2) For other programs, I just hit Super and type the first letters of the program name
My keyboard doesn't have a "Super" key. And if it did, if I'm running an application I don't commonly use, I often don't know the name of it, so I would like a categorized menu of software to choose from.
You could run Gnome 3 and press alt+f1 instead of the Super key and if you install the frippery menu extension from extensions.gnome.org, you will have a traditional applications menu (you can also add a places menu with an additional extension).
I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
Obviously your definition of "serviceable" is more flexible than mine.
I swapped Gnome 3 out for Cinnamon. Not quite everything I used to routinely do in Gnome 2, but closer than Gnome 3.
You should also look at the Gnome 3 fall back mode. It looks and acts similar to Gnome 2, but is still Gnome 3. Ubuntu previously also shipped Gnome Classic Mode, but this was built on Gnome 2 and has since been discontinued. Cinnamon is Mint's version of Gnome's Fallback mode.
I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
Likewise, I like both Unity and Gnome Shell (at least after extensions). I find that I really don't use the Unity-lenses all that much with the exception of the applications one. Same thing with the HUD. It's interesting and all, but I don't find it improves my productivity. Given that, I find Gnome-shell to be more responsive and productive once I add dock and frippery menu extensions.
But I agree, both are quite usable although different than Gnome 2.
Another alternative to the gnome-shell in Gnome 3 is to use the fallback-shell. It is similar to the old Gnome 2 interface and doesn't require reliance on where Mint wants to take Cinnamon.
Why is is this not a meta-package? Why is it necessary to have a completely different Ubuntu for Gnome?
Because Ubuntu changes some of the gnome things, like the control center, etc., to include Ubuntu things, or to integrate better with Unity, like the notification system, etc. The goal of GNOMEbuntu is to be a pure Gnome 3 implementation, or at least as close as possible. That can't be done by simply installing packages. As to whether or not the differences between the Gnome versions and Ubuntu versions are significant enough to warrant the extra effort, that's to be seen.
We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
While I agree with his premise, I know several engineers that can build things and solve problems that are also fundamentalist christians. Most engineers, by their nature, deal with the here and now, not the past, whether 4B years ago or 10,000 years ago. So, while I agree with his premise, his implied conclusion does not directly correlate. That said, I am all for a scientifically literate society, mathematically literate, too.
I have a refrigerator that is a big rectangle and has a touch screen on the front for controls. You can also make calls from it, but it's not very mobile. Hopefully, it doesn't infringe on the iPhone.
The first commercially available touch screen mobile phone was released by IBM in 1994, I think. It didn't have a capacitance screen, because that technology hadn't been invented yet (and it wasn't invented by Apple, either), but it did have a touch screen. Palm pilots also had a rectangular shape with rounded corners that was a touch screen, but not a phone, although you could add an accessory that would let it make calls. Everything that was in the iPhone was already in the wild, so to speak.
Form follows function. Most laptops have a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Does that mean they infringe on the iPhone, too? I do agree that that Samsung could have made a phone that didn't so blatantly copy the iPhone. But really, it seems ironic to lose a suit for a touch screen, for instance, because you used the exact same one that is in the iPhone, when you are the freaking manufacturer of the touch screen itself.
Losing the suit won't hurt Samsung one bit. Apple is their biggest customer and to recoup the loss, it is obvious that Samsung will need to increase prices. Either way Samsung wins. However, for Apple, either way they lose. They either lose sales from the infringement or their price competitiveness is even worse than it was before and they lose sales because non-iPhones don't have the Samsung surtax on components.
However you feel about Apple, iOS, Samsung, Google or whomever else, keep in mind how broken the technology patent system is. Most of us have known this for years and this trial only serves to highlight this point over and over again.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. Don't focus your hate on the companies involved. Focus on reforming the horribly broken patent system.
