?

      I think you meant: "Why are you using Gnome3? Windows 7 and MacOS X deliver you a premium experience without having to worry about broken shit like this." That's still arguable, but I'm not arguing about Gnome3...

    15. Re:Why Linux? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Ok, so, where do I disable titlebars, borders, and the taskbar? I don't need/use them, so I'd rather not have them cluttering up space.
      Also, could you remind me of the hex mask I need to calculate and set in the registry to disable click-to-focus?

    16. Re:Why Linux? by FreonTrip · · Score: 1

      Incidentally you can make the window borders one pixel wide. Right-click on the desktop --> Personalize --> Window Color --> Advanced appearance settings... --> and then, find Border Padding and set it to a value of 0. That's clearly a lot of digging to turn it off, but it can be done. Your other cited issues are 100% valid - I can't believe how long some glitchy behaviors have existed in the Explorer. I've no doubt that much of Win8's internals will be superior to Win7's, but every single thing I've heard about the new Explorer sounds like a trainwreck.

    17. Re:Why Linux? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Really? Gonna try this out on my machine at work, thanks.

  23. The way I read it was... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    GNOME 3.6 To Include Major Revulsions

    Yup.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  24. Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why even have a lock screen if you can do things on it under the current user?

    The point of a lock screen is to prevent other people from using your computer while you're away (if you're not away, then why was it locked?) Say I'm playing some music then pause and lock the computer to go do something. It sounds like another person can just walk by and resume my music and turn up the volume. Not good.

    A person could also come by and max out the volume on all locked computers. What a way to troll someone. This feature lets someone physically damage the user's hearing! User keeps his/her volume low as the music is very loud or his headphones amplify the sounds. User pauses music, locks screen and gets up for a break, stupid student/co-worker/random cafe person comes by and maxs out the volume while leaving no traces, user comes back puts on headphones, and unlocks the screen. Then he un-pauses his music expecting it to be as he left it, but BAM! HAY HAY HAY, [NOW YOU HAVE HEARING DAMAGE] GOODBYE

    Do people no longer think about their changes or why things are the way they were?

    1. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      It's an optional feature, just don't enable it.

      I would say the volume control's true benefit is being able to lower/mute the volume while locked. Handy situations?
      -You want to play mp3s while reading a book / cooking / whatever, but having to type your password to adjust the volume is a chore.
      -your alarm clock is an mp3 played by cron (I solve this by turning off my speakers, not really an option for laptops).
      -you are in a lecture, the lock screen has come on, and that web page with randomly cycling ads has just started playing a loud flash ad (current solution: pull battery).
      -a metal/rock/etc song somehow made it into your "nature sounds for sleeping" mp3 list, somewhere around two hours into the list. You need to lower the volume to avoid pissing off neighbors. The act of entering your 16+character passphrase with requisite numbers and special characters is enough to bring you back to "fully awake".

    2. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by someones · · Score: 1

      None of your reasons imply the need of locking the screen at all.

    3. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      None of your reasons imply the need of locking the screen at all.

      In work and university environments, you have no choice. If anything, why are people criticizing a feature, when, choice is EXACTLY what it brings? If someone builds it, YOU will come.

    4. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by Microlith · · Score: 1

      This feature lets someone physically damage the user's hearing!

      No, this feature lets people fiddle with things. An asshole would turn up a computer so loud it'd damage someone's hearing.

      Do people no longer think about their changes or why things are the way they were?

      Not speaking for the GNOME people, but your example goes way beyond simple hyperbole and off into the land of the utterly ridiculous.

    5. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's an optional feature, just don't enable it.

      Not for much longer! This is GNOME after all...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      It's an optional feature, just don't enable it.

      I would say the volume control's true benefit is being able to lower/mute the volume while locked. Handy situations?
      -You want to play mp3s while reading a book / cooking / whatever, but having to type your password to adjust the volume is a chore.

      Why did you lock your computer if you're going to stand right next to it?

      -your alarm clock is an mp3 played by cron (I solve this by turning off my speakers, not really an option for laptops).

      Again, do you need to lock your computer to do this? If someone's going to use it while you're sleeping, they might just steal it too.

      -you are in a lecture, the lock screen has come on, and that web page with randomly cycling ads has just started playing a loud flash ad (current solution: pull battery).

      (a) you could have just not-installed flash, or at least used flashblock, (b) what sort of website loads flash ads while the computer is locked?

      -a metal/rock/etc song somehow made it into your "nature sounds for sleeping" mp3 list, somewhere around two hours into the list. You need to lower the volume to avoid pissing off neighbors. The act of entering your 16+character passphrase with requisite numbers and special characters is enough to bring you back to "fully awake".

      All these scenarios involve you sitting infront of your locked computer. Why did you lock it if you're siting infront of it in a lecture!?

    7. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Says someone who has never used Gnome, or possibly ever linux. How did you ever get to +2 by pulling stuff like this out of your ass?

      For most popular Linux distros, the gnome screensaver by default locks after several minutes of inactivity. Locking screensavers are quite useful if your computer is in a quasi-public area, such as a kitchen, college dorm, library, etc.

      And a particularly stupid counter of yours:

      Again, do you need to lock your computer to do this? If someone's going to use it while you're sleeping, they might just steal it too.

      In addition to it being impractical to disable/enable the auto-lock situationally, do you really feel it is more likely for your sibling/college roommate/girlfriend to steal your computer than poke around out of curiosity?

    8. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Says someone who has never used Gnome, or possibly ever linux. How did you ever get to +2 by pulling stuff like this out of your ass?

      I do use linux actually. Linux (mainly arch) and BSD are the only OS I've used in the last several years.

      For most popular Linux distros, the gnome screensaver by default locks after several minutes of inactivity. Locking screensavers are quite useful if your computer is in a quasi-public area, such as a kitchen, college dorm, library, etc.

      And a particularly stupid counter of yours:

      Why can't you manually lock it when you're about to walk away from it? You know, just bind one of those useless media keys to "lock computer" and you're done. There nothing complicated about that.

      Also, if it's auto-locked after a few minutes, people are free to use it if they start just as soon as you're out of the room.

      Again, do you need to lock your computer to do this? If someone's going to use it while you're sleeping, they might just steal it too.

      In addition to it being impractical to disable/enable the auto-lock situationally, do you really feel it is more likely for your sibling/college roommate/girlfriend to steal your computer than poke around out of curiosity?

