Pretty as a feature? Ridiculous!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cmost Aug 23, 2012 6:00 PM EDT |
So forget about the fact that Nautilus has been stripped of many of its most popular features...it's pretty now, so that's all that matters. Ditto for GDM and the lock screen which functioned perfectly well as it was but now it slides up a la Metro so that's good, yes! And, in spite of the unholy mess that Gnome 3 has wrought on productivity, especially with apps that sport more than one window, if the GTK2 and GTK3 themes are unified, all of that disruption to productivity doesn't really matter...it's pretty now. This reviewer needs to get a reality check. Obviously his bounced! |
| tracyanne Aug 23, 2012 6:55 PM EDT |
Calling GNOME 3 pretty is about all you can call it these days. Really it's a rather backhanded compliment. |
| Koriel Aug 23, 2012 8:38 PM EDT |
Lets see I can have pretty with little functionality with Gnome 3 or I can have pretty and oodles of functionality with KDE 4 well this is a tough decision dammit. |
| AwesomeTux Aug 24, 2012 11:17 PM EDT |
Koriel wrote:I can have pretty and oodles of functionality with KDE 4 And none of GNOME's stability. GNOME 3 may have had its bugs, but it never was at a state like KDE 4, where moving the mouse the "wrong" way would crash it. |
| AwesomeTux Aug 24, 2012 11:18 PM EDT |
In general, I am really interested in what functionality, in specific, has disappeared, because I am unable to find anything missing other than the maximize and minimize buttons (which are always easily added back.) GNOME has always been pretty minimalistic, that's not something new to GNOME 3 / GNOME Shell. |
| Fettoosh Aug 24, 2012 11:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:but it never was at a state like KDE 4, where moving the mouse the "wrong" way would crash it. I don't know about GNOME stability since I never used it for more than occasional testing. My desktop for a very long time is KDE and I think you are full of exaggeration. |
| caitlyn Aug 25, 2012 1:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:but it never was at a state like KDE 4, where moving the mouse the "wrong" way would crash it.Maybe, just maybe that was true of KDE 4.0. To make a statement like that at this point of KDE development is misinformation and FUD of the worst kind. KDE 4.8 is very nicely done indeed. |
| jdixon Aug 25, 2012 8:19 AM EDT |
> Maybe, just maybe that was true of KDE 4.0 Speaking purely as an outsider looking in, and basing my comment on what other people have reported, here and elsewhere: I think it was largely true of KDE 4.0. I think anything before KDE 4.5 was probably too unstable to be considered anything other than beta. Since KDE 4.5, while there have been intermittent problems with various programs, it's been largely stable and usable. |
| Koriel Aug 25, 2012 9:26 AM EDT |
Yep outright FUD indeed and I was one of the first to criticise KDE for the incredibly buggy and feature light 4.0 release which really didn't become usable until about 4.4 or 4.5 I have had no problems since KDE 4.6 was released, I now use KDE 4.8.3 fairly regularly and although it isn't my main desktop (im still using XFCE for that), KDE 4.8.3 has been rock solid for me and I will be switching to Linux Mint KDE as my main desktop within a couple of weeks once I get some free time. Gnome 3 I used once then threw it away, it has zero chance of ever seeing the light of day on any of my PC's not due to bugginess or anything just simply because its rubbish on a desktop and will join all the other new desktop paradigms such as Unity and "Dont call it Metro" in the bin. If I want an Android'ish experience on my desktop guess what, I will install Android. |
| AwesomeTux Aug 26, 2012 12:03 AM EDT |
caitlyn wrote:Maybe, just maybe that was true of KDE 4.0. To make a statement like that at this point of KDE development is misinformation and FUD of the worst kind. KDE 4.8 is very nicely done indeed. You're missing my point. GNOME 3 started with more stability than KDE 4.6 while in terms of roadmap progress and the amount of time it's been officially released it's more like KDE 4.1/4.2. /cc: Koriel |
| AwesomeTux Aug 26, 2012 12:06 AM EDT |
No one has answered my main question yet: What functionality, in specific, has disappeared from GNOME 3 since GNOME 2.6? Anyone who was primarily a KDE user before GNOME 3 has no place in comparing the two. |
| tracyanne Aug 26, 2012 12:39 AM EDT |
Since I no longer use GNOME anything any more, I can't detail everything, but the removal of Dual Panel Mode from Nautilus is a good example of the mindset of the GNOME developers. |
| AwesomeTux Aug 26, 2012 12:56 AM EDT |
tracyanne wrote:... the removal of Dual Panel Mode from Nautilus is a good example of the mindset of the GNOME developers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that feature wasn't even there in Nautilus during GNOME 2.6, it was a relatively new feature only a year or two old that -- in its short life -- had its fair share of problems. I'd actually prefer a KDE-style "Move-to" and "Copy-to" where the entire filesystem is listed as destinations. And I wouldn't consider the removal of one semi-useful feature to be enough to warrant such hateful attitudes toward GNOME. |
| tracyanne Aug 26, 2012 1:30 AM EDT |
