71–80 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see or use KDE4 when it was new? KDE4 was a radical departure from the earlier design, which looked like a mimicry of Windows Vista for "reasons".
Compared to Gnome 3/40 or Windows 8 or even Windows 10, Windows Vista was positively sensible. Its problem was hardware requirements that were hard to meet at the time. By 4.10 or so KDE 4 had matured to KDE 3 level and this hasn't changed with Plasma 5.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> .....but a click-bait article with some easily debunked falsities on a not even released version, just seems to be in bad faith. This article was written 5-days after Gnome 40s official release. > Gnome doesn't show you the overview of your open apps or any application shortcuts on its desktop. You need to open Activities - an extra mouse click - before they are shown >>It does, that is like the core feature of gno…
> It absolutely does not, and this authors complaint is mirrored in every other review of Gnome 40. We are either talking about something different, or I don’t know. If you press Super or swipe 3 fingers up you get the preview of every app on every desktop. On the picture in the article, the author has no window open (as apparent from the dock not having any “open” icons)
An aging travel netbook that I have with XFCE is going to be the last one with GNU/Linux natively installed, when it dies it is going to be only macOS/Windows devices around here. Now even manually editing XML ui files by hand is considered a best practice in GNOME, with Glade being considered not welcomed. Great ideas we have there.
There is a replacement for GTK4 being developed, it turns out starting from scratch for the new builder format is easier than trying to refactor everything in Glade.
Please stop putting action/choice buttons (Ok, Cancel, Yes, No, etc.) on windows title bars! There has been a reason why they were placed at the bottom: I grab a window by its title bar and if needed I can arrange it through the closest controls over there that should be only the buttons to act on the window itself and not the contents, then I read the contents and while doing so my focus moves towards the window low…
The buttons should only placed in the headers for other dialogs that require more explicit actions before the dialog can be dismissed, such as the file selection dialog.
I don't get why "Linux on desktop" people feel the need to continually reinvent the concept of what a desktop GUI is, just to be novel or different. This goes back to things like KDE3/KDE4 and Canonical's Unity. What is wrong with a more traditionally designed desktop metaphor such as how it's implemented in XFCE4 or LXDE? As a baseline for comparison I've used very nearly every linux or BSD based GUI desktop (on top…
It was the application of better concepts from both OSX and Windows. That was it strength. Top menu (better mouse usability), HUD (better keyboard usability), grid virtual desktops (better visual muscle memory), and so on. Nothing there was new or unique. But it was more ergonomic than the alternatives now.
I still miss the HUD, and the reason I use Gnome is support for autorotation, and other hardware features. And the fact that Unity now is a dead end.
It seems you did not use Unity, and you were part of the group of people who caused its demise by endlessly complaining.
Is the three finger swipe a "gesture"? I'm guessing a decent amount of older hardware does not recognise a three finger swipe. So workspace browsing would be broken ootb for these users.
Nothing would be "broken". If you have a multitouch trackpad you can use A, if you have a mouse you can use B, if you have just a keyboard you can use C, if you have just a touchscreen you can use D,... Same confusion years ago with the login screen. No, you don't have to swype. You can or you can press any key, just like on any PC ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's the project of those "highly opinionated developers". They work for free, and they really sleep well if you prefer to install XFCE or create a fork of the previous iterations of Gnome.
Gnome Foundation rises lots of money from both companies and individuals and there are gnome developers working full-time or part-time and being paid to do it, so this old argument "this is free software, they work for free in their spare time, they owe you nothing" doesn't apply in this context.
« They owe you nothing » totally apply in this context. Even if you were a donator (which there are few probability you are).
Gnome has long been my favorite desktop, but they never managed to trim Gnome for usability and efficiency. Instead their followed a weird concept of minimalism and a pointless touch oriented (as if anyone would use it on a smart phone!) UI.
As much as I like the idea of Linux as my primary desktop OS, I've given up.
In the future I see Windows macOS and ChromeOS but no Linux on classical computers (not smartphones and tablets).
Gnome may not be perfect, but as a DE it provides enough features, flexibility, simplicity and visual appearance. In the end, it's not the DE you're working with, you just need it for setting up your system, running your apps, window management, etc. Best is when you just forget about having it and Gnome is okay with that regards.
I'm a happy Gnome user since Gnome 2 was released and I like the mobile-like style of Gnome and other desktops, but I agree with almost all criticism directed to Gnome 40 and Gnome in general. Did I like Gnome 40? Hell, yeah! Is it suck? Hell, yeah! It sucks because, again, it disrupts my workflow, a little less than Gnome 3, but yet is a redesign with no good reason except the taste of Gnome devs. Of course they can…