      I wouldn't live with people I can't trust. If you think your roommate/gf will use snoop into your computer while you're asleep, you should get a new roommate/gf. Seriously.

    9. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Why can't you manually lock it when you're about to walk away from it? You know, just bind one of those useless media keys to "lock computer" and you're done. There nothing complicated about that.

      Yes, because you always know ahead of time whether you're stepping away for a few minutes or for longer. The default is far more useful.

      Also, if it's auto-locked after a few minutes, people are free to use it if they start just as soon as you're out of the room.

      In the 10 seconds I thought of this I can come up with about 10 scenarios where an autolock is better than your suggestion.

      I wouldn't live with people I can't trust. If you think your roommate/gf will use snoop into your computer while you're asleep, you should get a new roommate/gf. Seriously.

      Spoken like someone who has never gone away to college - the way mine was set up the desks were in a shared common area with 5 other people. You could fit a desk in the bedroom by stacking the dressers and bunking the beds, but then, who gets the desk?
      And I bet you had to edit your response from saying "get a new sibling".
      As far as the girlfriend thing is concerned, "likely to want to use my computer while I'm away" doesn't even make my list of disqualifiers, but to each their own.

      My whole point is, not everyone's needs are the same as yours. This new option is useful for people who have their computers in a shared space. Those who live in their parent's basement or alone with their cat need not apply.

    10. Re:Excellent For Student/Office Trolls by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Why can't you manually lock it when you're about to walk away from it? You know, just bind one of those useless media keys to "lock computer" and you're done. There nothing complicated about that.

      Yes, because you always know ahead of time whether you're stepping away for a few minutes or for longer. The default is far more useful.

      Lock it every time and be done with it. It's just a keypress.

      Also, if it's auto-locked after a few minutes, people are free to use it if they start just as soon as you're out of the room.

      In the 10 seconds I thought of this I can come up with about 10 scenarios where an autolock is better than your suggestion.

      It's a shame you couldn't describe any of those.

      I wouldn't live with people I can't trust. If you think your roommate/gf will use snoop into your computer while you're asleep, you should get a new roommate/gf. Seriously.

      Spoken like someone who has never gone away to college - the way mine was set up the desks were in a shared common area with 5 other people. You could fit a desk in the bedroom by stacking the dressers and bunking the beds, but then, who gets the desk?

      I studied 1800km away from home. I wouldn't rent a room with some stranger. Don't know anyone else who does that either. It's pretty funny that you can afford to go away to collage but can't afford a place to live in.

      And I bet you had to edit your response from saying "get a new sibling".
      As far as the girlfriend thing is concerned, "likely to want to use my computer while I'm away" doesn't even make my list of disqualifiers, but to each their own.

      My whole point is, not everyone's needs are the same as yours. This new option is useful for people who have their computers in a shared space. Those who live in their parent's basement or alone with their cat need not apply.

  25. Vista Gremlins by puddingebola · · Score: 2

    I've been running Vista on my computer at home for years. No GNOMEs yet, but plenty of gremlins.

  26. Major Revisions? by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 1

    I'd prefer it if it included major reversions... of all the bad ideas that have crept in over the last couple years.

    --
    Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
    1. Re:Major Revisions? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      That exists, it's called Mate. The developers are merging removed stuff back into the Gnome2 desktop.

  27. I hear all these people switching to OSX. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 4, Informative

    And I start to wonder if these are just Apple Trolls. Listen, It's easy enough to switch to KDE or XFCE. I run Mandriva 2011. I use KDE. I have my own custom KDE theme installed with rpm. It works fine. There is no reason to abandon Linux because Gnome sucks, just run whatever programs you please under XFCE or KDE if Gnome is so awful.

    You are an idiot if you switch to OSX or Windows over this.

    1. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by butchersong · · Score: 2

      Would you consider them to be idiots if they got pissed off and decided to switch to a distro that focused on another desktop environment? Run FreeBSD instead? How about Darwin? I did recently switch to KDE and after some initial pains I'm finding that I like it quite a bit. It will probably be my new DE for a while now. I'm looking at new laptops though and seriously considering a macbook. I don't think I could bring myself to run OSX on a desktop but my next laptop? Maybe. Note I have absolutely no prior exposure to or fondness for OSX.

    2. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu and hence Gnome user since 8.04 here. Reason why I am moving soonish to OS X is that I am tired of each "upgrade" of Ubuntu (and Gnome) breaking things and changing things. Sure, I can switch to a different distro. Sure, I can switch to different desktop environments. But that's exactly what I am tired of. All the switching and fixing. I want to do my work, not having to Google for hacks, extensions, tweaks, etc. My work (freelance Perl programmer) already involves a lot of problem solving, don't need additional problem solving to make the tools that I need actually work. It's like picking up an hammer and having to shape in into a screwdriver before you can use it. If that's what you like, good luck. But don't call us idiots because we have better things to do. Especially since as soon as I have figured out how to change that hammer into a screwdriver efficiently the hammer is replaced with a fiddle in the next upgrade of Ubuntu and/or Gnome.

    3. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I use Mac OSX at work, but it is inferor to xfce4 or cinnamon. more buttons to click and hold to do simple tasks.

    4. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by humanrev · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot if you switch to OSX or Windows over this.

      Guess I'm an idiot. I've run out of patience in all this infighting and tension in the Linux community. I just want some stability in desktop environments. I know everyone hates Windows 8 but Windows 7 is going to be around for quite a while still, so I'm sticking with it.

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    5. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot if you switch to OSX or Windows over this.

      Guess I'm an idiot. I've run out of patience in all this infighting and tension in the Linux community. I just want some stability in desktop environments. I know everyone hates Windows 8 but Windows 7 is going to be around for quite a while still, so I'm sticking with it.

      "infighting and tension" I don't drink Milk anymore because of All the "infighting and tension" that happens between cows. I'm going back to drinking mud.

