and I mention analog only because it was so widespread and went on for so long that it should really hammer the point home. It's still entirely possible but the technicals behind it are more complicated.
The point is: cell phones are just glorified radio transceivers.
apparently the State Department agrees with you, as they said it's a possible violation as well. The Forbes article has been updated with the full text of their letter (with a relevant part here):
The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.
They appear to want to take a better-safe-than-sorry approach until it can be properly reviewed.
Your sarcasm is lost in the text. All it can possibly do is convince people reading it that, somewhere out there, there is actually a horde of people who legitimately believe this.
If you're trying to make some edgy stance against government infringement of civil liberties, you're being fucking retarded and counterproductive.
thanks in advance, everyone
thanks again.
anyway, judging by their mention of the State Department and trade controls, I'd have to guess that this has to do with regulation of exportation of arms and nothing to do with the second amendment.
I'm not sure how it's justified to prevent access by Americans, though, besides obvious technical limitations. Does anyone have a link to any kind of official statement on this? So far the only statement I've seen is a red bar at the top of their page and NPR reporting on the red bar at the top of their page. I'd love to see some actual statements.
I care if people aren't upset because it seems to me that the lack of upset is that people don't seem to have expectations of privacy when it comes to radio broadcasts.
Like I was originally saying, it's more like the expectation of privacy while holding a conversation in a restaurant. There certainly is an expectation, but it's not unreasonable for the police to overhear what you're saying.
It's because people paid for a game, were force-fed always-online-even-for-single-player, and then may have spent hours playing on the day in question.
Modern email is not almost entirely sent over SSL, and that wouldn't help much in the first place when it comes to government snooping. But yes, one of the major questions is about what the big corporations will do and how much pressure they're under. The big telcos decades ago wouldn't dream of giving up information like this to the government without a warrant, and may have even been held liable in court if they had. Telco and ISPs today seem either much more likely to be willing to do this.
with regards to legal expectations of privacy, it will always depend on how things are implemented, because the implementation we're talking about here is reality. No matter how forcefully we write our laws, they will lose every argument with reality.
I must read too many of these articles then, because people quoting Nixon (or other slightly less reprehensible characters) all the time has gotten to be repetitive, along the lines of godwin's law or "just a piece of paper".
In his most recent book, Liberty and Justice for Some, Glenn Greenwald posits that the flagrant, unpunished, lawlessness in high places which is currently destroying democracy in the United States started with Ford's pardon of Nixon. The other half of Greenwald's argument is that for everyone else, there is no liberty or justice because the government is no longer obeying the Constitution or following due process.
The subject of this Slashdot article is a perfect example of the second half of Greenwald's argument. In a few short words the GP neatly tied it with the first half. That's why, for me, it was funny and enjoyable and it made me think.
I wouldn't really disagree with that. Especially nerve-grating is how so many people, from every bit of the political spectrum, look to the President as being able to wield some kind of magical powers over society. A significant percentage of children and adults wouldn't even be able to express what the President's actual job is, in large part because of how pervasive this kind of conversation has become -- also seeming to have taken hold with Nixon.
It certainly explains a lot about Dick Cheney's aspirations for transforming the office of Vice President.
The two of us understanding the sarcasm has nothing to do with how productive or counterproductive it is.
These kinds of comments are posted by the dozen, attached to every article with even a remote connection to politics or law, and they ultimately serve no purpose. Is it funny? Does it make you think? Is it enjoyable?
The answer to all of those is no. It's lazy, without even an ounce of effort going into its writing, and it only engenders similar commentary.
Your post, for example, would be welcomed for drawing the parallels between how some people apparently behave and the actions of someone like Nixon. The comment I originally applied to doesn't do that and is essentially nothing other than a form of submission to anyone who would impose their will upon the poster.
If you don't think that's counterproductive, well...
When you send an email, or any internet traffic, you're basically shipping it out to the wild because of the internet's packet-switched nature. Phones, being circuit switched, pass through a network but have a pretty obviously higher nature of privacy.
I just think the analogy isn't totally unreasonable though, especially with the prevalenc of wifi and public internet points. It certainly raises lots of interesting legal questions, like how the password-protected nature of accessing an email account affects your expectation of privacy, and things like WPA2 encryption, which encrypts your traffic over the air to the router, but not on the wire after the router ships it out. It of course begs the question of how and where law enforcement could access internet traffic in the case of an ISP or email provider or whoever refusing without a warrant, which is also in the news this past week.
