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

The GNOME developers removed it.

askubuntu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#41

Post by rubinelli »

buster wrote: post #34

So 2 years after the appearance of Gnome Shell someone still doesn't get that Gnome tries to simplify the whole interface and that Gnome has been trying to create a simple interface for the majority of people for many many years. Big news. Good thing is you have alternatives from MATE to KDE, Xfce, E17, etc. etc. It's not like you're forced to use Nautilus either. Personally i never understood the hatred towards chan…

Frankly, I don't want my parents using Linux. Windows has tightened its security, and I no longer have to reformat their machine every six months to remove all the malware. I expect Linux participation in the desktop market to grow in the coming years, but only because this market will naturally shrink.

But from reading the mailing lists, the impression I have is that this isn't really the developers' main concern. They aren't removing features to create a more streamlined UX, but because they were horribly implemented, and without this control damage, they would have to reboot the codebase again with a Gnome 4.

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#42

Post by nitrogen »

buster wrote: post #34

So 2 years after the appearance of Gnome Shell someone still doesn't get that Gnome tries to simplify the whole interface and that Gnome has been trying to create a simple interface for the majority of people for many many years. Big news. Good thing is you have alternatives from MATE to KDE, Xfce, E17, etc. etc. It's not like you're forced to use Nautilus either. Personally i never understood the hatred towards chan…

GNOME is simplifying the desktop in the same way as removing the controls for braking, acceleration, and steering would simplify a car. Maybe Google can pull that off, but GNOME is catering to a made-up audience that doesn't exist. The only reason my parents couldn't use Linux when I installed it on their computer ten years ago was the inability to run Windows software. My younger siblings, however, managed just fine.

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#43

Post by samastur »

notatoad wrote: post #27
pervycreeper wrote: post #11

Genuine question: Why is the GNOME project still dominant, when they consistently make arbitrary changes and refuse to listen to their users?

because contrary to the opinion of all the linux bloggers, most of the gnome team's design decisions are actually pretty good. they've been progressing towards a stripped down simple UI that fades into the background and lets you focus on your application and your work for a while now. if gnome were a new project to make linux pretty, everybody would be talking about how awesome it is. it's only a problem because the…

I don't dispute Gnome's decisions since I don't use it. What bothers me though is this idea that people complain only or mainly because they are afraid of change.

Sure, sometimes it's just this, but often times such removal actually break person's workflow or ability to (easily) do something. Just because it may be better for majority does not mean it can't actually suck for some.

I am sorry to pick your post. It just happened to be the one where I finally felt the need to respond to this view.

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#44

Post by maheart »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #22

I'd love to see what percentage of linux desktop users actually use gnome anymore. It would be especially interesting to see a graph of how that has changed over time. My intuition is that they went from almost total dominance a few years ago to total irrelevance now (< 2%).

If you mean GNOME Shell, I still find <2% hard to believe, as its still the default on Debian and Fedora.

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#45

Post by nitrogen »

static_typed wrote: post #28

I feel sorry for the Gnome guys - they get crucified if they do or don't advance the platform, yet look across and see other fruit flavoured platforms pull worse on their user base yet their fan base not only approves of it, but they somehow justify in the most Stockholm syndrome walled garden kind of way.

I was astonished that the only way to choose a solid color for the OSX desktop background was to use a transparent PNG as the wallpaper image. If the GNOME team is copying Apple, they're barking up the wrong tree, and doing a poor job of it.

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#46

Post by jamesbritt »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #10

You can always go KDE. In file management however, Dolphin is still an awkward kid compared to Konqueror, but hey, it's still there.

In file management however, Dolphin is still an awkward kid compared to Konqueror, but hey, it's still there.

Or use Trinity's KDE3.5 and live the full Konqueror experience.

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#47

Post by viseztrance »

In the past I was a rather hardcore kde user, but I've been using gnome shell for almost two years and I actually like it. Initially I used all sorts of extensions to make it behave more like a traditional desktop, but over time I grew fond of the defaults.

And in fairness, they did add something else http://i.stack.imgur.com/NiggU.png (last comment in the parent link).

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#49

Post by notatoad »

samastur wrote: post #43
notatoad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because contrary to the opinion of all the linux bloggers, most of the gnome team's design decisions are actually pretty good. they've been progressing towards a stripped down simple UI that fades into the background and lets you focus on your application and your work for a while now. if gnome were a new project to make linux pretty, everybody would be talking about how awesome it is. it's only a problem because the…

I don't dispute Gnome's decisions since I don't use it. What bothers me though is this idea that people complain only or mainly because they are afraid of change. Sure, sometimes it's just this, but often times such removal actually break person's workflow or ability to (easily) do something. Just because it may be better for majority does not mean it can't actually suck for some. I am sorry to pick your post. It jus…

No, definitely. Some of the changes that gnome is making really do suck for some people. but those are only a few people, and you can't make a well-designed piece of software that caters to everybody's workflow. that just isn't possible.

and none of the critics ever say "this broke my workflow, but i can see how it's a niche feature", the complaint is always "the gnome devs removed this obscure feature that only me and three other people use, because they're fucking idiots and are trying to make the software useless". if you're complaining about a change that is better for the majority, it means you're being selfish. and nobody ever seems to acknowledge that. all the armchair critics of UI changes always insist that they are complaining on behalf of everybody.

Re: The GNOME developers removed it.

#50

Post by meemo »

nitrogen wrote: post #45
static_typed wrote: post #28

I feel sorry for the Gnome guys - they get crucified if they do or don't advance the platform, yet look across and see other fruit flavoured platforms pull worse on their user base yet their fan base not only approves of it, but they somehow justify in the most Stockholm syndrome walled garden kind of way.

I was astonished that the only way to choose a solid color for the OSX desktop background was to use a transparent PNG as the wallpaper image. If the GNOME team is copying Apple, they're barking up the wrong tree, and doing a poor job of it.

You can select a solid color in OS X as the background. http://i.imgur.com/oYp2j5n.png
Post reply on HN