    6. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu and hence Gnome user since 8.04 here. Reason why I am moving soonish to OS X is that I am tired of each "upgrade" of Ubuntu (and Gnome) breaking things and changing things. Sure, I can switch to a different distro. Sure, I can switch to different desktop environments. But that's exactly what I am tired of. All the switching and fixing. I want to do my work, not having to Google for hacks, extensions, tweaks, etc. My work (freelance Perl programmer) already involves a lot of problem solving, don't need additional problem solving to make the tools that I need actually work. It's like picking up an hammer and having to shape in into a screwdriver before you can use it. If that's what you like, good luck. But don't call us idiots because we have better things to do. Especially since as soon as I have figured out how to change that hammer into a screwdriver efficiently the hammer is replaced with a fiddle in the next upgrade of Ubuntu and/or Gnome.

      If you really use Ubuntu your not using Gnome 3 you are using Unity so not I suspect using extentions as you claim. Personally I would love a list of all the things you "fixed". Which I suspect is nothing. If stability really what you wanted you would have chosen the fantastic stable Debian or LTS Ubuntu both lack current edge features but, well not much fixing. I suspect your post is disingenuous which is a lot worse than being an idiot.

    7. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by ADRA · · Score: 1

      One Note: No right click!

      Well, you canif you buy a third party mouse, but all the mac lovers will ridicule you forever after.

      --
      Bye!
    8. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, major revisions of Windows / Mac tend to fck things up also, maybe to a slightly lesser degree. Anyways, there are plenty of Linux distros that don't hump the bleeding edge, and plenty of spins of popular distros which have DE's that don't decide to change their paradigms on a dime. But of course, this does take more than a few minutes of research to investigate, so...

      --
      Bye!
    9. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking as a former Ubuntu advocate (since Dapper, woot) it's not just GNOME that's driving ppl to OSX or Windows. It's Unity too. There's a race to become shittier by adopting all of OSX's worst features (global menu DAMN YOU) and leaving out the good stuff (Nautilus' second pane was pretty sweet). KDE is still too slow compared to Gnome, on my octocore gigantic RAID10 SSD behemoth, to tolerate on a daily basis.
       
      After I got a Mac and found out how awful OSX can be I went to Mint and have been happy since. Cinnamon is the future, folks. And I really hope KDE can ditch some of that Nepomuk shit and turn down the dazzle for next release then we can have two alternatives to the batshit insanity plaguing Gnome these days.

    10. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      this does take more than a few minutes of research to investigate, so...

      Yup, it does, been there, done that. One of the things I love about VirtualBox. I am going to switch to Xubuntu on my current desktop but will switch to OS X. OS updates do indeed mess up things, no matter which OS. But that's really different from having to rework a hammer into a screwdriver like Ubuntu seems to insist upon.

    11. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you tried less hard to suspect and guess you might actually learn something. You don't "love a list of all the things I "fixed""; you're too much of a pompous ass for that.

    12. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by humanrev · · Score: 1

      No-one drinks mud. 90%+ of computer users use Windows. There are enormous benefits to staying within the Windows ecosystem, at least for my stress levels. I don't understand your analogy at all (but will listen if you wish to expand on it).

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    13. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by fnj · · Score: 1

      And I start to wonder if these are just Apple Trolls. Listen, It's easy enough to switch to KDE or XFCE.

      I think some are trolls, some are hip trendsters, and some are just stupid.

    14. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Other peoples' emotions shouldn't affect your practical decision on desktop environment.. Gnome is a pos? use KDE or xfce or whatever..

    15. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can stick to LTS releases of Ubuntu and use your computer happily for next 5 years without any changes (apart from rolling Firefox releases).

    16. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 1

      I use linux on my tv connected computer and a macbook for my professional job.

      at work, I need to get my work done, not read about some facinating configuration file, or wonder why I can no longer play mp3 files or even better, I can't boot into x.org.

      last night I booted my fedora tv computer which was working perfectly for weeks, I haven't upgraded it and nor did I upgrade it before I switched it off last night correctly and I don't upgrade it because linux upgrades have made me afraid, yet last night I'm dumped on the console, why??

      the ONLY solution was, switch to a new virtual terminal, cause I was left on the bootup screen with all the services, login as root, run a yum upgrade, then reboot.

      I suppose your mum or dad can do that? awesome! cause mine can't...seriously? why? it worked fine for months....yet all of a sudden stopped working and the only solution open to me was to do that...

      so I'm an idiot for switching to OSX right? yeah I get that, you hate it because you see your precious linux exposed for what it is, a bag of loosely collaborating code which sometimes just breaks for no reason and leaves you reading some wonderfully obscure rescue process, OR hopefully you're like me, has been using linux since I'm 16 (18 years of experience) and thankfully knows how to do these things.

      I think it might be the opposite, you're the idiot for assuming we all want to get our hands dirty, I don't give a damn, I just want the fucking computer to work, it's 2012, not 1995

    17. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there's a right-click. There isn't a physical button for it, but instead of tapping with one finger you tap with two.

      This is true for the touchpad on the laptops, and the Magic Trackpad or Magic Mouse for desktops.

    18. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Basically, OS X has a really nice user interface. Or, more precisely, it has a user interface and technical design some people just really take to. When people switch it may be less "Gnome sucks so I'm abandoning Linux altogether and relearning everything" and more "I've been using my Mac a lot lately and with Gnome going bad I may as well make OS X my primary OS".

      In the end every major OS has upsides and downsides. When I switched to OS X (just before 10.4 came out) it had a UI sophistication unmatched by Linux or the aging Windows XP, especially in terms of consistency. Back then third-party apps were derided if their UI wasn't "Mac-like" enough. While this reduced diversity it did mean that someone who got along well with Apple's programs got along well with all OS X programs. Today that has been greatly watered down. Apple is pushing for a program-specific look-and-feel and "Mac-like" is no longer as neccessary as it used to be.

      Linux has come a long way since then, even despite Gnome 3 and Unity. And while Apple has elegant (if storage-inefficient) tricks like "a program is a self-contained folder", Linux still makes arcane low-level hacks a tad easier (not to mention installing and uninstalling non-GUI programs). A Linux box with Xfce isn't exciting but it's a reliable workhorse - even if I do miss BSD top's ability to take parameters. I just prefer typing `top -ocpu` over typing `top` and then hitting O-K-K-K-K-K-K-K-K-Enter. Of course I could just take a BSD and install Xfce there but that'd be too simple.

      As for Windows... Well, I never really understood Microsoft's design decisions. Some people swear by it, though, so apparently it does have some merit. And at least a lot of the under-the-hood suckiness has been worked out with 7.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    19. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy enough to switch to KDE or XFCE.

