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

Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

datagubbe.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 293 posts

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#151

Post by p4bl0 »

criticalfault wrote: post #111
IshKebab wrote: post #75

I couldn't agree more. The Gnome devs have a very long track record of imposing universally hated UI/UX design on people. I'd wonder why KDE isn't more popular, but I'm pretty sure the main reason is that the Gnome devs also have way better aesthetic taste than the KDE devs. Gnome simply looks much nicer in screenshots. They understand spacing. That and KDE had it's own major UI/UX fuck up with Plasma.

That's not completely true. They are hated by some users, loved by some. For example, in general, I really like what gnome does. Desktop use is not something that is useful outside starting other apps, so I like its simplicity and the fact that it gets out of the way. Default apps could use maybe a bit more features, but I generally don't find too much wrong with e.g. files. The only confusing thing for me is which h…

> KDE is not more popular since it's buggy as hell. At least it was. But not only that, their visuals are a disaster

Could you give concrete examples of that? I've been using KDE daily for years and I really don't see what you're talking about for either of these two points (bugs and disaster visuals).

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#152

Post by _cenw »

jampekka wrote: post #124
_cenw wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the GNOME experience, but to say that it's a more powerful way to use computers is just plain wrong. The only reason I use KDE instead is the inability (or additional hoops) to configure GNOME. That starts at fractional scaling and ends with something as trivial as setting different time to suspend on battery or switching to suspend-then-hibernate. It probably is enough for the vast majority of computer users.…

If you want to configure Gnome, learn to read and write text files and use dconf/gsettings. And possibly write Gnome shell extensions. Gnome though usually just works and has well thought out defaults, so you're usually just hampering yourself with changing them. For navigating the desktop and windows I rarely have to touch the keyboard, and it works so well I don't even have the need for a secondary or larger displa…

You could've at least checked if the examples I listed are configurable via the mechanisms listed. Aside from fractional scaling (which was my example for "hoops"), they're not. You can replace suspend with suspend-then-hibernate by linking over the suspend systemd unit. But that's most definitely not a GNOME option and prevents you from suspending.

Not to mention the numerous settings that have appeared and disappeared over the years in GNOME, not just from the graphical configuration, but also from code.

I don't understand why you want an easy to use DE with intuitiveness and then are okay with hiding configuration away somewhere between the Arch Wiki and the GNOME source code.

But hey, I'm glad it works for you. Doesn't for me though, even though I wish it did!

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#153

Post by p4bl0 »

kaba0 wrote: post #77
troad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely interacting with files is a key component of what people expect from a DE? If a DE can't handle that well, a well-designed 'Videos' app offers small consolation. I can only speak for myself, but it was a Nautilus regression that was the final straw that got me to move to KDE. (And years before that, the rapidly regressing Finder was a key factor in getting me to finally move from Mac to Linux.) Very happy…

You do realize that you can use any kind of file manager from GNOME, right? It’s just a program, just as Dolphin, which you can easily install instead. Changing DE for that is just dumb, imo.

It's not that simple. Using your DE's file manager means that the file picker dialog in most programs will take your settings into account, have your personal sidebar shortcuts, etc. While it's true that a file manager is a program like any other, the overall integration of your file manager with the rest of the system does especially matter, because it affects some aspects of almost every other programs.

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#154

Post by IshKebab »

criticalfault wrote: post #142
IshKebab wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their visuals are a disaster. Believe what you will, but visual consistency and attention to detail is what gnome has. They are not perfect, so there are some issues as OP points out, but they are on a different level from kde. KDE looks like it was frankensteined, while gnome it looks like it was designed. Yeah I totally agree with that. KDE has terrible aesthetics and great usability, Gnome has great aesthetics a…

I would disagree that gnome has terrible usability. It has a very good one. Nobody's saying it is perfect, but I and many other people can use it without issues. KDE has more features, so maybe *some* things are a bit easier. But everything else is way worse. Including lack of certain apps like a decent VM manager. I feel sorry for kde, the community there is way friendlier and whatnot, but this Frankenstein approach…

Gnome has a VM manager? I mean I feel like that's such a niche tool that doesn't need to be part of the desktop environment, unlike for example WiFi settings which Gnome provides a very very basic interface for but most of the options are hidden in some other random app that isn't installed by default (nm-connection-editor - took me a while to figure that out!).

(To be fair it's been so long since I used KDE I can't remember if its WiFi settings also has this issue.)

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#155

Post by KETHERCORTEX »

cocoto wrote: post #92
Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often try to open a new Terminal window in my current folder like that. Which often is impossible for the same reason. So I navigate up, until I find a folder that is not full, open the Terminal there, and ‚cd‘ down to the folder i wanted…

You can click on the three dot menu at the right of the path, there is an option to open a terminal. You can also switch to icon view and right-click between icons to open a terminal. You can also go to parent folder, right click the folder you were before and open it in a terminal. Many workarounds but I agree it’s not really good UI.

> You can click on the three dot menu at the right of the path, there is an option to open a terminal.

I use Black Box as a terminal app, but Nautilus will open only default distro-provided terminal application with its menu.

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#156

Post by criticalfault »

p4bl0 wrote: post #151
criticalfault wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not completely true. They are hated by some users, loved by some. For example, in general, I really like what gnome does. Desktop use is not something that is useful outside starting other apps, so I like its simplicity and the fact that it gets out of the way. Default apps could use maybe a bit more features, but I generally don't find too much wrong with e.g. files. The only confusing thing for me is which h…

> KDE is not more popular since it's buggy as hell. At least it was. But not only that, their visuals are a disaster Could you give concrete examples of that? I've been using KDE daily for years and I really don't see what you're talking about for either of these two points (bugs and disaster visuals).

