Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

tech.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#31

Post by seanp2k2 »

ominous_prime wrote: post #28
jsnell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any supporting evidence for GNOME 3 being great for most people? My experience with it was so bad that I can't really imagine that being true. And it's much easier to find negative than positive comments about it on the net. Clearly the dislike isn't quite universal, but my impression is that it's the most hated "upgrade" ever. Also, recommending the fallback mode as a solution is disingenous. At least perfo…

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I must have been using gnome the same way as the gnome developers, as the gnome3 interface basically gives me a setup I enjoy without the added configuration. I really like the dynamic virtual desktops, and the expose-style overview. Though I haven't written any myself, the framework for writing plugins looks nice as well. Like the Windows anecdote, we have to account for the inherent c…

I think what you say about users who like/don't mind G3 not talking about it has some merit, at least as far as I can tell from personal experience.

We are a Linux shop and we are about 60/30/10% split between Linux, Windows 7, and OSX. Fedora is what most of us are using now, but we have some Ubuntu. Everyone that uses G3 at work likes/loves it. I personally switched off Ubuntu to Fedora because F16 have newer G3 than Ubuntu with PPAs had.

I guess I'm also in the minority in that I think Unity is decent, especially with all these new vertically-challenges 16:9 screens. This problem becomes much worse on netbooks which typically have only 600px vertical, 768 if you're lucky. In a day and age where we have stuff like the Galaxy Nexus and retina displays, why are desktop and laptop screens so far behind in pickle density? Alas, an argument for another time, but I say "long live 16:10". I love unity on my HP netbook (which also has a magnesium chassis and a 1366x768 screen and TWO mouse buttons.)

Going back to Gnome2-style WM feels like a big downgrade to me. I hate the ask bar. I also really like the "alt-back tick" to switch between different windows of the same app in G3. That said, it needs an option to auto-hide the top bar and PLEASE LET ME HIDE THE ACCESSIBILITY ICON. I know there is a package in F16 to do the latter, but installing a package to hide an icon is idiotic.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#32

Post by ajross »

acabal wrote: post #30
thristian wrote: post #3

I remember reading a computer-magazine columnist back in the mid-90s talking about how Windows 95's interface was too revolutionary and different, and that we should expect Microsoft to have a parallel "Windows Classic" release with the same superior technical underpinnings as Windows 95, but with the traditional Windows interface that their millions of users were familiar with. Obviously that didn't happen, and I do…

I'd definitely disagree with that. While I'm sure there are some people who do like it, I think Gnome Shell is objectively flawed usability-wise. Just to list a couple obvious examples: -The top bar is almost entirely wasted space; -Having the bar at the top violates Fitt's law access to a window's close buttons; -Again for Fitt's law, the top-right corner is wasted because that menu is rarely accessed by most, and t…

Interesting. I've never seen Fitt's law invoked to cover close buttons before. Note that serious users (who are the ones complaining the hardest about gnome-shell) never touch the close button: closing a window is a keyboard shortcut (generally Ctrl-w, though sometimes Alt-F4 if the app doesn't handle that) in my world. For a while I was running a custom metacity theme with no window controls or title bar at all, actually.

And I don't follow the "no at a glance view" of your work space argument. Hit the windows button and Ctrl-Alt-Up/Down and you can actually see all your windows, with no overlap. That's something that was never possible before, and I love it.

Obviously there's a lot of taste at work. Gnome 3 is a big change, and big changes break workflows and piss off experienced users. But I honestly think a lot of your "objectively flawed" argumentation is just nonsense. Smart people can like gnome-shell and use it very effectively. You just don't like it.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#33

Post by ajross »

kamechan wrote: post #21
jsnell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any supporting evidence for GNOME 3 being great for most people? My experience with it was so bad that I can't really imagine that being true. And it's much easier to find negative than positive comments about it on the net. Clearly the dislike isn't quite universal, but my impression is that it's the most hated "upgrade" ever. Also, recommending the fallback mode as a solution is disingenous. At least perfo…

i hated gnome3 at first. i even stayed on gnome2 for quite a while to avoid the upgrade. as it seemed inevitable, i bit the bullet and upgraded. linux is my only OS so i use gnome3 all the time. i have grown quite fond of it. what's best is that it hides so many of the distracting ui elements (either on purpose or simply because so many widgets just don't work) that used to pull me away from my work that i feel i'm a…

That's exactly my experience too. I used unity on a netbook for a while and just couldn't make it work -- too many edge cases (even to the extent of getting my preferred side-by-side terminal and emacs to work cleanly). I stuck with it for a while, but never really came around.