All in all, I do think most laypeople would be a little shocked that email is simple plaintext and easily readable, which indicates they have an (unrealistic) expectation of privacy, and this goes for almost all internet traffic. It's simultaneously very public and very private. Ultimately I would not be surprised in the least if, in the near but not immediate future, "envelopes" become commonplace in order to satisfy's the general population's desire for an explicit expectation of privacy in the form of better encryption and security standards and practices seeing widespread use.
Your sarcasm is lost in the text. All it can possibly do is convince people reading it that, somewhere out there, there is actually a horde of people who legitimately believe this.
If you're trying to make some edgy stance against government infringement of civil liberties, you're being fucking retarded and counterproductive.
Microsoft is more about creating and pushing their own products because they want to make money, not because they're reluctant to use something created somewhere else. If they can use, control, or own things created elsewhere, they're all for it.
I was talking about the only place that matters (America), where it is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.
The UK and some of its former colonies aren't quite as big on writing things down beforehand, and most of the time it seems to work. Australia in particular does seem to have a lot of "well, whatever, you know what we meant" legislation from the news I see, which is really the only explanation for some of the crazy laws that I hear come out of there. But hey, if it works, then it works. I don't have much more than a passing knowledge of it.
Thank god it's not like that in the USA, though. It'd be a total madhouse. I don't know how you people do it.
Laws are prescriptive: they must be written and agreed upon beforehand. You cannot be punished for doing something which only becomes illegal after the fact.
Punishments for breaking laws generally provide for a range in sentencing, giving the judicial system some leeway in case the "crime" actually was something rather innocuous or unintentional. If you think the range of sentencing doesn't quite fit the magnitude of the crimes, then you believe the law should be changed. This also needs to be pre-scribed.
If the range of sentencing for crimes is decided right after it is committed, or if it can be nullified immediately, then there isn't much of a judicial system at all. It's just a mob.
I specifically dismissed plugins and keyboard shortcuts because they are A) far from intuitively discoverable, B) indistinguishable from magic to any non-hard core user, and C) it's the absolute favorite excuse for gnome-apologists when you point out a flaw in the UI.
We're not talking about some convoluted 5-key shortcuts here. We're talking about pressing the super key.
I don't get this harping about "Windows 95", btw. Attempt at "guilt by association"? An obvious fallacy, which doesn't do anything positive for your position. (As a side note, I'd like to point out that Microsoft has produced a lot of turds over the years, but the "Windows 95" UI is (also used in W2k until they ruined it in XP but I guess it doesn't sound as bad to accuse people of wanting their w2k back, right?), despite its warts a very clean and useable UI.)
I mention people wanting win95 because win95 has set the standard for what graphical interfaces should be like. Win7, despite all of its changes, is essentially a windows 95 interface on a fundamental level. Same goes for gnome2. If you feel insulted by it, maybe it's because clamoring for a 20 year old interface that wasn't particularly great when it first came out is a little embarassing after it's been pointed out to you. Sure, it's "clean" or "usable", but so is twm or blackbox or whatever. Like I said, no one's really going to hold it against you for being one of the diehards who wants those until you feel the need to hold everyone back because of it.
Stuff that relies on magic, stuff that does things just because you happen to park your mouse cursor somewhere arbitrarily decided to be "special"
Yes, yes, yes, we get it! Moving your mouse to the top-left corner is a crime against humanity. The people demand the ability to move their mouse to the corner and clicking on the button there instead.
And that's kind of the core of it afaic, I guess. What grates me about Gnome3,...
well, at least you admitted you're one of the people who can't distinguish their annoyance with the gnome people's management skills from anything else and takes it out on the UI. It would be preferable for you to do this in a way similar to the other responses my question got instead of being insulted by it, of course.
I 100% understand and sympathize with this. The release of gnome3 was completely mismanaged and caused all kinds of collateral damage, but for me, the reaction to it is separate from the desktop. I like the product, just not how it was done.
It's especially true for me with Fedora. RHEL and CentOS are great, in my opinion, but Fedora is basically a non-starter because of issues like this that ripple their way throughout an entire installation. I originally tried installing a Fedora release so that I could test out gnome-shell, just to see what it was like, and it was just an awful experience. Trying it out on other "experimental" or more DIY distro installs like Debian wheezy and gentoo required poking and prodding, but it was a more comfortable style of effort to get it working. And after it was, it was great.
