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

Gnome 40

forty.gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 244 posts

Re: Gnome 40

#101

Post by geofft »

grumpyprole wrote: post #12
dvirsky wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this numbering scheme conveys to me, intuitively, that changes are more gradual and hints at backwards compatibility. If there's no major/minor/patch semantics I just assume versions are small incremental additions. I could be wrong but that's what the browser versioning schemes have instilled in me.

> and hints at backwards compatibility. To me it communicates no commitment to backwards compatibility, i.e. no semantic versioning. This might be enforceable if one is Apple, but doesn't sound good for an open-source platform.

What would semantic versioning for a UI even mean? What's the API promise?

Re: Gnome 40

#102

Post by mseepgood »

acqq wrote: post #83
superkuh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I actually went to GNOME's IRC network the other day to talk to them about gtkfilechooser's multiple problems. Yours, and then the lack of text input for typing or pasting file paths. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/938 . They said they have no one assigned to gtkfilechooser bugs and none will be addressed. I was able to download the debian source for a couple gtk applications (ie, gedit/pluma) and ap…

And now everybody should look for a text from 2003 written by jwz mentioning the "Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers model" and slowly read it again, then think how much time passed since.

Shouldn't they be in their 30s by now?

Re: Gnome 40

#103

Post by devit »

Back in the GNOME 3 debut days, the joke was that GNOME 4 would be just a black screen, the ultimate result of removing superfluous options and features and making a system that is as easy to use as possible.

Re: Gnome 40

#104

Post by go561192 »

reader_mode wrote: post #65
symlinkk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been like this since Gnome 3 was released in 2011. This is why I've always been confused by people who say Linux has an “ugly, inconsistent, unprofessional” UI - to me this looks and feels better than Windows.

Gnome is just one part of the story - the gnome shell was always decent looking and had good themes. But the apps and the ecosystem really is ugly, messy and inconsistent. For example if you look at the controls you got with GTK out of the box in GTK3 era (when I last tried to build something with it) I remember huge paddings, unintuitive UX (the GTK file picker is the worst I've used) and poor layout controls. Go ch…

Maybe you might break the 5 yrs gap with KDE Neon? :)

https://neon.kde.org/

Re: Gnome 40

#106

Post by JD557 »

onnnon wrote: post #59

It's interesting to see the focus on these desktop management features. I've been a long time macOS user and have never found "Launchpad", "Mission Control / Expose", or "multiple Desktops" useful in practice. I just use multiple monitors with everything I need on them in the same workspace. Do you guys actually use these features? I find the contextual switching distracting.

It's funny, because as a MacOS user I pretty much never use multiple desktops, although I used it a lot in GNOME 2, because of how obvious it was that there was something in another desktop[1]. I think it really help multiple desktops feel more "grounded in space", like another monitor.

In MacOS, other desktops feel like a background thing that it's easy to forget (kind of like having a process running on another `screen` session).

1: The widget in the bottom right corner https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.32/figures/gnome...

Re: Gnome 40

#107

Post by JellyBeanThief »

vetinari wrote: post #36
imbnwa wrote: post #7

I dunno which it is, but the typography/font rendering is just jarring in these screens. I imagine there's a bunch of hacking you can do to make it look crisper/aligned but no way I'd have time for that.

Cantarell. Some consider that font a crime against humanity, on the level of MS Comic Sans or Papyrus. Canonical, could you please make the Ubuntu font really-SIL-free, so that Cantarell can be taken behind the barn and shot? Pretty please?

God yes. I don't know why I hate it so much, but I do. Switching to Apple's San Francisco font is one of the first things I do.

Re: Gnome 40

#108

Post by ufo »

JorgeGT wrote: post #18
Aardwolf wrote: post #14

The open windows don't even have visible taskbar buttons in the fancy presentation it shows at the top I have no idea how you can productively work that way The reason for getting 4K monitors is not to have less stuff that can make you productive visible KDE 3.5 was the top of OSS desktops, in my opinion

I think I'm missing something... Where is the taskbar? Do you need that "overview" animation each time you want to bring an application to focus? And where are the menus of the focused application?

If you have an app that is hidden under other windows, you have to use the overview or alt+tab to bring it to the front.

However, often we don't need to do that because GNOME encourages us to spread our windows over several workspaces. The animation for switching workspaces is practically instantaneous.

Re: Gnome 40

#109

Post by hallarempt »

stockerta wrote: post #56
hedora wrote: post #32

Have they fixed the file chooser yet? Specifically, I want to be able to click around on directories to choose where to save a file, type the file name, then press enter. This should save the file, not filter the directory listing. Also, I don’t want it to default to overwriting some file I saved last week.

Probably they will deprecate it soon, and gnome apps will randomly open a file for you. Just to be easier to use. A file picker dialog can confuse the user.

Well, given that that's what macOS Big Sur has done, it's a dead cert. You no longer get a file picker dialog by default when saving, but a place where you can type a name and a label that says where saving will happen.

Re: Gnome 40

#110

Post by yepthatsreality »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #5

What's with the change over to these '40' style naming schemes? I absolutely detest it if it's not done for a real reason. Firstly, without major versions it does not single anything to end users and end developers. Is '40' still mostly compatible with the gnome 3.x.x API? Is there a major divergence between 40 and 41? Is 41 and 40 a total rewrite? 3.x.x works and there's a reason why. It conveys a lot of information…

Agreed it’s very shallow backwards logic that will only cause issues when an actual Gnome 4.0 is released. The irrationality will have to be fought similar to Iphone by using “Gnome 3.40” when discussing it.
Post reply on HN