I similarly tried gnome-shell when Fedora 15 was released and hated it, but stuck with it for the same reasons. And it paid off. I'm a convert now -- I don't like everything (app-based Alt-Tab will never work for someone with 12 terminals running, I really do want nautilus icons on my desktop, etc...) but the things I don't I know how to tune.

I'm honestly more productive now than I was on gnome2. It's a great environment, and still getting better.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#34

Post by sp332 »

Tomek_ wrote: post #6

So we have Gnome3, Gnome2, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, Unity, this + gazillions more I don't even remember about. Anyone still believes Linux has any chance on a desktop market?

Windows 7 has: Emerge, KDE4Win, Directory Opus, BumpTop, SharpEnviro, and Cairo. And it's doing OK.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#35

Post by acabal »

ajross wrote: post #32
acabal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd definitely disagree with that. While I'm sure there are some people who do like it, I think Gnome Shell is objectively flawed usability-wise. Just to list a couple obvious examples: -The top bar is almost entirely wasted space; -Having the bar at the top violates Fitt's law access to a window's close buttons; -Again for Fitt's law, the top-right corner is wasted because that menu is rarely accessed by most, and t…

Interesting. I've never seen Fitt's law invoked to cover close buttons before. Note that serious users (who are the ones complaining the hardest about gnome-shell) never touch the close button: closing a window is a keyboard shortcut (generally Ctrl-w, though sometimes Alt-F4 if the app doesn't handle that) in my world. For a while I was running a custom metacity theme with no window controls or title bar at all, act…

The point is that those corners are some of the most important screen real estate, taken advantage by other DEs. Take Windows, for example. Upper-right=close, upper-left=context menu, bottom-left=start menu, bottom-right=show desktop.

Compare to Gnome Shell: Upper-right=settings/account menu (rarely used IMHO), upper-left=activities, bottom-right=missed notifications, bottom-left=nothing.

Where Windows puts something useful in all 4 corners, G-S only has something useful in 2. Obviously one can argue about what is and what isn't useful, but from a purely objective viewpoint, one can definitely say that Gnome-Shell doesn't take full advantage of those extremely important corners.

As for my other points, for example the top bar: how can you deny that it's mostly wasted space? It's 80% unclickable black bar. That's not "nonsense", that's just how it is. Other DE's put something there: the window menu bar, an activities list, etc.

True that I can get an activities list by pressing super. But that's not "at a glance." That's "at a keypress, then a visual scan, then a click to go back to what I was doing." Most other DE's provide some sort of window overview at an immediate glance, ie., an always-visible taskbar.

I think my other points also stand. I don't doubt that some people do use G-S effectively, but that doesn't mean it isn't deeply flawed. If it weren't, then more people would like it.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#36

Post by andrewflnr »

DanBC wrote: post #12
Tomek_ wrote: post #6

So we have Gnome3, Gnome2, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, Unity, this + gazillions more I don't even remember about. Anyone still believes Linux has any chance on a desktop market?

Most office workers spend very little time interacting with the desktop. They'll have some office suite open, or they'll have their niche piece of software, or they'll be using some manufacturing / accounts (I'm trying to describe things like Sage Line 50, Line 100, etc) open. The barrier to Linux on the desktop in that situation is not the desktop being used, but the main bit of software being used. Provide Line 100…

In what context did people Google find that people were using + incorrectly? That would make sense in the search bar, because they changed it recently.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#37

Post by ajross »

acabal wrote: post #35
ajross wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I've never seen Fitt's law invoked to cover close buttons before. Note that serious users (who are the ones complaining the hardest about gnome-shell) never touch the close button: closing a window is a keyboard shortcut (generally Ctrl-w, though sometimes Alt-F4 if the app doesn't handle that) in my world. For a while I was running a custom metacity theme with no window controls or title bar at all, act…

The point is that those corners are some of the most important screen real estate, taken advantage by other DEs. Take Windows, for example. Upper-right=close, upper-left=context menu, bottom-left=start menu, bottom-right=show desktop. Compare to Gnome Shell: Upper-right=settings/account menu (rarely used IMHO), upper-left=activities, bottom-right=missed notifications, bottom-left=nothing. Where Windows puts something…

Upper right in gnome-shell is where the shutdown and suspend options are. I use them every day. And the upper-left in windows (by which you really mean a maximized windows app -- windows puts nothing there, and I only occasionally have anything maximized) is the "context menu", which is near useless, being duplicated functionality with the existing window buttons. Note that Chrome doesn't use a context menu button, for example. I think arguing that windows puts something "useful" there is disingenuous. Windows merely puts "something" there.

