Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3 • Hacker News Board

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#41

Post by fmoralesc » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 7:29 PM UTC

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…

But you can't really compare the windows UI with gnome-shell, because they don't have the same workflow. For example, a "show desktop" action in gnome-shell is useless, because there is no good reason to interact with the desktop (it doesn't show icons by default).

Now, tell me, under Windows, how many times a day do you use a window's context menu, against, for example, the Start Menu? How many times do you expect a regular user to click on them? Furthermore, how many times can you activate a context menu from that position? Do you always use your windows maximized? You shouldn't optimize the corners of your screen for a windows button (because there might not be a window there). INSERT: the corners in gnome-shell always work the same way, independently of any window state.

Having something in every corner of the screen doesn't mean that it is universally useful.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#42

Post by noiv » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

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…

Since the true innovation of GNOME Shell isn't mentioned here anywhere the discussion is completely off. Surely the Shell is new and of course nobody was able to customize it on day one to his old habits. Even all these blog entries with 50-things-I-do-after-installing-XXXX did not help. The result was frustration.

GNOME 2 is customizable using entry points common to anyone familiar with *nix, there were scripts, CSS files, dialogs, options, configurations and more. All this thinking failed after installing GNOME Shell. You may call it offending. However UNITY showing 3D buttons looking like made with a pshop plugin from end of the last century is not an option.

So how do you customize GNOME Shell? Here is the new entry point: open firefox and goto to https://extensions.gnome.org/ Yes, you change your desktop environment from within your browser. Add, try out or disable shell plugins from your browser.

And the best thing all is powered by JavaScript. The language running on every computer having a browser is used to customize your DE. So stop whining and enjoy the desktop revolution. Getting curiuos? Find the location of a extension and open it in your favorite IDE, change a string variable, save it, press ALt-F2, enter 'r' press enter and voila it is there.

There is even a debugging tool, (Alt-F2, 'lg', enter). Now go and implement whatever you were missing in GNOME 2.

It is time to see how users would build their perfect desktop interface.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#43

Post by bkor » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 8:54 PM UTC

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…

"Silly politics Gnome plays"

Care to explain?

Note: I'm a long time GNOME release-team member, GNOME sysadmin, GNOME bugmaster.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#44

Post by bkor » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 8:57 PM UTC

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…

Seems you missed all the design documents made for GNOME 3. Top bar is simplistic at this moment on purpose. There are more ideas behind it. However, just because you can put stuff somewhere, doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so.

The idea is to minimize distractions. Not to optimize for mouse clicks, hot corners, etc.

Defining your own criteria as the reason to call it deeply flawed it a bit easy IMO.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#45

Post by onosendai » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 9:35 PM UTC

dimmuborgir wrote: post #26

onosendai wrote: post #4

Just to clarify, what the Mint developers are forking is actually just the Gnome Shell, not the entire GNOME 3 platform. In this regard it's no different than Ubuntu's Unity.

"In this regard it's no different than Ubuntu's Unity." Unity isn't a fork of Gnome Shell. Unity-3D is a Compiz plugin and Unity-2D is written in Qt.

I meant that Ubuntu is still built on top of GNOME 3, using a different graphical shell called Unity, much as Mint will also be built on top of GNOME 3 using Cinnamon as the graphical shell. I wasn't implying that Unity was a fork of Gnome Shell.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#46

Post by acabal » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:33 PM UTC

bkor wrote: post #44

acabal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Seems you missed all the design documents made for GNOME 3. Top bar is simplistic at this moment on purpose. There are more ideas behind it. However, just because you can put stuff somewhere, doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. The idea is to minimize distractions. Not to optimize for mouse clicks, hot corners, etc. Defining your own criteria as the reason to call it deeply flawed it a bit easy IMO.

I'm judging it as it stands now, not as some document somewhere says it might be one day, maybe, if the developers get around to it. If they don't want people judging it, they shouldn't have released it until they felt it was ready to be judged.