The way gnome3, Fedora, and Canonical (with unity, and moving which side the close buttons on windows are) have tried to move forward by cannonballing the pool is aggravating and very reminiscent of 1990s Microsoft or 2000s Apple for sure, so I hate it too. But I'm also sick of the traditional desktop ("i want my windows95") enough to want some progress, so I am very interested in gnome-shell. Hopefully the gnome guys can take it to heart.
well that's basically how I feel, too. Except I've found gnome-shell to be pleasnat and usable, especially after installing a newer version and just trying it out for a bit. I originally found myself excessively having to switch to the activities/workspace overview mode because of, say, having a bunch of pdf or documents open whose thumbnails were difficult to distinguish between or because the thumbnails felt like they had a randomness to their ordering. And not knowing that I could slide between workspaces by click-and-dragging the shaded background area in the overview.
but that's not really hate. I mean, it would stop you from using it, yeah, but if that's the problem then people can just switch to something like Cinnamon or MATE or xfce, which all seem to be fine enough and offer the familiar desktop paradigm. There are lots of comments and hatred for it in a way that makes it sound like it must so fundamentally flawed that the source code should be deleted and forgotten, but nobody seems to ever be able to back up their strong feelings for it.
I'm expressly not looking for idiots. I wanted a real answer to why the hatred for gnome3 is so strong, but it seems like the only strong criticisms of it are idiotic in nature.
2. If you can seriously defend the way for instance virtual desktops are handled, and how you're forced to continuously race your mouse-pointer back and forth across your widescreen monitor to accomplish anything with them, you're welcome. And NO, keyboard shortcuts or plugins and what not does NOT qualify as "solutions". Those are epic fail workarounds.
how is that a fundamental flaw? It's an implementation detail. It can be annoying to repeatedly move your mouse from the top-left to the bottom-right, sure. It would be nice if the "hotspot" for it were configurable or something in case you found it more convenient somewhere else. Same goes for the notification try thing at the bottom. If you're basing your hatred of it on this, you're (surprise) an idiot! Gnome3 is interesting because of its overviews and workspaces, not because of which key-combinations and mouse-clicks it currently has you perform. Note that this is especially annoying if you are fighting the ui (i want my windows 95 back!!!!!), instead of just using it -- if you don't know that you can drag the background up and down in the activities overview similar to how you can drag-and-drop individual windows, then yes, this is tedious. But scrolling the workspaces by dragging is convenient, doesn't require you to move your mouse all the way across your widescreen monitor, and is one of those things you find to be so intuitive that you quickly forget you can't do it in other environments and begin to take it for granted.
also, keyboard shortcuts do not qualify as solutions? what?
This is linux. Keypresses shouldn't be absolutely necessary in a gui environment, and it'd be nice if there were more, or they were more configurable, but what the hell are you talking about if you only consider mouse input for everything? One of the truly interesting things about gnome3, especially compared to other desktop environments, is that keyboard shortcuts actually feel powerful and integrated. In older environments, keyboard shortcuts are essentially shortcuts to let you not use the gui anymore, like a launcher, or alt-tabbing and its virtual desktop equivalent. Gnome-shell is the first environment I've used where the super key is a blessing instead of an afterthought, where pressing it doesn't make you feel like somebody dropped something on your mouse and right-clicked somewhere.
3. That's just the beginning. If you're serious about finding out what's wrong with it, you should contact a university near you, where they train any kind of students within cognitive science, or do anything related to HCI. Just don't forget to take your pills.
so this is one of those "there are so many reasons I hate it, I can't even think of any" things. Alright, buddy. I hope your freshman year in that program with an HCI class is going well for you.
Thanks for your viewpoint. I basically agree with this on the major points completely.
It sounds like I had similar experiences when I first tried it for one of the earlier 3.x releases (not the original rollout, which sounded like an extinction-level event). It crashed frequently, there were module incompatibilities that would cause it to hang with gdm, there were usability issues that seemed like they were obviously of the "we'll get to that later" nature, etc. It had issues with certain graphics cards. But it wasn't fundamentally flawed -- it just wasn't there yet, like many other things linux.