Things won't change until people take their Lexus or Mercedes in to the shop and when it comes back, their touch screen devices have been deactivated because multi-touch screens violate Apple's patent. Once people of means and political power are inconvenienced, then things will change.
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
There won't be one because Microsoft invests more in R&D than any other tech company BY FAR. Now how much of that is actually useful or makes it into an actual product is another concern all together.
That's probably only true for consumer markets. But if you include military and aerospace, then there are other tech companies out there that spend a whole lot more on R&D than Microsoft.
I've never had a computing device that didn't have rounded corners. The only question is what the radius of curvature is.
While posted to be funny, you do have a point. Would the US Government allow you to sell a phone with sharp pointy corners? Wouldn't that be considered dangerous? As such, wouldn't rounded corners be a requirement of any consumer device sold and therefore not patentable because of public safety issues?
But, one of the big patents under contention is the size and shape of the iPhone. It has nothing to do with being a modern touch screen smartphone, but a rectangular box with round corners. Many a digital camera had the same size and shape, so it isn't anything unique to Apple. As for Apple creaing the modern touch screen smartphone market, that is true. But the market isn't what the patent is about. It is about a touch screen smartphone, which was first commercially available to the general public in 1994 (IBM on AT&T), 13 years before the iPhone. Granted the form factor was similar to other phones of the day, unlike the iPhone, but unless you define "modern" as anything post iPhone, they definitely did not create the first product.
So, please, don't talk about others ripping off Apple, many of the features you claim they are ripping off were in their own products long before Apple released the iPhone. Did Apple do it better? Most definitely. Did they do it first? No. Is the US Patent System hopelessly broken? Most definitely. Will the Apple/Samsung case change that? No.
....so does every iPhone, iPad, iPod, Android out there. But its only bad because Microsoft is doing it because we know Apple and Google do no evil...snicker.
That's not true. Apple and Android track every software you have downloaded and installed from their store, but not every software you have installed on your phone or pad or pod. So do most businesses that you buy stuff from. It's alright to track orders from your customers. Microsoft is doing it for everything you install, whether you purchased it from them or not. If a vendor wants to track my purchases from them, that's fine. If they want to track my purchases from everyone else, that's not fine. It's as simple as that.
There is a difference between an app store keeping track of what I have downloaded (and installed) from said store versus the OS keeping track of everything I've installed. The fact that it can be disabled is good, but still inadequate because how many users will even know to go in and disable it.
A better approach would be like many linux distros do and default the tracking to "no" and ask the user whether they would like to turn it on (along with what happens if they say "yes").
If M$ wants to keep track of the service patches I've downloaded from them and installed, that's fine. If they want to keep track of every other piece of software I've installed, whether downloaded (legally or not) or purchased, well, that's none of their business.
I do not doubt the research that shows that older men pass on more mutations, but is it that simple? Do these older men also have older wives/partners? If so, is it strictly that the sperm of older men is more susceptible to mutation or are the eggs of older women less discriminate and more likely to allow a defective sperm to penetrate and fertilize the egg? In other words, would these mutant sperm been able to fertilize a younger healthier egg?
no those are gnome 3 libraries with completely different desktop shells built on top of them. the gnome 3 libraries are flexible gnome 3 is not.
No, they are all Gnome 3 with different desktop UIs or shells on top. Much like KDE has the plasma desktop interface and the plasma netbook interface. They look very different, but are still KDE. Likewise just replacing the UI does not mean one is not running Gnome 3. If I install evolution under KDE, then I am using gnome 3 libraries. Replacing the shell, which was made to be replaceable means I'm still running Gnome 3.
Well there are two ways to look at this. Somebody can develop a standard and hope the content follows or Somebody can develop content that manufactures will follow.
Betamax was much better than VHS, that would be developing the standard first. The porn industry, however, developed content that favored VHS. So VHS won out.