I'm also judging it by criteria used by many UI experts. How DEs approach Fitt's Law is an important metric. The law exists for a reason, because UI experts found it came up again and again in real-life testing.

Defining your own criteria by saying "works for me, wontfix" is also a bit easy.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#47

Post by kamechan » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:39 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #33

kamechan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conver…

not to mention the fact that i'm now hardwired to go to the left corner or "windows key" to do things, which is something i really like doing (and do intuitively now). i really like that one can just press the windows key and start typing.

regarding showing nautilus style icons on the desktop, you'll want to get the gnome-tweak-tool and then go to Desktop and enable the "have file manager handle the desktop" option. You'll have to restart, logout, or restart the desktop manager to see the change, but this should do it for you.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#48

Post by acabal » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

bkor wrote: post #43

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…

"Silly politics Gnome plays" Care to explain? Note: I'm a long time GNOME release-team member, GNOME sysadmin, GNOME bugmaster.

Essentially the entire "damn the torpedos, we're right and there's no going back now" approach Gnome seems to be taking. I've seen lots of people submit valid and thoughtful criticisms of Gnome Shell, and the only response Gnome seems interested in giving is "we have our grand vision and if you aren't submitting a finished patch that we may or may not accept then fuck off."

Maybe "politics" wasn't the best possible word choice but the idea is ego over engineering: a few guys at the top are making these decisions and more or less putting their fingers in their ears. At least that's the impression I've been getting.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#49

Post by bkor » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 11:06 PM UTC

acabal wrote: post #48

bkor wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Silly politics Gnome plays" Care to explain? Note: I'm a long time GNOME release-team member, GNOME sysadmin, GNOME bugmaster.

Essentially the entire "damn the torpedos, we're right and there's no going back now" approach Gnome seems to be taking. I've seen lots of people submit valid and thoughtful criticisms of Gnome Shell, and the only response Gnome seems interested in giving is "we have our grand vision and if you aren't submitting a finished patch that we may or may not accept then fuck off." Maybe "politics" wasn't the best possible w…

We gave loads of test images before the release of GNOME 3.0. The "no going back", we've been making loads of changes based on feedback. I've listed some of these changes in the 3.2 release notes.

Wording like "fuck off" is completely unacceptable; I either warn or ban people (everyone, random person, developer, etc) for that.

"A few guys at the top": That is not how it works. If you're respected, people listen to you. That is how it works within GNOME.

Saying "valid and thoughtful criticism": valid maybe for you. But GNOME isn't about supporting every different idea. If an idea completely goes against the thought behind it (quite simply: focus on one task at a time), then yeah, use something else. Having an idea and going for that, to some that comes across as arrogant. But simply stated, GNOME is not right for everyone. That is what is meant with this.

But at the same time, there is an extension system in place and loads of code is in javascript, loads of stuff can be done via gobject introspection (meaning: access libraries easily via javascript).

GNOME 3.0 was the initial release. Further improved with 3.2, more design ideas will be implemented in 3.4, etc. Not saying 3.0 is bad (IMO, it was great), but eh.. there is a goal and it hasn't been achieved.

I've been around during GNOME 2.0, a lot of the feedback was the same. I think your impression is off.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#50

Post by thristian » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 11:17 PM UTC

noiv wrote: post #42

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…

Since the true innovation of GNOME Shell isn't mentioned here anywhere the discussion is completely off. Surely the Shell is new and of course nobody was able to customize it on day one to his old habits. Even all these blog entries with 50-things-I-do-after-installing-XXXX did not help. The result was frustration. GNOME 2 is customizable using entry points common to anyone familiar with *nix, there were scripts, CSS…

Huh, so extensions.gnome.org works now. The last few times I've looked for it, I've gotten a "permission denied" or other "no-such-website-here-yet" error. I only knew it existed because I happened across the "Gnome Shell Integration" plugin in Firefox's plugin list.

For what it's worth, when I first tried out GNOME 3, I customised it the same way I customised GNOME 2: gconf-editor (and a little later, dconf-editor).