They probably should have done a better job retiring gnome2 from the sound of it, like a more graceful handoff to something like MATE. I just don't really understand the hatred. If you want to use gnome2, and you want gnome2 to stay the same, then it's probably better off to be forked into some kind of long-term retirement plan. I mean, does anyone really think gnome2 is the be-all, end-all of computer desktops? For me, it was always just a fairly nice desktop, that worked, but didn't particularly have anything special about it. There are others which not only perform similar tasks, but do lots of them better. And now gnome can make the major leap to something new.
I understand liking the old and familiar, but I don't quite get why that causes so much outrage? If people want something like that, they can keep using what they were using, or use a fork like MATE, or use something similar like xfce. Or they can be like one of those people that still uses fvwm or blackbox or whatever for decades.
I feel similarly about unity and windows 8, although I find both of those to be less interesting, if more stable and refined, than gnome3. And after my initial experiences with gnome 3.earlyversion, which were mediocre but interesting, gnome 3.6 seems like an incredible improvement over it. Hopefully 3.8 and further continue to improve it like that.
No, idiot. I've spent more time than it's worth doing that and the vast, vast majority of what it's revealed are:
a) legitimate but ultimately insignificant bug reports which are not fundamental design flaws
(the minority)
or, b) people who literally have zero ability to differentiate their emotions from reality and yell and scream about how awful it is because it's different.
While I understand the sentiment, I don't care at all. If it doesn't feel like windows 95, and you hate it, that's cool, but it doesn't make it bad.
If that's not you, and your complaints center almost entirely around "it's buggy", I don't really understand the hate for it. It's certainly annoying, but buggy gui applications is a "this is the year of Linux on the desktop" thing for me -- completely expected. If it bothers you that much, why don't you just use xfce or something instead? Is the hate just because it changed and you don't want to keep using some old version of it?
I mean, I get it. But I don't get it. I understand that people can be fucking retarded, but it's fucking retarded. Someone who uses gnome 2 on their ubuntu 9 install is incredibly angry that Fedora 19 now ships with gnome 3. Ok? Is there something I'm missing here?
Judging from the time I've spent looking into it, and the general tone of responses whenever someone asks, the answer is apparently not.
I like gnome 3 specifically for these reasons. I like the ideas, and I like where it's going, and I actually think it's great for personal use.
I'm 100% sympathetic to it's effect on larger, centrally-administered networks, but I still don't really understand the hate for it. Can't you just keep using gnome 2, or xfce, or kde, or whatever? Is the fallback mode that awful?
I agree that it's not ready for primetime, but that doesn't explain the vitriol, especially since so many people hint to it being fundamentally flawed or immoral, as opposed to new and not suitable for corporate use.
Can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the hatred of gnome 3?
Besides the whole "my gui doesn't work like win95 anymore and I really want to use something named gnome" crybaby shtick, I mean. Is there something besides that which I'm missing?
Slashdot Mirror
and I mention analog only because it was so widespread and went on for so long that it should really hammer the point home. It's still entirely possible but the technicals behind it are more complicated.
The point is: cell phones are just glorified radio transceivers.
Analog cell phones broadcasted voice communications over the air in the clear for decades.
The police, along with just about anyone, were free to listen in. You may not have heard about it because there wasn't much complaint about it.
It's actually ingrained in pop culture too, if you look out for criminals in thrillers who don't want to speak on a cell phone.
apparently the State Department agrees with you, as they said it's a possible violation as well. The Forbes article has been updated with the full text of their letter (with a relevant part here):
They appear to want to take a better-safe-than-sorry approach until it can be properly reviewed.
thanks again.
anyway, judging by their mention of the State Department and trade controls, I'd have to guess that this has to do with regulation of exportation of arms and nothing to do with the second amendment.
I'm not sure how it's justified to prevent access by Americans, though, besides obvious technical limitations. Does anyone have a link to any kind of official statement on this? So far the only statement I've seen is a red bar at the top of their page and NPR reporting on the red bar at the top of their page. I'd love to see some actual statements.
I care if people aren't upset because it seems to me that the lack of upset is that people don't seem to have expectations of privacy when it comes to radio broadcasts.
Like I was originally saying, it's more like the expectation of privacy while holding a conversation in a restaurant. There certainly is an expectation, but it's not unreasonable for the police to overhear what you're saying.
Has this never resulted in denial of service?
Of course I do.