Another example would be 3D TV. Without having 3D content to watch on them, they never took off. It doesn't matter how good the technology is, without content, it is worthless. If you build it, they will come, may work for a ball field in Iowa, but it doesn't usually work in the real world. Ironically, as of the end of 2011, there were only 3,500 blu-ray titles available, with sales of dvds outpacing blu-ray 4 to 1. HD isn't any good if there isn't content to drive its adoption.
As much as I dislike Gnome 3, if there was one shred of evidence that non-Linux users would more readily embrace the OS due to it, I would be much more enthusiastic. All I've seen so far is a large segment of the community (including myself) alienated and little to no new users to show for it. If you have something that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.
Back in 2008 when Gnome 3 and gnome shell were being fleshed out, Ubuntu was a rising star. Ubuntu is still pushing into the consumer market. What has changed, however, is that Ubuntu, while using Gnome 3, stuck Unity on top. So at the current moment, with the largest consumer oriented distro dropping gnome-shell, things don't look too good. However, that could hardly be anticipated back when gnome-shell was being developed (OTOH, the backlash wanting to stick with Gnome 2 could be and should have been anticipated).
In otherwords, when Gnome 3/shell was riding on top of Ubuntu and Ubuntu's plans were to expand into all of these new markets, the design behind Gnome 3/shell made sense for those new markets. Now that Ubuntu has pulled out and chosen their own interface, that is problematic for Gnome 3/shell as it isn't really suitable for existing power users and won't get the exposure planned on from new users.
I would definitely agree with system administrators and hard core programmers taking the latter explanation. On the other hand, for a regular desktop user who maybe has two or three apps open at most, the UI probably is easier and more intuitive. At least that is what the various groups that have actually done tests on the UI have come to the conclusion.
Also network admins, accountants, graphic designers, business annalists, and anybody working with multiple sets of data. Essentially, anyone that can benefit from dual monitors.
Is the problem then with Gnome 3 + gnome-shell or is it that multiple screens are not working correctly, yet? If the latter, hasn't that been a problem for some time, even prior to Gnome 3?
I'm using Cinammon, too, but my teeth are grinding. KDE is starting to look attractive again, although she's put some weight on.
Actually, if you disable the desktop search function in the settings, KDE uses less resources than Gnome 3 (shell or cinnamon) or Unity. At least that is my experience.
I guess if all of those advanced users who wanted Gnome 2 to be the end all of linux desktops had employed the gnome developers, then they would have what they want. But they didn't and so the gnome developers decided that they could always remain small and insignificant in the entire computing ecosphere (not just the advanced linux users, but all computer users) or they could develop an interface that others would find acceptable.
Face it, the advanced computer users market is pretty limited. If they are going to chose linux as an OS, they probably already had. The only growth for linux on the desktop are those people not using linux. The Gnome developers have chosen to redesign the UI to go after those users.
Mint didn't rise because they offered people non-gnome 3. Mint rose because they offered people non-Unity which started under Gnome 2. Then when Gnome 3 was introduced, they chose to embrace it by developing their own shell on top of it. If you run Mint with Cinnamon, you run the full Gnome 3 stack. The only objectionable part to pure vanilla Gnome 3 is the gnome-shell. And the gnome developers have produced two shells, but only the new paradigm even gets noticed. It's interesting how many people who don't like Gnome 3 with gnome-shell jump to another desktop environment instead of using the classic shell on top of Gnome 3. The classic shell is very similar to the old gnome 2.
I use XFCE myself, and largely because I'm not a fan of Gnome 3 because it's not easy to multitask, but I think for many many users (my wife, my parents, most of my friends), Gnome 3 is what they are looking for. It has a nice, easy to use launcher, it gives most of the screen to what you are using, and it looks sleek and modern. I think it could probably go a long way to bring GNU/Linux to a greater market share. That is reason for optimism, at least for the less ridiculous users.