      No, it isn't. Neither of those handle laptops with docking stations and an external monitor. Only GNOME 2, Windows 7, and Windows XP do it right.

    20. Re:I hear all these people switching to OSX. by wreakyhavoc · · Score: 1

      But of course, this does take more than a few months of research to investigate, so...

      There, FTFY.

      After literally years of experimenting with different distros to find one that was acceptable and worked with all my laptop hardware, I finally switched to Mint with Gnome 2, and was using it exclusively for 6 months. Then I upgrade hardware, and find that Mint does not support my wireless, at least not in an easy fashion, and now has 4 (!) desktop environments that I will have to install and check out, instead of the one that (mostly) worked.

      Very discouraging, and a huge waste of time that could be used to actually accomplish something, or at least enjoy.

  28. Re:ah, Miguel... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the #2 distro, Fedora. They're giant supporters of GNOME, and not KDE. There's not many distros that feature KDE prominently, and the biggest one, SUSE, earned everyone's mistrust when they signed that deal with Microsoft.

  29. Re:ah, Miguel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, who do I make that check out to again?

    BTW, I'm assuming POS = "Plain Old Software"?

  30. So what ? by formfeed · · Score: 1

    I don't care all that much if application "foo" now comes with a "bar" button, or if the "fubar menu" has the item "dingbat" in it.

    I want a project that welcomes users to play with it. Something like:
    "We think that most people don't need the "dingbat" item, which is why we left it out in the default, but if you need it, here's the config file and here's the man page."
    not the gnome way: "noone really should use foo, so we removed it. -oh, wait - we got so much bad press, we'll put foo back. (for now)"

    1. Re:So what ? by someones · · Score: 1

      Thats exactly whats KDE is like.
      You can configure anything. But you also NEED to configure anything, as their defaults seem totally screw'd to me, but at least you CAN do it.

    2. Re:So what ? by formfeed · · Score: 2

      I might switch to KDE.

      I had Gnome as my main desktop since 1.4 or 1.2. Originally I had decided against KDE because of QT. But that's old news now.
      Since it's my main computer and I'm either too lazy or too busy to reconfigure everything, I'm postponing the switch till support for Ubuntu 10.4 runs out. Then it will either be Ubuntu 12.4 or Debian - either with KDE or Xfce.

  31. Re:And the other side of the problem... by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    As a "rogue programmer who forces everybody to use the software the same way that I use it", I also have a complaint from my side of the story. Every time I make a UI change that I believe makes the software easier to use, you complain that you can't keep doing things exactly the way you have been doing. And it's true, you often can't; but the other side of this complaint is stagnation. If you are not interested in trying something new that may give you a way to do things faster and easier than you are currently doing, why are you using my new UI? It's either innovation and having to learn new things, or the stagnation of keeping things exactly as they used to be. While you're thinking about this choice, keep in mind that I'm not holding your nose here; you are free to use a multitude of alternative applications, or to keep the application version you currently have. If you dislike GNOME 3, use Xfce or whatever GNOME 2 fork suits your taste. Why are you trying to force us all to keep using the same UI you are using just because you're so used to it?

  32. Re:ah, Miguel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slackware 14 RC4

    kde goodness there.

  33. Re:ah, Miguel... by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    ...Microsoft's favoured bedfellow in the free software community.

    Why is there no "year of Linux on the desktop"? Well, my friends, it is not because Apple are cunning this or Microsoft are abusive that. It is because no-one has yet come up with a compelling reason to deploy POS like GNOME outside the basement.

    ...price :)

  34. Re:And the other side of the problem... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are not interested in trying something new that may give you a way to do things faster and easier than you are currently doing, why are you using my new UI?

    Because you stopped supporting the old one.

  35. move to/copy to by beep54 · · Score: 1

    Why it has taken so long to have 'move to' and 'copy to' implemented has always been a mystery to me. That has really been a major reason I have kept using Windows and even then you have to hack the registry to get that.

    1. Re:move to/copy to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hack the registry? It's on the menu by default.

  36. Nobody has commented on the name by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    Ignoring the usability issues. Love the renaming of Nautilus to files. They need to continue on that trend

    1. Re:Nobody has commented on the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, make it simpler! In fact, "Files" is too descriptive. From now on all binary applications, shell scripts, etc., shall only be known as "Program" and everything else is "Data"

    2. Re:Nobody has commented on the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Epiphany is renamed to web, but the binary is stil named epiphany. That is somewhat confusing.

    3. Re:Nobody has commented on the name by MacBurn11 · · Score: 2

      I disagree. If all programs have generic names, googling for problems or features does not exactly get easier. I suppose a search for "files bugs" will produce a lot more irrelevant hits than searching for "nautilus bugs".

    4. Re:Nobody has commented on the name by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Program is such a complicated word (so many r's)...let's just call them "Apps"! "App for doing x" ... oh wait...

  37. Titanic. Deck Chairs. Re-arranging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like.

  38. Re:And the other side of the problem... by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you are not interested in trying something new that may give you a way to do things faster and easier than you are currently doing, why are you using my new UI?

    Because you stopped supporting the old one.

    Support is not free. You want to keep your old ways, while I want to move on. If I am a commercial developer, I'd weigh the value of keeping you as a customer and offer you a support contract to compensate me for the work required to keep you comfortably in the past. If I am an open source developer, you are not likely to be interested in paying for my efforts, so what incentive have I to do things your way when I believe I can do things better my way? That's what forks are for. GNOME 2 has been forked and people like you who love the old interface can keep working on it. GNOME 3 in the meantime can continue trying new things that may bring about an easier and more comfortable future for users who are not already set in the ways of GNOME 2. If you want GNOME 3 developers to instead support your old ways, why not put your money where you complaints are? How much are you willing to pay for continuing GNOME2-style UI support? Nothing? Well, what did you expect for that? Slavery is not cool.

  39. Can someone just kill Gnome 3? by jlbprof · · Score: 0

    And get it over with.

    --
    I go out of my way to complicate the simple things, so that I can simplify the complicated things.
    1. Re:Can someone just kill Gnome 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Hat is working furiously on it.

  40. What is the problem with Gnome classic? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    I don't have a problem with the changes, but I do have a problem with these changes getting shoved down everyone's throat without proper support to revert to a classic look. A lot of the 'core' features that are being added, could simply be mods on top of the existing desktop instead of the buggy restructuring that's currently going on.