I guess the top bar argument is valid, though note that there are a bunch of gnome-shell extensions that like to use the space. And the significantly thicker windows panel is likewise largely a waste of space (just a big bunch of icons duplicating what in gnome-shell would be the overview).

Looks: you hate gnome-shell. Good for you. You're not alone, lots of people do. I don't begrudge you your opinions, I'm just calling you out for trying to turn them into "facts" when they clearly aren't.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#38

Post by TylerE »

keithpeter wrote: post #19
darklajid wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) ~Maybe~. In absolutes, I agree. I don't think it matters much though. 2) Sticking with Windows comparisons: Moving from 98 to XP was different in quite some ways, to Vista and beyond was another change in lots of things. We agree that choice is good. We disagree about whether there's too much choice right now. I see only two technical choices, KDE or Gnome, with the Gnome-Shell/Unity variants for the latter. No id…

Agreed. If "grandma" were to choose Ubuntu, she would have a good quality 140 page manual ready to download and dip into. See the Ubuntu-Manual project on launchpad for the Unity version (currently at alpha). https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-manual/msg02859.html Is there a comparable tome ready for Gnome Shell based workflows? I'd really like to find one.

Users don't read manuals. If you expect the user to read the manual to use your product, you have failed.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#39

Post by DanBC »

andrewflnr wrote: post #36
DanBC wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most office workers spend very little time interacting with the desktop. They'll have some office suite open, or they'll have their niche piece of software, or they'll be using some manufacturing / accounts (I'm trying to describe things like Sage Line 50, Line 100, etc) open. The barrier to Linux on the desktop in that situation is not the desktop being used, but the main bit of software being used. Provide Line 100…

In what context did people Google find that people were using + incorrectly? That would make sense in the search bar, because they changed it recently.

Mentioned here (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3239452)

But specifically in this sub-thread:

(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3239844)

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#40

Post by fmoralesc »

acabal wrote: post #30
thristian wrote: post #3

I remember reading a computer-magazine columnist back in the mid-90s talking about how Windows 95's interface was too revolutionary and different, and that we should expect Microsoft to have a parallel "Windows Classic" release with the same superior technical underpinnings as Windows 95, but with the traditional Windows interface that their millions of users were familiar with. Obviously that didn't happen, and I do…

I'd definitely disagree with that. While I'm sure there are some people who do like it, I think Gnome Shell is objectively flawed usability-wise. Just to list a couple obvious examples: -The top bar is almost entirely wasted space; -Having the bar at the top violates Fitt's law access to a window's close buttons; -Again for Fitt's law, the top-right corner is wasted because that menu is rarely accessed by most, and t…

> The Mint guys seem smart, so if they feel that a fork is necessary then it's probably the only way to do what they want given the constraints.

These are the constraints for him, as far as I know (looking at the gnome-shell code):

1) extensions can't modify the original layout of the shell, because they are loaded after the shell elements are created. You can monkey-patch the shell, but only so much.

2) There is no easy way of destroying the panel (or other ui objects).

1) happens to be true because of the extensions constraint that they should have the ability to be turned on/off. That means that their entry point in the shell gets to be after the main ui objects are created. You can add new behaviors to them, and override them, except for their initialization (obviously).

The extensions system doesn't expose an API that allows for multiple entry points (for example, having extensions derive from an Extension class with Base and Restartless subclasses). This might be a design oversight, but for the most part it is sane, since it creates a base of code one can expect to be there, that any extension could depend on (again, simplifying inter-extension compatibility). Extensions written for gnome-shell won't be compatible with extensions written for cinnamon, which is extremely bad in my opinion. It means the developer community that's been growing around the platform might break into multiple directions, which can hurt users.

If there was a way of destroying the panel (or other main ui objects), though, there would be no need at all for this fork.

Post reply on HN