I think that is the point. Gnome 3 was designed to appeal to the 99% of the world population that isn't already using Linux. That is where the growth will be. Gnome 2 pretty much dominated the linux desktop but could it attract new users? Canonical took the same approach with Unity. The choice is to try an remain a niche market catering to existing users or try and remain relevant by attracting new users.
The workflow of gnome-shell and Unity do not fit the needs of every linux desktop user. Then again, neither did Gnome 2. Both the gnome developers and Canonical developers have chosen to seek growth markets and those markets are from the people not currently using linux.
Gnome 3 is a complete mess. and it's UI is not easier to use or more intuitive, its just trendy and "different" It is 5 years behind Gnome 2.x in usability and polish. A lot of the criticism for Gnome 3 is justified. The problem is knowing how the Gnome team works, they will ignore everyone and do what they want.
I have tried several times to use it and every time the same parts fall down. Luckily some smart people are picking up the abandoned 2.x line and forked it. So linux will continue to have a useable desktop instead of the wierd social experiments that are Gnome 3 and Unity.
Is it more accurate to say that "the gnome-shell UI is not easier to use or more intuitive", or "the gnome-shell UI is not easier to use or more intuitive for the way I work?"
I would definitely agree with system administrators and hard core programmers taking the latter explanation. On the other hand, for a regular desktop user who maybe has two or three apps open at most, the UI probably is easier and more intuitive. At least that is what the various groups that have actually done tests on the UI have come to the conclusion.
For normal and new users, Gnome 3/gnome-shell seems to be quite intuitive and popular. For geeks, it does not. Then again, geeks tend to have the skills to modify it to the way they want.
What I don't understand with all of the complaints about not being able to customize the UI in gnome-shell, why people flock to XFCE. It really isn't that customizable, either. KDE would seem to be the customizers first choice of desktop, but the numbers don't show people fleeing from Gnome to KDE.
Slashdot Mirror
2) For other programs, I just hit Super and type the first letters of the program name
My keyboard doesn't have a "Super" key. And if it did, if I'm running an application I don't commonly use, I often don't know the name of it, so I would like a categorized menu of software to choose from.
You could run Gnome 3 and press alt+f1 instead of the Super key and if you install the frippery menu extension from extensions.gnome.org, you will have a traditional applications menu (you can also add a places menu with an additional extension).
Here are other keystroke/shortcuts besides the alt+f1: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fedora-16-gnome-3-review,3155-10.html
I'm a former hater but I really like Unity now.
I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
Obviously your definition of "serviceable" is more flexible than mine.
I swapped Gnome 3 out for Cinnamon. Not quite everything I used to routinely do in Gnome 2, but closer than Gnome 3.
You should also look at the Gnome 3 fall back mode. It looks and acts similar to Gnome 2, but is still Gnome 3. Ubuntu previously also shipped Gnome Classic Mode, but this was built on Gnome 2 and has since been discontinued. Cinnamon is Mint's version of Gnome's Fallback mode.
I'm a former hater but I really like Unity now.
I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
Likewise, I like both Unity and Gnome Shell (at least after extensions). I find that I really don't use the Unity-lenses all that much with the exception of the applications one. Same thing with the HUD. It's interesting and all, but I don't find it improves my productivity. Given that, I find Gnome-shell to be more responsive and productive once I add dock and frippery menu extensions.
But I agree, both are quite usable although different than Gnome 2.
Another alternative to the gnome-shell in Gnome 3 is to use the fallback-shell. It is similar to the old Gnome 2 interface and doesn't require reliance on where Mint wants to take Cinnamon.
Why is is this not a meta-package? Why is it necessary to have a completely different Ubuntu for Gnome?
Because Ubuntu changes some of the gnome things, like the control center, etc., to include Ubuntu things, or to integrate better with Unity, like the notification system, etc. The goal of GNOMEbuntu is to be a pure Gnome 3 implementation, or at least as close as possible. That can't be done by simply installing packages. As to whether or not the differences between the Gnome versions and Ubuntu versions are significant enough to warrant the extra effort, that's to be seen.