People have never seemed to be too upset about their cell phones, though.
uh, are you kidding?
It's because people paid for a game, were force-fed always-online-even-for-single-player, and then may have spent hours playing on the day in question.
How is that not disastrous?
Modern email is not almost entirely sent over SSL, and that wouldn't help much in the first place when it comes to government snooping. But yes, one of the major questions is about what the big corporations will do and how much pressure they're under. The big telcos decades ago wouldn't dream of giving up information like this to the government without a warrant, and may have even been held liable in court if they had. Telco and ISPs today seem either much more likely to be willing to do this.
with regards to legal expectations of privacy, it will always depend on how things are implemented, because the implementation we're talking about here is reality. No matter how forcefully we write our laws, they will lose every argument with reality.
I must read too many of these articles then, because people quoting Nixon (or other slightly less reprehensible characters) all the time has gotten to be repetitive, along the lines of godwin's law or "just a piece of paper".
I wouldn't really disagree with that. Especially nerve-grating is how so many people, from every bit of the political spectrum, look to the President as being able to wield some kind of magical powers over society. A significant percentage of children and adults wouldn't even be able to express what the President's actual job is, in large part because of how pervasive this kind of conversation has become -- also seeming to have taken hold with Nixon.
It certainly explains a lot about Dick Cheney's aspirations for transforming the office of Vice President.
The two of us understanding the sarcasm has nothing to do with how productive or counterproductive it is.
These kinds of comments are posted by the dozen, attached to every article with even a remote connection to politics or law, and they ultimately serve no purpose. Is it funny? Does it make you think? Is it enjoyable?
The answer to all of those is no. It's lazy, without even an ounce of effort going into its writing, and it only engenders similar commentary.
Your post, for example, would be welcomed for drawing the parallels between how some people apparently behave and the actions of someone like Nixon. The comment I originally applied to doesn't do that and is essentially nothing other than a form of submission to anyone who would impose their will upon the poster.
If you don't think that's counterproductive, well...
right.
When you send an email, or any internet traffic, you're basically shipping it out to the wild because of the internet's packet-switched nature. Phones, being circuit switched, pass through a network but have a pretty obviously higher nature of privacy.
I just think the analogy isn't totally unreasonable though, especially with the prevalenc of wifi and public internet points. It certainly raises lots of interesting legal questions, like how the password-protected nature of accessing an email account affects your expectation of privacy, and things like WPA2 encryption, which encrypts your traffic over the air to the router, but not on the wire after the router ships it out. It of course begs the question of how and where law enforcement could access internet traffic in the case of an ISP or email provider or whoever refusing without a warrant, which is also in the news this past week.
All in all, I do think most laypeople would be a little shocked that email is simple plaintext and easily readable, which indicates they have an (unrealistic) expectation of privacy, and this goes for almost all internet traffic. It's simultaneously very public and very private. Ultimately I would not be surprised in the least if, in the near but not immediate future, "envelopes" become commonplace in order to satisfy's the general population's desire for an explicit expectation of privacy in the form of better encryption and security standards and practices seeing widespread use.
It's not strange at all. Isn't this a technical site?
Email is sent plaintext over the wire. There's no envelope.
It's like complaining about someone being able to hear your radio broadcasts in plain language. Or overhear your conversation in a restaurant.
Please don't shitpost like this.
Your sarcasm is lost in the text. All it can possibly do is convince people reading it that, somewhere out there, there is actually a horde of people who legitimately believe this.
If you're trying to make some edgy stance against government infringement of civil liberties, you're being fucking retarded and counterproductive.
thanks in advance,
everyone
Microsoft is more about creating and pushing their own products because they want to make money, not because they're reluctant to use something created somewhere else. If they can use, control, or own things created elsewhere, they're all for it.
I was talking about the only place that matters (America), where it is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.
The UK and some of its former colonies aren't quite as big on writing things down beforehand, and most of the time it seems to work. Australia in particular does seem to have a lot of "well, whatever, you know what we meant" legislation from the news I see, which is really the only explanation for some of the crazy laws that I hear come out of there. But hey, if it works, then it works. I don't have much more than a passing knowledge of it.
Thank god it's not like that in the USA, though. It'd be a total madhouse. I don't know how you people do it.
Laws are prescriptive: they must be written and agreed upon beforehand. You cannot be punished for doing something which only becomes illegal after the fact.