Disaster visuals are icons in e.g. dolphin, sidebar and toolbar, but in different ways.

Sidebar are only lines and I find that the overly simplistic shapes do not represent ideas well. Example: go back icon. Similar problems exist for toolbar icons. At some point I cannot conclude if the shape is a graphics glitch or an icon. These are the icons with some shape bottom right.

Another example is sidebar consistency: recently I noticed there are 3 distinct looks in sidebars in KDE. The most modern one (kirigami I guess) looks almost the same as gnome (I think system settings have it in the last version), so here they are improving.

Another example: their logo and Startup Animation.

Buggy things: setup with 2 monitors, then 4k monitors, a bunch of this didn't work well, I opened several bugs for these things. I moved to gnome which didn't have these problems, so I'm not sure how this is behaving now.

Changing something about plasmoids / taskbar used to crash my session, but don't remember wether I opened a bug for this. I like having it at the top, so moving it up would even be a problem. After the crash, it would be fine for a long time. Also generally reordering plasmoids on the taskbar itself would be buggy.

As I said - this is how it used to be. Did not use it as a main desktop for a while, I would try to see what is new in a VM, but always got shocked how bad the design is. They are trying to improve it, but for something to make sense, radical changes are needed. For example, there were some really nice proposals for logo change for plasma 6 and nobody jumped on it. Like any other bureaucratic organization they decided not to do anything.

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#157

Post by rollcat »

butz wrote: post #53

Oh GNOME, hiding "Power off" option under additional submenu, that user wouldn't accidentally click it, and then putting "Format" right next to "Safely remove drive" in Files.

Meanwhile macOS: hold "opt" to shutdown/restart without confirmation: 2 clicks, instant action; vs GNOME's 4 clicks and janky animations.

Meanwhile both: cramming so many controls into title bars there's nowhere left to click to move the window.

I recently spent a week with OS X 10.5 on a G4, I think it was peak desktop.

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#158

Post by criticalfault »

IshKebab wrote: post #154
criticalfault wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree that gnome has terrible usability. It has a very good one. Nobody's saying it is perfect, but I and many other people can use it without issues. KDE has more features, so maybe *some* things are a bit easier. But everything else is way worse. Including lack of certain apps like a decent VM manager. I feel sorry for kde, the community there is way friendlier and whatnot, but this Frankenstein approach…

Gnome has a VM manager? I mean I feel like that's such a niche tool that doesn't need to be part of the desktop environment, unlike for example WiFi settings which Gnome provides a very very basic interface for but most of the options are hidden in some other random app that isn't installed by default (nm-connection-editor - took me a while to figure that out!). (To be fair it's been so long since I used KDE I can't…

Yes, called gnome boxes.

https://apps.gnome.org/Boxes/

This was only an example. Boxes is no metric for anything, but having an app that works well in that Desktop is a good thing. There is nothing flike that or KDE. It's all for gnome. Point here being that KDE has a lack of apps.

If talking about more generic apps, gnome has better Multimedia Tools, Firefox uses gtk to better integrate with gnome... The only thing/app kde has better is krita. Or is there something I'm missing that gnome doesn't do better? (Excluding files from this comparison)

I'm just wondering who is then target audience for KDE? Only artists that use krita? Or teenagers that like to mod stuff?

Regarding wifi, given only 'standard' use, you connect to wifi and that's it. Gnome offers a password entry and done. For advanced users I don't see an issue - they can figure it out (gnome connection editor has quite some advanced options). And also, I didn't use KDE on a real machine for a while.

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#159

Post by skriticos2 »

As a GNOME user, I kinda understand what they want to achieve, but they are seriously short on resources, so there is really little substance to all the rosy aspirations. They are also very oppinionated, which then turns away a lot of liberal developers that just want to scratch their own itches.

As for file manager usability, I grew up with Norton commander and pretty much gave up on ever seeing power user addressed file manager. It's fine for simple office type stuff that I bother few times a month on my Linux system but that's basically it.

When I have any more elaborate needs I fall back to plain old terminal with something like git or maybe even midnight commander, because that's what's getting the job done.

What I find really sad is, that they have like a million bindings to every programming language there is (including one that they made up) and I have no idea how they want to maintain that codebase. The basic API still looks somewhat antiquated and disjointed, but now it's in JavaScript and Vala. So even the more OCD type developers that would accept the design language constraints are frustrated that it looks so sad under the hood.

But I mean, I get it. Building a consistent desktop environment with a clean design language is hard and especially expensive. I'm impressed by what GNOME actually manages to get done with the few resources that they have. Is it anywhere close to being consistent and complete. I don't think so.

But than again, I mostly just use the desktop environment to open Chrome and the terminal, so for me it's perfectly fine.

Re: Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

#160

Post by 0x_rs »

p4bl0 wrote: post #153
kaba0 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that you can use any kind of file manager from GNOME, right? It’s just a program, just as Dolphin, which you can easily install instead. Changing DE for that is just dumb, imo.

It's not that simple. Using your DE's file manager means that the file picker dialog in most programs will take your settings into account, have your personal sidebar shortcuts, etc. While it's true that a file manager is a program like any other, the overall integration of your file manager with the rest of the system does especially matter, because it affects some aspects of almost every other programs.

To further expand on this: GNOME's inane vision for "minimalism"—that is nothing but an insult to the concept itself—spreads to any system regardless of one's DE whenever GTK programs are involved due to GtkFileChooser. There are ways to prevent being unable to use basic features that have existed for decades in any functional file picker, such as using the GDK_DEBUG flag (formerly GTK_USE_PORTAL), however people suggesting this approach to the countless affected have been called "clowns" before.

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/4829

Post reply on HN