Slashdot Mirror


GNOME 3 To Support a "Classic" Mode, of Sorts

An anonymous reader writes "LWN.net is reporting that GNOME developer Matthias Clasen has announced that, with the upcoming demise of 'fallback mode,' the project will support a set of official GNOME Shell extensions to provide a more "classic" experience. 'And while we certainly hope that many users will find the new ways comfortable and refreshing after a short learning phase, we should not fault people who prefer the old way. After all, these features were a selling point of GNOME 2 for ten years!'"

20 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Good decission by saxa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets see what classic will mean :)

    --
    Saxa
    1. Re:Good decission by DrXym · · Score: 4, Informative
      The fallback mode was just an if-all-else-fails mode. It wasn't meant to replace GNOME 2 or even be a place you'd want to work unless your graphics driver was hosed.

      Anyway there is no reason for "classic" extensions to be so limited. GNOME Shell is like Firefox in that new functionality can be strapped onto it and appear seamless. Any extension could potentially change the look and feel of the shell in quite radical ways. That's all Mint are doing after all with MGSE.

    2. Re:Good decission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the problem with extensions: too many changes between Gnome releases means that many extensions break from version to version necessitating extension writers having to maintain multiple versions to support multiple distros. Add the fact that the Gnome devs rarely communicate these changes until maybe right before, or just after a new release, and are notoriously indifferent to the breakage they cause, has led to developers turning away from writing extensions altogether. And let's not get into how they routinely fuck with people trying to create themes for Gnome3.

    3. Re:Good decission by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure the MATE people can update their code to use the version 3 libraries with or without GNOME's "official" help. That's pretty much how FOSS works.

      I think this is a good move by GNOME. I have to say I've been bothered by the reports that the fallback mode is going to be removed, I'm not a fan of Unity or GNOME Shell, but at the same time I'd like my desktop to be modern, supported, and able to run modern software without it appearing to be be a hack.

      This sounds like the start of the right approach to get a proper desktop back for GNOME users who want one.

      More-over, it also provides the GNOME project with a way out. They've kind of painted themselves in to a corner with GNOME Shell. I'm finding it very hard to believe that there's a significant contingent of people out there who prefer it, or Unity, to a desktop. An officially supported set of "extensions" can, over time, turn into an official GNOME next generation desktop project, without having to admit that maybe GNOME Shell was not quite what was needed right now.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Hell must be freezing over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    GNOME is paying attention to what their users say and are listening to what the users want?

    Hell must be freezing over!

    1. Re:Hell must be freezing over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, this is an attempt to undermine the work of the Linux Mint guys. See, current Gnome devs are control freaks obsessed with preventing anything they think damages their "brand". Theming and users configuring their desktops to their preferences is an anathema to them, and they are rightly concerned that the Mint guys are making a better, more useful Gnome3 than they are. It wouldn't surprise me if upcoming changes in Gnome3 and GTK3 just happen to bollocks Cinnamon, muffin and other Mint components.

  3. Closing the barn door after the horse is gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too little, too late. The project has already run off too many power users and influential people within the FOSS community. The top-down, change for the sake of change dictate has led many to question the project's leadership.

    News Flash: They were faulting people who preferred the traditional way. Those who wanted a minimal and unobtrusive workspace were told to stop being stodgy luddites and get with the Metro/OSX times.

    1. Re:Closing the barn door after the horse is gone by digitalchinky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gimp and a bunch of other projects seem to be headed the same way - what is it with ripping out a decade of refined workflow for massive amounts of white space and fewer exposed configuration options? This trend for dumbed down interfaces has become disturbing.

    2. Re:Closing the barn door after the horse is gone by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      Gimp and a bunch of other projects seem to be headed the same way

      Hint: There's a lot of developers that do work on both projects. Now some of them have migrated to Libreoffice. Expect more UI carnage to come.

      Please no ... not the fucking ribbon

    3. Re:Closing the barn door after the horse is gone by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The industry has "matured." "New isn't better" any longer. Now we just want to use what we have, not "experience" it.

    4. Re:Closing the barn door after the horse is gone by Pausanias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny, then now after the GNOME 3 and Windows 8 disasters, Max OS X offers the most "classic" desktop experience of all.

      On Max OS X You can still right-click on things, you still have a launcher, a trash icon, etc. You can display live system statistics in the launcher, you can have as many freaking windows as you like tiled however you want them, and CHOICE of whether you want an old-school launcher or the "overview/LaunchControl" style. You can move the taskbar around etc...

      Need I go on?

      How did this happen? How did APPLE of all people remain faithful to the classic desktop while the Linux and MS devs are ditching it.

  4. Pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "we should not fault people who prefer the old way"

    Oooh, how generously big-hearted and inclusive of them!

  5. This isn't devs listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is just another account of how amazingly full of shit the GNOME team (Red Hat, let's just call it with it real name) continues to be. On one hand they continue NACKing the problems with their environment people have been shouting into their ears from the last two years -at least-; while now on the other they tacitally ACK them but in the same vein they do everything: arrogantly, reluctantly, thinking only about [b]control[/b].

    As clearly showed in [URL="https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/gnome-et-al-rotting-in-threes/"]this eye-opening essay[/URL] (and the numerous links and comments that spawned in many levels deep), the GNOME team themselves have made clear both extensions and themes are detrimental to their goal of tight CONTROL over every aspect of your involvement with GNOME, whether you are a mere user, a theme or extension dev, a third app dev, or a distro dev.

    So much for the argument that "Gnome shell sucks less because you can make it so by using extensions". People, they DON'T WANT THAT. They themselves say it loudly and clearly and without a trace of regret. They *won't* change what you expect them to change. Just read carefully the linked post above. They broke the extensions and themes on each release intentionally. Now they "tackle" this issue...