Punishments for breaking laws generally provide for a range in sentencing, giving the judicial system some leeway in case the "crime" actually was something rather innocuous or unintentional. If you think the range of sentencing doesn't quite fit the magnitude of the crimes, then you believe the law should be changed. This also needs to be pre-scribed.
If the range of sentencing for crimes is decided right after it is committed, or if it can be nullified immediately, then there isn't much of a judicial system at all. It's just a mob.
We're not talking about some convoluted 5-key shortcuts here. We're talking about pressing the super key.
I mention people wanting win95 because win95 has set the standard for what graphical interfaces should be like. Win7, despite all of its changes, is essentially a windows 95 interface on a fundamental level. Same goes for gnome2. If you feel insulted by it, maybe it's because clamoring for a 20 year old interface that wasn't particularly great when it first came out is a little embarassing after it's been pointed out to you. Sure, it's "clean" or "usable", but so is twm or blackbox or whatever. Like I said, no one's really going to hold it against you for being one of the diehards who wants those until you feel the need to hold everyone back because of it.
Yes, yes, yes, we get it! Moving your mouse to the top-left corner is a crime against humanity. The people demand the ability to move their mouse to the corner and clicking on the button there instead.
well, at least you admitted you're one of the people who can't distinguish their annoyance with the gnome people's management skills from anything else and takes it out on the UI. It would be preferable for you to do this in a way similar to the other responses my question got instead of being insulted by it, of course.
thanks for your input, as well.
I 100% understand and sympathize with this. The release of gnome3 was completely mismanaged and caused all kinds of collateral damage, but for me, the reaction to it is separate from the desktop. I like the product, just not how it was done.
It's especially true for me with Fedora. RHEL and CentOS are great, in my opinion, but Fedora is basically a non-starter because of issues like this that ripple their way throughout an entire installation. I originally tried installing a Fedora release so that I could test out gnome-shell, just to see what it was like, and it was just an awful experience. Trying it out on other "experimental" or more DIY distro installs like Debian wheezy and gentoo required poking and prodding, but it was a more comfortable style of effort to get it working. And after it was, it was great.
The way gnome3, Fedora, and Canonical (with unity, and moving which side the close buttons on windows are) have tried to move forward by cannonballing the pool is aggravating and very reminiscent of 1990s Microsoft or 2000s Apple for sure, so I hate it too. But I'm also sick of the traditional desktop ("i want my windows95") enough to want some progress, so I am very interested in gnome-shell. Hopefully the gnome guys can take it to heart.
well that's basically how I feel, too. Except I've found gnome-shell to be pleasnat and usable, especially after installing a newer version and just trying it out for a bit. I originally found myself excessively having to switch to the activities/workspace overview mode because of, say, having a bunch of pdf or documents open whose thumbnails were difficult to distinguish between or because the thumbnails felt like they had a randomness to their ordering. And not knowing that I could slide between workspaces by click-and-dragging the shaded background area in the overview.
but that's not really hate. I mean, it would stop you from using it, yeah, but if that's the problem then people can just switch to something like Cinnamon or MATE or xfce, which all seem to be fine enough and offer the familiar desktop paradigm. There are lots of comments and hatred for it in a way that makes it sound like it must so fundamentally flawed that the source code should be deleted and forgotten, but nobody seems to ever be able to back up their strong feelings for it.
I'm expressly not looking for idiots. I wanted a real answer to why the hatred for gnome3 is so strong, but it seems like the only strong criticisms of it are idiotic in nature.
how is that a fundamental flaw? It's an implementation detail. It can be annoying to repeatedly move your mouse from the top-left to the bottom-right, sure. It would be nice if the "hotspot" for it were configurable or something in case you found it more convenient somewhere else. Same goes for the notification try thing at the bottom. If you're basing your hatred of it on this, you're (surprise) an idiot! Gnome3 is interesting because of its overviews and workspaces, not because of which key-combinations and mouse-clicks it currently has you perform. Note that this is especially annoying if you are fighting the ui (i want my windows 95 back!!!!!), instead of just using it -- if you don't know that you can drag the background up and down in the activities overview similar to how you can drag-and-drop individual windows, then yes, this is tedious. But scrolling the workspaces by dragging is convenient, doesn't require you to move your mouse all the way across your widescreen monitor, and is one of those things you find to be so intuitive that you quickly forget you can't do it in other environments and begin to take it for granted.
also, keyboard shortcuts do not qualify as solutions? what?