I would suggest you read Linus Torvolds blog post, and I would also suggest you look at the GNOME Shell Addons, to see what useful functionality has been removed. I certainly can't answer you of the top of my head. When they made it Windows all full Screen and no minimalisation, and took away the ability to choose how many virtual desktops you want, and replaced it with the stupid Virtual Desktop(s) + 1, and removed the proper menu, I moved back to KDE, and made the panel fixed, not movable to the bottom (without some Add on), and failed to recognise my second monitor when it was above my main monitor, and a few other things I can't recall right now, I dumped GNOME 3 Shell. Since then almost every change I read about seems to be about how pretty GNOME is or how the devs have removed this that or the other, "because it might confuse users".... That attitude in and of itself is enough, as far as I'm concerned to warrant a hateful attitude. |
| AwesomeTux Aug 26, 2012 2:09 AM EDT |
tracyanne wrote:I would suggest you read Linus Torvolds blog post I have read that tripe. He primarily complains about things being moved around, and that it "has clearly been designed by some goth teenager that thinks that black is cool" simply because the top panel is black (gasp!) tracyanne wrote:I would also suggest you look at the GNOME Shell Addons, to see what useful functionality has been removed. I do regularly. And most add back functionality that was lost due to the removal of panel applets, which weren't part of GNOME, they were third-party and now third-parties are making their GNOME 3 replacements. This has nothing to do with actual GNOME. And many of them, again, move things around, and a few add back the GNOME 2 style panel. tracyanne wrote:When they made it Windows all full Screen and no minimalisation I have no idea what you mean. You can make windows fullscreen if you want, they aren't stuck fullscreen or even fullscreen by default. And there is minimization, with either a right-click on the titlebar, or by adding the button back via dconf-editor. tracyanne wrote:... and took away the ability to choose how many virtual desktops you want, and replaced it with the stupid Virtual Desktop(s) + 1 Again, I don't see what you mean. You can add as many "virtual desktops" as you like, you just do it one at a one, as you open applications. There is always a free, unused workspace to use, which wasn't true with GNOME 2. Also, I believe the number of "virtual desktops" is limited in GNOME 2 to something like 24 (ot it's limited to how many that little panel can fit.). tracyanne wrote:removed the proper menu, ..., and made the panel fixed, not movable to the bottom (without some Add on) Those are points about aesthetics, not functionality. tracyanne wrote:... failed to recognise my second monitor when it was above my main monitor, and a few other things I can't recall right now Hey! Finally a real GNOME 3-specific problem/feature removal. But really it's a bug, a known bug, that is receiving attention. Like I said, GNOME 3 is still as young as KDE 4.1/4.2, it's a complete rewrite, they need some time to fix these things. |
| helios Aug 26, 2012 3:23 AM EDT |
"it's a complete rewrite, they need some time to fix these things." Yes they do, I believe that is called beta software. Just sayin'. |
| AwesomeTux Aug 26, 2012 3:26 AM EDT |
helios wrote:I believe that is called beta software. Just sayin'. A plethora of people said the same about KDE 4. |
| helios Aug 26, 2012 3:35 AM EDT |
All the more silly on their part IMO....they watched KDE shoot their own foot and then did the exact same thing. I suppose in a few years, they might iron out the bugs, like KDE did, but not many of us are going to wait for them to get their act together. |
| tracyanne Aug 26, 2012 5:05 AM EDT |
Actually Linus complained about the fact that you needed to add ons to get GNOME 3 shell anything like productive, and then in many cases they were incompatible. An issue many others have complained about.Quoting:And there is minimization, with either a right-click on the titlebar So in order to fulfill their quest to NOT confuse users they create a confusing way to minimise Windows. As you can tell this previous user was incredibly confused. Quoting:Again, I don't see what you mean. You can add as many "virtual desktops" as you like, you just do it one at a one, as you open applications. There is always a free, unused workspace to use, which wasn't true with GNOME 2. Also, I believe the number of "virtual desktops" is limited in GNOME 2 to something like 24 (ot it's limited to how many that little panel can fit.). 24 desktops was at least 14 more than I've ever needed. However you fail to understand what the problem is. Unless you install an addon that over rides the stupid way they've implemented virtual desktops you have no control over how many virtual desktops you have. In addition you can't simply rely on application x is on a specific virtual desktop. If you have application x on desktop number 6 and you close all the applications on desktop number 3, suddenly your application x is on virtual Desktop number 5, that is sub optimal, it is interestingly enough, also confusing, something the GNOME team claim (every time they remove a piece of functionality) they abhor. Quoting: removed the proper menu, ..., and made the panel fixed, not movable to the bottom (without some Add on) Actually it's about functionality, although it is indeed an eyesaw when one has monitors stacked vertically. And once again they have created a replacement for the Menu system that increases confusion, rather than eliminating it, which is their stated objective every time they remove some feature, the dual panel in Nautilus, for example. Quoting:Hey! Finally a real GNOME 3-specific problem/feature removal. But really it's a bug, a known bug, that is receiving attention. Like I said, GNOME 3 is still as young as KDE 4.1/4.2, it's a complete rewrite, they need some time to fix these things. It wasn't a bug in GNOME 2. Also what helios said. It's interesting that Clement Lefabre, and hs Mint team have managed to fix GNOME 3 shell in a very short period of time, even the bug you admit to. Cinnamon functions just fine on my dual monitor setup, and it's not even confusing. |