    AFAIK, gnome-panel has continued to be available. Why all the complaining?

    1. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by CalcProgrammer1 · · Score: 1

      The "Gnome Classic" fallback mode is my main desktop on Ubuntu now, I switched from Cinnamon due to wanting the ability to turn compositing on and off. On a compositing window manager (GNOME Shell/Unity/Cinnamon/Compiz) you sacrifice a good bit of graphics horsepower, and whenever I want to play a game, that stuff needs to shut off to give me maximum performance. GNOME Classic + Fusion Icon gives the same functionality as MATE without the bugs that arise from using the outdated GTK2 toolkit (MATE+GTK3 would be ideal). I hate the stupid alt-windows-click thing you have to do to change the panels, it's a stupid key combination where simply right click would suffice. Also, I hate having the workspaces in a 2x2 grid, 1x4 is better as you can scrollwheel through them with Compiz and have the cube. The new Nautilus sucks, so whenever Nemo is ready I'll definitely be switching to it.

    2. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
      What does MATE do that regular gnome-panel (gnome-classic) doesn't?

    3. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Because it does not work!

      It imitates the look of the default Gnome 2 setup, but so does a wallpper of a screenshot.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Has working applets and does not occasionally decide to resize itself to the size of the largest icon in some menu or applet.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Crash on Thinkpads

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      2x2 is better if you use expo or something else that lets you preview all four. You can still scrollwheel though them with compiz.

    7. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Because it does not work!

      How exactly?

    8. Re:What is the problem with Gnome classic? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Now I see that you answered it elsewhere. Please ignore the parent.

  41. Mac top bar menus implement Fitts law by MCRocker · · Score: 2

    The menu bar following the app has always been a feature of the Mac OS. It's nothing to do with using one app at a time, it's to do with the muscle memory advantage of just shoving the mouse to the top of the screen regardless of which application you're using.

    More specifically, it's an attempt to apply Fitts law to computer user interaction. Tog has an article on the thinking behind this.

    --
    Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
  42. You misspelled a word... by Wee · · Score: 1

    For some reason, you spelled "Xfce" as "KDE"...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:You misspelled a word... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Xfce breaks viewport switching when I use Compiz, KDE does not.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  43. fundamental problem unaddressed by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    these superficial changes don't fix the GNOME3 philosophy of dictating user's workflow, and needing a fucking developer to make changes that are configurable by user in sane desktops. forget the fork, get a fire extinguisher for GNOME3, it's burnt beyond salvaging in the GNOME3 dev's oven; the smoke is stinking up the desktop Linux house. Listening to the remaniing few users fixes nothing.

    1. Re:fundamental problem unaddressed by someones · · Score: 1

      This

  44. Re:And the other side of the problem... by Nursie · · Score: 1

    This line of reasoning would be easier to appreciate if GNOME 3 had been a new project, or had been built with a new namespace so as to be able to coexist with 2.x on the same system.

    It seems that steps were taken to deliberately force people to choose and move, and deliberately break the older stuff.

  45. Gnome 3 and Unity are actually great by Vince6791 · · Score: 0

    I used to hate both but now I just love them. The major problem with Gnome 3 is a little slow at 800mhz(cool N quiet) six core but flies at 2700mhz but hopefully 3.6 fixes this. Unity is indeed faster than gnome 3. Both are great at accessing your files, folders, and programs quick. This is why microsoft dumped the old start button in favor of a pop up interface(metroUI) that is able to access files, folders, programs quick even when using the search. But, the good thing about linux is that if you hate unity and gnome you can always go back to the old classical gnome or just use the eye candy kde 4.8 or kde 4.9 distros. Than you have xfce,lxde, cinnamon.

    Stop bitching and whining about unity and gnome ruining the desktop you have plenty of other interfaces.

    1. Re:Gnome 3 and Unity are actually great by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      it lags when your modern cpu is idle? pathetic.. There is NO excuse for this.

      poettering and his crew are trying to take those choices away by embedding their idiocy into every other project with their 'giant spaghetti blob' approach to 'Gnome OS'..from gnome3 to systemd..

      Microsoft dumped their old but much easier to use design because they've always been wannabes. No, I blame apple and the whole tablet fad. The full screen start menu offers nothing of value over the existing one. Both allowed access to programs and files.. it's just that the new one is distracting and painful to use and the old menu isn't.

  46. Astonishing by Sussurros · · Score: 2

    That is an eye-opener and no mistake. I never realised Gnome's problems ran so deep. I just thought the pigs had taken over the farm and were now putting on a little lip gloss to make themselves pretty.

    You have to assume that Mate has inherited all of these problems and while Unity is still as ugly as a bulldog's backside and less use than a chocolate ashtray you have to wonder if its completely rewritten core could not in fact one day be used as the basis of something both elegant and useful.

    --
    I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
    1. Re:Astonishing by justforgetme · · Score: 2

      To be fair about the Gimp thing, the guy was trying to run an extended life OS and install the latest and greatest. Such a thing usually needs a lot of skill (and probably hacking on sources).
      On Linux you have four main ways of doing things:
      1. You live on the bleeding edge, update religiously and cautiously at least once a month and reap the benefits of eternally fresh binaries and deal with the fear that one day you will update something that will irrecoverably break your system (which doesn't actually happen, making these kinds of distros actually stable too).
      aka the Gentoo, Arch way
      2. You live on the sta(b)le end and are happy with what software you have got (getting some limited wiggle room on newer versions) and the fact you probably won't have to sacrifice a day because some haywire kernel dependency tainted your ramdisks and made your precious desktop unbootable for a short time.
      3. You install a common man's distro and shut up.
      4. You roll your own OS from sources and keep your software updates manual and based on personal preference/beliefs, in which case good luck.

      Running stale but half bleeding edge is not a thing most Linux users could pull off.

      --
      -- no sig today
    2. Re:Astonishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's the main problem of Linux! I want to run a stable and tested os, that is mantained over the years.
      But I also want to install the latest apps... but when I try is really hard!
      BTW, I can install the latest GIMP 2.8.2 on Windows XP, and it works! Try that on Linux.

  47. GNOME Emacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sing along to the tune of 'Developers, Developers. Developers!'

    "Extensions, Extensions, Extensions!"