This is linux. Keypresses shouldn't be absolutely necessary in a gui environment, and it'd be nice if there were more, or they were more configurable, but what the hell are you talking about if you only consider mouse input for everything? One of the truly interesting things about gnome3, especially compared to other desktop environments, is that keyboard shortcuts actually feel powerful and integrated. In older environments, keyboard shortcuts are essentially shortcuts to let you not use the gui anymore, like a launcher, or alt-tabbing and its virtual desktop equivalent. Gnome-shell is the first environment I've used where the super key is a blessing instead of an afterthought, where pressing it doesn't make you feel like somebody dropped something on your mouse and right-clicked somewhere.
so this is one of those "there are so many reasons I hate it, I can't even think of any" things. Alright, buddy. I hope your freshman year in that program with an HCI class is going well for you.
Thanks for your viewpoint. I basically agree with this on the major points completely.
It sounds like I had similar experiences when I first tried it for one of the earlier 3.x releases (not the original rollout, which sounded like an extinction-level event). It crashed frequently, there were module incompatibilities that would cause it to hang with gdm, there were usability issues that seemed like they were obviously of the "we'll get to that later" nature, etc. It had issues with certain graphics cards. But it wasn't fundamentally flawed -- it just wasn't there yet, like many other things linux.
They probably should have done a better job retiring gnome2 from the sound of it, like a more graceful handoff to something like MATE. I just don't really understand the hatred. If you want to use gnome2, and you want gnome2 to stay the same, then it's probably better off to be forked into some kind of long-term retirement plan. I mean, does anyone really think gnome2 is the be-all, end-all of computer desktops? For me, it was always just a fairly nice desktop, that worked, but didn't particularly have anything special about it. There are others which not only perform similar tasks, but do lots of them better. And now gnome can make the major leap to something new.
I understand liking the old and familiar, but I don't quite get why that causes so much outrage? If people want something like that, they can keep using what they were using, or use a fork like MATE, or use something similar like xfce. Or they can be like one of those people that still uses fvwm or blackbox or whatever for decades.
I feel similarly about unity and windows 8, although I find both of those to be less interesting, if more stable and refined, than gnome3. And after my initial experiences with gnome 3.earlyversion, which were mediocre but interesting, gnome 3.6 seems like an incredible improvement over it. Hopefully 3.8 and further continue to improve it like that.
No, idiot. I've spent more time than it's worth doing that and the vast, vast majority of what it's revealed are:
a) legitimate but ultimately insignificant bug reports which are not fundamental design flaws
(the minority)
or,
b) people who literally have zero ability to differentiate their emotions from reality and yell and scream about how awful it is because it's different.
While I understand the sentiment, I don't care at all. If it doesn't feel like windows 95, and you hate it, that's cool, but it doesn't make it bad.
If that's not you, and your complaints center almost entirely around "it's buggy", I don't really understand the hate for it. It's certainly annoying, but buggy gui applications is a "this is the year of Linux on the desktop" thing for me -- completely expected. If it bothers you that much, why don't you just use xfce or something instead? Is the hate just because it changed and you don't want to keep using some old version of it?
I mean, I get it. But I don't get it. I understand that people can be fucking retarded, but it's fucking retarded. Someone who uses gnome 2 on their ubuntu 9 install is incredibly angry that Fedora 19 now ships with gnome 3. Ok? Is there something I'm missing here?
Judging from the time I've spent looking into it, and the general tone of responses whenever someone asks, the answer is apparently not.
I basically completely agree with this.
I like gnome 3 specifically for these reasons. I like the ideas, and I like where it's going, and I actually think it's great for personal use.
I'm 100% sympathetic to it's effect on larger, centrally-administered networks, but I still don't really understand the hate for it. Can't you just keep using gnome 2, or xfce, or kde, or whatever? Is the fallback mode that awful?
I agree that it's not ready for primetime, but that doesn't explain the vitriol, especially since so many people hint to it being fundamentally flawed or immoral, as opposed to new and not suitable for corporate use.
Can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the hatred of gnome 3?
Besides the whole "my gui doesn't work like win95 anymore and I really want to use something named gnome" crybaby shtick, I mean. Is there something besides that which I'm missing?