We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
While I agree with his premise, I know several engineers that can build things and solve problems that are also fundamentalist christians. Most engineers, by their nature, deal with the here and now, not the past, whether 4B years ago or 10,000 years ago. So, while I agree with his premise, his implied conclusion does not directly correlate. That said, I am all for a scientifically literate society, mathematically literate, too.
I have a refrigerator that is a big rectangle and has a touch screen on the front for controls. You can also make calls from it, but it's not very mobile. Hopefully, it doesn't infringe on the iPhone.
The first commercially available touch screen mobile phone was released by IBM in 1994, I think. It didn't have a capacitance screen, because that technology hadn't been invented yet (and it wasn't invented by Apple, either), but it did have a touch screen. Palm pilots also had a rectangular shape with rounded corners that was a touch screen, but not a phone, although you could add an accessory that would let it make calls. Everything that was in the iPhone was already in the wild, so to speak.
Form follows function. Most laptops have a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Does that mean they infringe on the iPhone, too? I do agree that that Samsung could have made a phone that didn't so blatantly copy the iPhone. But really, it seems ironic to lose a suit for a touch screen, for instance, because you used the exact same one that is in the iPhone, when you are the freaking manufacturer of the touch screen itself.
Losing the suit won't hurt Samsung one bit. Apple is their biggest customer and to recoup the loss, it is obvious that Samsung will need to increase prices. Either way Samsung wins. However, for Apple, either way they lose. They either lose sales from the infringement or their price competitiveness is even worse than it was before and they lose sales because non-iPhones don't have the Samsung surtax on components.
However you feel about Apple, iOS, Samsung, Google or whomever else, keep in mind how broken the technology patent system is. Most of us have known this for years and this trial only serves to highlight this point over and over again.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. Don't focus your hate on the companies involved. Focus on reforming the horribly broken patent system.
Things won't change until people take their Lexus or Mercedes in to the shop and when it comes back, their touch screen devices have been deactivated because multi-touch screens violate Apple's patent. Once people of means and political power are inconvenienced, then things will change.
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
There won't be one because Microsoft invests more in R&D than any other tech company BY FAR. Now how much of that is actually useful or makes it into an actual product is another concern all together.
That's probably only true for consumer markets. But if you include military and aerospace, then there are other tech companies out there that spend a whole lot more on R&D than Microsoft.
I've never had a computing device that didn't have rounded corners. The only question is what the radius of curvature is.
While posted to be funny, you do have a point. Would the US Government allow you to sell a phone with sharp pointy corners? Wouldn't that be considered dangerous? As such, wouldn't rounded corners be a requirement of any consumer device sold and therefore not patentable because of public safety issues?
But, one of the big patents under contention is the size and shape of the iPhone. It has nothing to do with being a modern touch screen smartphone, but a rectangular box with round corners. Many a digital camera had the same size and shape, so it isn't anything unique to Apple. As for Apple creaing the modern touch screen smartphone market, that is true. But the market isn't what the patent is about. It is about a touch screen smartphone, which was first commercially available to the general public in 1994 (IBM on AT&T), 13 years before the iPhone. Granted the form factor was similar to other phones of the day, unlike the iPhone, but unless you define "modern" as anything post iPhone, they definitely did not create the first product.
So, please, don't talk about others ripping off Apple, many of the features you claim they are ripping off were in their own products long before Apple released the iPhone. Did Apple do it better? Most definitely. Did they do it first? No. Is the US Patent System hopelessly broken? Most definitely. Will the Apple/Samsung case change that? No.
....so does every iPhone, iPad, iPod, Android out there. But its only bad because Microsoft is doing it because we know Apple and Google do no evil...snicker.