  48. KDE by someones · · Score: 2

    Its better every release. At least if you dont have a touch screen device KDE 4.9 is the my new old way of getting work done.

    Unlike gnome which seems to regress every release. I am waiting for them to release their own version of X and Linux.
    A system with integration of all components into one monolithic thing.
    Like Kernel/X/DE/... in just on bin.
    Also might want to start calling bins excecutable files and shotren their extensions to .exe and .so files could be called dll i guess...

  49. Windows not a "premium experience" to me by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

    Linux users do not have to use Gnome. There are many other desktops to choose from.

    I use Windows 7 at work. For me, getting home to my Linux system is like a taking a breath of freash air.

  50. Extensions? by galanom · · Score: 1

    Any other additions or changes not currently implemented by the GNOME team can be easily applied with only one click at the GNOME Extensions website

    Uhm... No! Not even for basic things that are taken for granted in normal desktop environments.

  51. Really? Oh that will fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anyone think any of this is going to fix most people's problem with desktop linux? Shit just doesn't work. It's not as usable as any of the alternatives for most things. Most features that people use are used to with windows 7 simply aren't there. It's hard to get things to work and interoperate without breaking out a command line.

    so who cares? gnome can 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 it's ass off. It's not going to change the fact that it's not nearly as usable as windows.

    I run arch, slackware, and windows 7 on my computers. I love arch for servers. I love slackware for my laptop (because arch kernel panics on installation boot up).

    Windows is just usable. It just freaking works.

  52. Just install Cinnamon and ditch Gnome 3... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gnome 3 can kiss my ass and take that bullshit desktop back to where they came from.

  53. Is it fixed yet? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Will I be able to make Gnome 3.6 function as I see fit, as was the case with Gnome 2? Can I do things as simple and mundane as easily autohide the annoying top panel? At least they put it on top, where it belongs, but jeez... Gnome 3 is a major debacle, whether the Gnome team admit it or not, so hopefully 3.6 regresses in the name of progress, er, at least in the name of shit that works. And hopefully if it is back to business as usual 3.6 comes before I get too used to KDE (still not really digging it, XFCE is ugly, and Cinnamon and MATE are not yet ready for prime time), since I dropped Gnome like a rotten potato when they killed the 2.x line. Lots of alternatives that work, but I want an updated, evolving Gnome 2, while 3 is at the bottom of the list.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:Is it fixed yet? by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

      XFCE is not ugly. it can look identical to gnome2, and in fact can often use the very same themes. Unlike gnome2, things work as intended (ie. vertical panels); and you can visually change things without going into obscure registry like wannabes. Oh, and things go faster too...

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    2. Re:Is it fixed yet? by MrLizardo · · Score: 1

      Autohide the top panel? There's an extension for that: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/208/panel-settings/
      The big thing with GNOME 3 is that a lot of the settings moved out of the core and in their place, APIs were exposed to let people tweak things as they see fit with extensions.

      --
      ^I'm with stupid.^
  54. switching between workspaces using the mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In GNOME 3.4 I have to spend 2-3 seconds whenever I want to use the mouse to switch between workspaces. I usually switch back and forth between the editor, the terminal and the browser very rapidly, so this wasted time is really annoying for me.

    Apart from that (and a few crashes) GNOME 3.4 works fine for me.

  55. Re:And the other side of the problem... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It seems that steps were taken to deliberately force people to choose and move, and deliberately break the older stuff.

    The strangest thing about the entrie situation is that they are bringing DLL hell to linux at about the same time MS Windows is getting rid of it. Linux and just about everything built on it was devised to avoid such a situation since day one and they have deliberately brought such a stupid problem to the platform.

  56. Re:And the other side of the problem... by fnj · · Score: 2

    As a "rogue programmer who forces everybody to use the software the same way that I use it", I also have a complaint from my side of the story. Every time I make a UI change that I believe makes the software easier to use, you complain that you can't keep doing things exactly the way you have been doing. And it's true, you often can't; but the other side of this complaint is stagnation.

    All right; I dig the willingness to communicate, and am prepared to contribute my two cents.

    I think you know EXACTLY why your complaint rings completely hollow to a user. Add your UI change AS AN OPTION. If it catches on, fine; that means you were right. If it doesn't, fine; that means you were WRONG. Actually, no matter what, it will catch on with SOME subset of users, and not with others, and both groups can remain happy. Everybody is happy. You are happy, those who follow your lead are happy, and those who reject your lead are happy.

    Finally, with this stagnation thing. First, it won't happen if you offer changes that are optional. But far more important, where you see stagnation, others see STABILITY. Cars use the same old round steering wheel at an angle in front of the driver decade after decade. Same clutch pedal if any on the left (I THINK that's right, it's been a LONG time), same brake pedal next, and same accelerator pedal on the right. The blinker stalk is almost always on the left, down for left turn, up for right turn. Windshield wiper stalk on the right. Glove compartment almost always in exactly the same place. There is ZERO reason to EVER change any of this.

  57. News by assertation · · Score: 2

    GNOME developers have been listening to the concerns of its users

    That is news. Wow. No disrespect, please keep doing that.

  58. Still a bloated turd. by miffo.swe · · Score: 0

    Its still slow as molasses and craves memory like a zombie craves brains. If i wanted something to really tax my spare cycles i would install Windows.

    Had it been fast and slick i could have taken the asinine interface but when its slow and unworkable its a no go for me.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  59. Re:business networking by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    sell your dildo mutual masturbatory marketing droid bullshit somewhere else..

  60. Stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find gnome-shell to be really unreliable and freezes upon me several times a week.
    fix that first please

  61. Awesome! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Reckless optimism: It can only get better.

  62. Not sure why everyone hates on Gnome 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use it everyday, and I love it. I installed it for my office (an actuarial firm with about 12 - normal - users), and everyone loves it. If people like everyone who whines about change were in charge of shit, progess would stall.

  63. Still Crazy by stkris · · Score: 2

    After All These Years. Still impossible to move the status bars to the side (vertically). And that was the feature that made me drop Gnome after beeing a happy user for years. I even used to ridicule KDE users. But now I'm on KDE too. And don't tell me my gripes can be fixed with extensions - no extension will give me vertical status- and tool bars. It's sad watching someone you love sink m'ore and more into the quagmire every time they move. But they won't listen and be rescued. It's like a Greek Tragedy in six acts.