    At this point what they are asking themselves is this:

    "how do we attempt to save our project while NOT having to ackowledge the criticism, and NOT having to drop an inch of control??".

    Answer: [B]We[/B] take control of the extensions, and [b]not[/b] third parties.

    For them it is a good solution, they tackle many angles at once: tighten control, avoid change, pretend change, do something about public oppinion.

    In the end the outcome will be decided by the sum of the personal choice each of us has to make between "do I stop, do I stand back against people that are against what this OS was always about, do I turn my back on them and take some weight on me" or "I need the short term gain of not distracting myself with ackowledging there is a problem here and reacting to it: that myself, as a user, as a contributor to this scene am not in these people plans". Do you keep pluging your ears and go "lalalalalala everything is awesome" like these people want you to do?.

    You may call me delusional, I won't give a shit. I think many of the people that have been here from the beginning in the nineties, haven't (or haven't completely yet) forgot the struggles and years of effort on part of each member in this community to get to where we got a few years ago. The issue here is *money*. The issue here is *companies wanting to subvert Linux ecosystems for money*. Just take a look at what company employees the key GNOME devs are, for christ sake. To the younger, uninformed people: educate yourselves, don't take for granted what you have now, and yes, *fight* to conserve your power over it. If you are "just" a user, your power resides in your CHOICE, and in your OPPINION. If you are a dev, you also have the power of FORK, the power of NOT PLAYING THE GAME.

    1. Re:This isn't devs listening by TuringTest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keeping tight control is a *good* think in user interface design strategy; it provides a more focused structure and simpler environment, which were their goals.

      The mistake the Gnome developers made was calling the new desktop "Gnome 3". Had they presented it as an experimental new environment and named it "Project Harmony" or "Desktop Zen", or something like that, they would have stepped on less toes and met less resistance to the radical changes, and people would have seen it in better light.

      Of course they would have had less audience, as distros wouldn't have adopted it so quickly. That trade-off was their choice, but I think "Linux is awesome! There are three good major desktops now!" was a better selling point than "They've updated Gnome, and it sucks".

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    2. Re:This isn't devs listening by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your movie idea is odd, but I would still prefer watching it to using GNOME3.

  6. Summary wrong by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is not a "limited classic mode" but an agreement to support already existing extensions.From TFA:

    As part of the planning for the DropOrFixFallbackMode feature[1], we've decided that we will compile a list of supported gnome-shell extensions. This will be a small list, focused on just bringing back some central 'classic' UX elements: classic alt tab, task bar, min/max buttons, main menu. To ensure that these extensions keep working, we will release them as a tarball, just like any other module. Giovanni already added an --enable-extensions=classic-mode configure option to the gnome-shell-extensions repository, which we will use for this work.

    Also, they make it clear that this is not their preference:

    Q: Why not just make gnome-shell itself more tweakable ?
    A: We still believe that there should be a single, well-defined UX for GNOME 3, and extensions provide a great mechanism to allow tweaks without giving up on this vision. That being said, there are examples like the a11y menu[2] or search[3], where the shell will become more configurable in the future.

  7. Seen the light? I don't think so. by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA: "And while we certainly hope that many users will find the new ways comfortable and refreshing after a short learning phase, we should not fault people who prefer the old way."

    Translation: "We've lost so many users and had so many complaints that we have to do something, but we're not willing to totally capitulate, so we'll toss them something that looks like a compromise and see if they swallow it."

    FTA: "After all, these features were a selling point of GNOME 2 for ten years!"

    Note the exclamation point. I'd expect that from someone who's been fighting all along to keep some of GNOME 2's legacy intact - I don't expect it, and don't trust it, from someone who was, and possibly still is, ready and willing to throw all of GNOME 2 under a bus.

    I'm glad they're finally making some concessions to their users, but I'd be more convinced of their sincerity if they'd been more responsive to criticism earlier on, instead of covering their ears and digging in their heels for so long.

    For the time being I'm just fine with XFCE, and regardless of GNOME 3's newfound tweakability, I don't think I'll be looking to move back to the GNOME fold any time soon.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  8. Re:Can I ask... by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    XFCE. I switched from Gnome this year and haven't regreted it. It's snappy and simply does what it is supposed to do.

  9. Not Thankful by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not thankful for Matthias' condescension. A little more humility on his part in admitting Gnome 3 is bad design would be appropriate.

  10. Why I like gnome 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a developer, and I have tried just about every windows manager out there. Ultimately, gnome 3 remains my choice for a few reasons.

    Gnome 3 works in the most pleasing way of all the WM's without any configuration. With minimal configuration it gets a lot better. KDE is awesome after intense and sustained configuration, which also goes for a lot of the more classic WM's. But, I don't want to spend very much time configuring at all, even though I have the ability to read manuals and get what I want. That's because what I want most is to focus on my work, not on my work tools. This is coming from someone who almost obsessively learns hotkeys and configures them in any window manager, the default behavior should still be coherent and reasonable.

    Gnome 3 also has the most superior window switching I've seen, and it has a very responsive flow to starting new applications. Its alt-tabbing with the way it shows you windows in other work spaces, the way it arranges windows when you hit the windows key, the hidden ribbon bar, the sensible default hotkeys (most of them inherited from gnome 2 I recognize) and the way the window manager seems to just try to get out of the way most of the time...

    I want minimal, pretty, and fast. So, yes I have some seriously powerful hardware to run this on, and maybe if I were on an older machine I would want a more efficient WM, but from a user interface perspective, Gnome 3 is exactly what I want in a window manager. Task switching and window arrangement is just vastly superior to the other WM's pre-configuration.