That's not true. Apple and Android track every software you have downloaded and installed from their store, but not every software you have installed on your phone or pad or pod. So do most businesses that you buy stuff from. It's alright to track orders from your customers. Microsoft is doing it for everything you install, whether you purchased it from them or not. If a vendor wants to track my purchases from them, that's fine. If they want to track my purchases from everyone else, that's not fine. It's as simple as that.
There is a difference between an app store keeping track of what I have downloaded (and installed) from said store versus the OS keeping track of everything I've installed. The fact that it can be disabled is good, but still inadequate because how many users will even know to go in and disable it.
A better approach would be like many linux distros do and default the tracking to "no" and ask the user whether they would like to turn it on (along with what happens if they say "yes").
If M$ wants to keep track of the service patches I've downloaded from them and installed, that's fine. If they want to keep track of every other piece of software I've installed, whether downloaded (legally or not) or purchased, well, that's none of their business.
I do not doubt the research that shows that older men pass on more mutations, but is it that simple? Do these older men also have older wives/partners? If so, is it strictly that the sperm of older men is more susceptible to mutation or are the eggs of older women less discriminate and more likely to allow a defective sperm to penetrate and fertilize the egg? In other words, would these mutant sperm been able to fertilize a younger healthier egg?
no those are gnome 3 libraries with completely different desktop shells built on top of them. the gnome 3 libraries are flexible gnome 3 is not.
No, they are all Gnome 3 with different desktop UIs or shells on top. Much like KDE has the plasma desktop interface and the plasma netbook interface. They look very different, but are still KDE. Likewise just replacing the UI does not mean one is not running Gnome 3. If I install evolution under KDE, then I am using gnome 3 libraries. Replacing the shell, which was made to be replaceable means I'm still running Gnome 3.
Well there are two ways to look at this. Somebody can develop a standard and hope the content follows or Somebody can develop content that manufactures will follow.
Betamax was much better than VHS, that would be developing the standard first. The porn industry, however, developed content that favored VHS. So VHS won out.
Another example would be 3D TV. Without having 3D content to watch on them, they never took off. It doesn't matter how good the technology is, without content, it is worthless. If you build it, they will come, may work for a ball field in Iowa, but it doesn't usually work in the real world. Ironically, as of the end of 2011, there were only 3,500 blu-ray titles available, with sales of dvds outpacing blu-ray 4 to 1. HD isn't any good if there isn't content to drive its adoption.
As much as I dislike Gnome 3, if there was one shred of evidence that non-Linux users would more readily embrace the OS due to it, I would be much more enthusiastic. All I've seen so far is a large segment of the community (including myself) alienated and little to no new users to show for it. If you have something that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.
Back in 2008 when Gnome 3 and gnome shell were being fleshed out, Ubuntu was a rising star. Ubuntu is still pushing into the consumer market. What has changed, however, is that Ubuntu, while using Gnome 3, stuck Unity on top. So at the current moment, with the largest consumer oriented distro dropping gnome-shell, things don't look too good. However, that could hardly be anticipated back when gnome-shell was being developed (OTOH, the backlash wanting to stick with Gnome 2 could be and should have been anticipated).
In otherwords, when Gnome 3/shell was riding on top of Ubuntu and Ubuntu's plans were to expand into all of these new markets, the design behind Gnome 3/shell made sense for those new markets. Now that Ubuntu has pulled out and chosen their own interface, that is problematic for Gnome 3/shell as it isn't really suitable for existing power users and won't get the exposure planned on from new users.
I would definitely agree with system administrators and hard core programmers taking the latter explanation. On the other hand, for a regular desktop user who maybe has two or three apps open at most, the UI probably is easier and more intuitive. At least that is what the various groups that have actually done tests on the UI have come to the conclusion.
Also network admins, accountants, graphic designers, business annalists, and anybody working with multiple sets of data. Essentially, anyone that can benefit from dual monitors.
Is the problem then with Gnome 3 + gnome-shell or is it that multiple screens are not working correctly, yet? If the latter, hasn't that been a problem for some time, even prior to Gnome 3?