  64. Re:And the other side of the problem... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    The blinker stalk is almost always on the left, down for left turn, up for right turn. Windshield wiper stalk on the right.

    Unfortunately not on my planet. Ford one way, Nissan other way. Turn wiper stalk towards on one, away on other. AND WHERE IS THE F'ing HORN GONE? Squirts self in eye while cyclist emerges from side road!

    People who sell cars with the horn not in the centre of the steering should be charged with wilfully causing accidents.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  65. Less is More .. by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    I've found Lubuntu to be more than sufficient to my needs - less is more !

    --
    AccountKiller
  66. Too late - already migrated to KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If any Gnome developers read this discussion (probably not since they don't care about users), it's too late - I've already made the painful and difficult migration from Gnome 2 to KDE. I am not about to migrate back.

  67. Cinnomom by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Cinnomom [my personal preference]

    Mine too. She sounds hot.

  68. GNOME 3 is very easy to use by DrXym · · Score: 1
    Most of the hate for GNOME is irrational. Yes it screws up in some ways but generally I think it works and produces an extremely clean, intuitive, attractive and extensible desktop experience. If I had to gripe it's that the control panel is too basic and some of the default behaviour is questionable. I should be able to choose the screen font size more than the basic accessibility font slider allows. I should be able to enable icons on the desktop without a tweak tool. I should be able to change the shutdown / standby behaviour from the control panel.

    The biggest issue I have with GNOME is some apps waste a heck of a lot of vertical space when they're maximized due to the way that there is a global bar, then an application bar, then a menu, then some toolbars and finally the actual content. It looks ugly, especially in Firefox. Chrome works a lot better in GNOME 3 than Firefox does at the moment.

    1. Re:GNOME 3 is very easy to use by bigt405 · · Score: 1

      It is clean, intuitive and easy to work with. My problem, aside from what you've listed above, is the "worst case" scenario for launching a program. That's usually what you use a DE for anyway, right? It draws windows and gives you a way to open new ones and manage them. If I had a nickel for every second lost due to sifting through unfamiliar icons and nonsensical categorization I'd have quite a few nickels. You can hate Windows, but you can't complain about the workspace efficiency of Windows 7. It's just a very very polished iteration of the Windows 95 everyone in the world grew up with.

    2. Re:GNOME 3 is very easy to use by MrLizardo · · Score: 1

      Want to change font sizes? Get gnome-tweak-tool
      Vertical space wasted? Grab two extensions:
      - Maximus: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/354/maximus/
      - Window Options: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/353/window-options/

      Extensions are probably the best kept secrets of GNOME Shell, which is sad because there are a ton of awesome extensions.

      --
      ^I'm with stupid.^
    3. Re:GNOME 3 is very easy to use by MrLizardo · · Score: 1

      You might want to look at something like the Axe Menu extension: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/327/axe-menu/
      I think there's another menu extension too, but I can't think of it off the top of my head.

      --
      ^I'm with stupid.^
  69. How about fundamentals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have they done anything with the fundamental functionality regressions that they introduced with GNOME 3, like proper multi-screen support? I'm not talking about a single-screen bastardization of multiple screens like nvidia twinview or xinerama but multiple discreet screens?

    And I am not even talking about just making them pretty or just *more* usable (i.e. being able to define what you want on each screen in the way of panels, etc.). I am talking about just having GNOME be able to start when multiple screens are connected. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=648156

    How the GNOME team can continue to fuck around with goddamned eye-candy when such fundamental functionality is broken I don't know. Well, I do know.

    Hi XFCE. XFCE's support of multiple screens is simply wonderful.

    XFCE even allows you to drag a window off of one workspace and onto another. GNOME has never done that. The GNOME devs need to look to the XFCE team to see how to get it all back on track.

  70. Re:And the other side of the problem... by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    I think you know EXACTLY why your complaint rings completely hollow to a user. Add your UI change AS AN OPTION. If it catches on, fine; that means you were right. If it doesn't, fine; that means you were WRONG. Actually, no matter what, it will catch on with SOME subset of users, and not with others, and both groups can remain happy. Everybody is happy.

    Except the developers, who now have to maintain and debug additional code paths and deal with an exponentially growing configuration space. And some users who see a lot of options they have no use for, or even no idea about, as a nuisance. Every option: 1) brings in a permanent maintenance cost; 2) increases complexity of the UI. Slashdot is full of people who don't mind complexity. In this wide world, there are a lot of others who are confounded by screenfuls upon screenfuls of options. So every option should better be justified, in that it addresses an important need for a lot of users.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  71. giving the impression of security by gringer · · Score: 1

    The "lock" screen can now optionally control your music player, the system volume, and display notifications so you don't have to type in a password.

    Oh, great. How about also adding in a function to enter commands into a terminal from the lock screen. Adding new functions to lock screens is always risk-free, after all. I'm sure jwz would approve.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  72. Cues from Android? by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    Being able to control your music player and volume from the lock screen (Android ICS features, or was it even in Gingerbread?), notifications being accessible at lock screen (Jelly Bean, or was it it ICS, too?).

    As a current Gnome 3 user at work and home (home since Gnome 3 beta days), and a holder of an Android Jelly Bean phone (Galaxy Nexus), I welcome these changes with open arms.

  73. Solve a problem, don't force fit a solution by Medievalist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure I understand..(I'm not a gnome3 user).

    Me neither, but I'll try to explain anyway.

    Everything should be hidden when the screen is locked. That's the point.

    That's not actually the point. The screen lock is a possible solution to a set of common problems. If you insist on a single solution and then use a rigorous description of that solution as your criteria for whether the problem is solved or not, that's the opposite of good software engineering practice. The point is to define and solve the problem, not force expectations of what the solution should look like to shape your perception of what the problem is.

    In most cases, the screen lock exists to prevent other entities from pre-empting your input - for example, I have to protect my keyboard from cats and small children at home, at work I need to prevent other people from sending mail under my username or deleting my local filesystem. I won't give a damn if anyone sees a notice that says "you've got mail" or if they can turn down the volume of my speakers - in fact those are desirable features for nearly all real world users.