What numbers?
Google is your friend with the answer to that question
I'm using Cinammon, too, but my teeth are grinding. KDE is starting to look attractive again, although she's put some weight on.
Actually, if you disable the desktop search function in the settings, KDE uses less resources than Gnome 3 (shell or cinnamon) or Unity. At least that is my experience.
This is just what we need!
Instead of developing ultra-hd tv, they should be developing content that is actually worth watching.
I guess if all of those advanced users who wanted Gnome 2 to be the end all of linux desktops had employed the gnome developers, then they would have what they want. But they didn't and so the gnome developers decided that they could always remain small and insignificant in the entire computing ecosphere (not just the advanced linux users, but all computer users) or they could develop an interface that others would find acceptable.
Face it, the advanced computer users market is pretty limited. If they are going to chose linux as an OS, they probably already had. The only growth for linux on the desktop are those people not using linux. The Gnome developers have chosen to redesign the UI to go after those users.
Mint didn't rise because they offered people non-gnome 3. Mint rose because they offered people non-Unity which started under Gnome 2. Then when Gnome 3 was introduced, they chose to embrace it by developing their own shell on top of it. If you run Mint with Cinnamon, you run the full Gnome 3 stack. The only objectionable part to pure vanilla Gnome 3 is the gnome-shell. And the gnome developers have produced two shells, but only the new paradigm even gets noticed. It's interesting how many people who don't like Gnome 3 with gnome-shell jump to another desktop environment instead of using the classic shell on top of Gnome 3. The classic shell is very similar to the old gnome 2.
I use XFCE myself, and largely because I'm not a fan of Gnome 3 because it's not easy to multitask, but I think for many many users (my wife, my parents, most of my friends), Gnome 3 is what they are looking for. It has a nice, easy to use launcher, it gives most of the screen to what you are using, and it looks sleek and modern. I think it could probably go a long way to bring GNU/Linux to a greater market share. That is reason for optimism, at least for the less ridiculous users.
I think that is the point. Gnome 3 was designed to appeal to the 99% of the world population that isn't already using Linux. That is where the growth will be. Gnome 2 pretty much dominated the linux desktop but could it attract new users? Canonical took the same approach with Unity. The choice is to try an remain a niche market catering to existing users or try and remain relevant by attracting new users.
The workflow of gnome-shell and Unity do not fit the needs of every linux desktop user. Then again, neither did Gnome 2. Both the gnome developers and Canonical developers have chosen to seek growth markets and those markets are from the people not currently using linux.
Gnome 3 is a complete mess. and it's UI is not easier to use or more intuitive, its just trendy and "different" It is 5 years behind Gnome 2.x in usability and polish. A lot of the criticism for Gnome 3 is justified. The problem is knowing how the Gnome team works, they will ignore everyone and do what they want.
I have tried several times to use it and every time the same parts fall down. Luckily some smart people are picking up the abandoned 2.x line and forked it. So linux will continue to have a useable desktop instead of the wierd social experiments that are Gnome 3 and Unity.
Is it more accurate to say that "the gnome-shell UI is not easier to use or more intuitive", or "the gnome-shell UI is not easier to use or more intuitive for the way I work?"
I would definitely agree with system administrators and hard core programmers taking the latter explanation. On the other hand, for a regular desktop user who maybe has two or three apps open at most, the UI probably is easier and more intuitive. At least that is what the various groups that have actually done tests on the UI have come to the conclusion.
For normal and new users, Gnome 3/gnome-shell seems to be quite intuitive and popular. For geeks, it does not. Then again, geeks tend to have the skills to modify it to the way they want.
What I don't understand with all of the complaints about not being able to customize the UI in gnome-shell, why people flock to XFCE. It really isn't that customizable, either. KDE would seem to be the customizers first choice of desktop, but the numbers don't show people fleeing from Gnome to KDE.