    In some cases, though, you may also need to prevent others from accessing your output devices - for example if you are carrying on a torrid affair without your spouse's knowledge, performing industrial espionage on your employer, or surfing porn while you're supposed to be babysitting, you'll want your screen completely hidden and you'll want a "hot button" that invokes lockout of all video and audio output instantly. Most people with this use case are also going to be satisfied by a screen lock that displays prominent notifications (without content) and allows control on audio outputs. They aren't going to want to have to type a password to stop the moaning sounds from their speakers - that's not a sufficiently responsive control for them - but they may want the screen lock to automatically mute audio outs.

    The least common use case is going to be people who want total input and output device lockdown - when they are away from the computer, they want audio, video and network to be totally inaccessible until they type a password. That use case is important, because it is the highest possible security setting, but almost nobody wants their download to stop when they step away from the computer, almost nobody wants to have to pull the battery out of their kid's laptop to make the music stop.

    So instead of focusing on what the meaning of the phrase "screen lock" is, a good solution would probably default to total lock of all inputs and outputs (on the principle of maximum security defaults) but would allow the user to trivially permit notifications and external device controls through a simple settings panel (as well as during any configuration dialog you might provide at setup time).

    1. Re:Solve a problem, don't force fit a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the screen lock exists to prevent other entities from pre-empting your input

      That would be a key lock not a screen lock. A screen lock is exactly what it means, to lock the screen.

    2. Re:Solve a problem, don't force fit a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would locking screen stop background processes? And seeing anything or being able to interact with a supposedly locked session is by defintion not locking it. I swear /. comments are getting dumber by the year.

    3. Re:Solve a problem, don't force fit a solution by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Jaques Derrida, for exhibiting the behavior I'm criticizing!

      If it does not solve the problem it does not matter what you call it. You're still standing in the way of getting the job done no matter what your reasoning is.

      The task is NOT "to lock the screen", the task is to prevent the computer from being used in a way that the owner doesn't want it to be used. Call it whatever the hell you want, just stop getting in the way of users, and start helping them use their machines the way they want...

    4. Re:Solve a problem, don't force fit a solution by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      And seeing anything or being able to interact with a supposedly locked session is by defintion not locking it.

      If you insist on a single solution and then use a rigorous description of that solution as your criteria for whether the problem is solved or not, that's the opposite of good software engineering practice.

  74. MOD PARENT UP to offset moderation abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent post cannot possibly be described as "troll".
    I hope the moderator is caught in metamoderation.

  75. Will it be usable? Gnome Back Still to Users? by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    In the last incarnation of Gnome, I've seen a user interface stripped of usability. Yes, the new interface looks good, but usability has taken a backslide. I feel that Gnome has stripped the desktop to the usefulness of a tablet. We need power, to move files, start programs, reboot the computer. I don't agree on making Gnome a testbed for whatever fanciful bimbo flash-in-the-pan UI experiment, they dream up.

    Get back to the basics. Save on mouse clicks. Don't bury things. Don't hid things. Don't remove things. Don't dumb it down for people who should never use computers in the first place. We want a usable interface the power of a desktop computer.

    Gnome.org is just not listening to anyone anymore. They are are an organization completely out of touch with the people who use their GUI.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  76. Both remaining users by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    will be thrilled!

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  77. Stable APIs are the most important issue for Gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stable APIs are the most important issue for Gnome. PERIOD.

    Everything, everything needs to follow after that.
    Backwards compatibility would be 2nd.

  78. I'm still waiting... by mynis01 · · Score: 1

    ...to read patch notes for GNOME 3 that read "You can now auto hide the top bar without installing a third party extension."

  79. Move to and copy to. by helios17 · · Score: 1

    I do hope they have mimicked Dolphin with Move to and Copy to in the context menu. Currently, Nautilus only offers Desktop and Home as destinations for these. Dolphin offers all sub folders under the Home Directory and the mouse slides smoothly to present these options. Bang-click, you are done in two clicks. It was short-sighted at the least and silly to only offer two places to copy and move files. Sure there are scripts to add additional destinations but that only adds a gui to choose the file destination and takes about three extra clicks to make it happen. Scripts by the way that are notorious for breaking on an update or upgrade. By that time, I could have hit F3 and just moved or copied the files manually via split screen. Oh wait, they are removing the split screen option in Nautilus 3.6. Never mind. That makes adding the sub-folders even more important, but with Gnome's drive to remove features instead of adding them, I am not hopeful.

    --
    Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
  80. Re:And the other side of the problem... by fnj · · Score: 1

    Singularly unconvincing points. Rich options can be "simplified" my just adding an "Advanced" button in the config UI. You don't even see most of the options until you hit "Advanced". End of THAT objection, PERIOD. And end of the duplicate of that objection, which you call "increases complexity of the UI". Poof. These are not real problems. This is not rocket science.

    Granted, added code to maintain is a given. Does that mean there should be no options whatsoever? Any bugs which crop up AFTER an option is implemented are regressions, and almost certainly can be worked around, because one or the other of the two paths is still going to work. They are unlikely to be critical problems.

  81. Actually really looking forward to this by MrLizardo · · Score: 2

    I'm actually looking forward to some of the GNOME 3.6 changes. Once I went out and grabbed some extensions ( http://extensions.gnome.org/ ) to tweak things more to my liking I really started to enjoy GNOME Shell. I was kinda hoping to wander into the comments here and talk to other Shell users about what they like and don't like and what extensions they use, but instead there's just this incredible hate-fest. Other GNOME 3.x users, what extensions are you using? There's like a million and I'm totally curious if I've missed some.

    My top 5:
    - Calculator (lets you type equations into the search bar)
    - Weather (It's just a classy weather applet)
    - Window Options (puts close/min/max options in the app dropdown menu on the top panel)
    - Maximus (Removes the title bar of windows when maximized. Combines well with the 'Window Options' extension)
    - Blank Screen (Adds a menu option to blank the screen without locking it. Puts the monitor in power saving mode)

    --
    ^I'm with stupid.^
  82. I thought it said... by OdinOdin_ · · Score: 1

    to include major revertions.

    Ah well long live the GNOME!

  83. Re:And the other side of the problem... by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    Granted, added code to maintain is a given. Does that mean there should be no options whatsoever?

    There should be options that matter to a sufficiently large share of users.

    Any bugs which crop up AFTER an option is implemented are regressions, and almost certainly can be worked around, because one or the other of the two paths is still going to work. They are unlikely to be critical problems.

    It's this attitude that produces so much buggy, overcomplicated software.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.