| Fettoosh Aug 26, 2012 12:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:You're missing my point. GNOME 3 started with more stability than KDE 4.6 while in terms of roadmap progress and the amount of time it's been officially released it's more like KDE 4.1/4.2. That right there tells me that you have no idea about and the status of KDE 4. If your main point is to know why users are complaining about GNOME 3, why do you have to wrongly bash KDE? Quoting:What functionality, in specific, has disappeared from GNOME 3 since GNOME 2.6? GNOME 3 has a completely different desktop interface paradigm than GNOME 2, isn't that enough? Actually, that is what ticked off many of its users. At least KDE kept the same interface and didn't make a huge shift like was done to GNOME. They could have done the same and avoided much of the bashing by giving users an additional optional touch screen interface that is more suitable for tablets. Quoting:Those are points about aesthetics, not functionality.[AwesomeTux] ... Actually it's about functionality,[tracyanne] Fully agree with @TA, aesthetics is an integral part of functionality. Imagine yourself working and faced with ugly desktop day in day out. Aesthetics is first impression about what to follow and could turn people off. Quoting:Anyone who was primarily a KDE user before GNOME 3 has no place in comparing the two. ... it's a complete rewrite, they need some time to fix these things. You like to give GNOME a break but not KDE, do I sense some Animosity and jealousy here? Contrary to your attitude, I do believe in FOSS and always defended GNOME even though I am not a steady user. Bashing KDE for no justifiable reason makes you lose all credibility with me. I am sure with others. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 26, 2012 3:55 PM EDT |
I like the "you always have one more" virtual desktop situation in GNOME 3. You never run out of them. |
| tuxchick Aug 26, 2012 6:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:So in order to fulfill their quest to NOT confuse users they create a confusing way to minimise Windows. That's been the guiding rule of Gnome since they stuffed 1.4 for 2.0 -- in the name of "simplicity" make it difficult and convoluted to change anything. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 26, 2012 8:33 PM EDT |
It would be easy to say GNOME 3 sucks because it isn't GNOME 2. But I find myself liking GNOME Shell, and after a few weeks of bouncing back and forth between GNOME 3 and Xfce, I'm pretty much sticking with GNOME 3. It's not all roses and puppy dogs, but little things like the alt-tab/alt-` (aka back-tick) way of switching between apps or windows in a single app (or using alt-tab and hovering with the mouse to select an individual window), the Super key combined with typing in the first few letters of an app, then hitting return -- it's made me a little bit more productive on the desktop. Even the "hot corner" mousing is OK. The GNOME extensions -- some packaged by Debian, others from the extensions.gnome.org website -- do help. Do I wish the interface was more configurable? Yes. Do I think this Extensions situation is a bit of a mess? Also yes. But it's a new desktop paradigm I'm enjoying at the moment. It's definitely a s&^% vs. shinola moment, but I'm seeing a bit more shinola than the other thing at the moment. |
| AwesomeTux Aug 26, 2012 11:27 PM EDT |
Fettoosh wrote:That right there tells me that you have no idea about and the status of KDE 4. I am not bashing, never did I say that KDE is still buggy or hard to use. Almost everyone who used KDE 4.0 agree that it was extremely buggy and interior to the latest KDE 3.x at the time and that is didn't really stabilize until 4.3 or so. What I'm saying is that GNOME 3 is in a similar state to that of KDE 4.1/4.2 in terms of its usability and feature set compared to its predecessor. Fettoosh wrote:GNOME 3 has a completely different desktop interface paradigm than GNOME 2, isn't that enough? Actually, that is what ticked off many of its users. At least KDE kept the same interface and didn't make a huge shift like was done to GNOME. They could have done the same and avoided much of the bashing by giving users an additional optional touch screen interface that is more suitable for tablets. No, it isn't enough. Moving things around is not the same as removing them, just because functionality isn't found in the same place as it was in GNOME 2, doesn't mean it's not there. And in fact most of the functionality from GNOME 2 is still in the exact same place in GNOME 3, example: GNOME 2 had a top panel holding the user's name/switch user/shutdown menu, clock, applets, and application menu, and so does GNOME 3. The only removal is the bottom panel. And minimize/maximize has always been under the title right-click menu. Fettoosh wrote:Fully agree with @TA, aesthetics is an integral part of functionality. Imagine yourself working and faced with ugly desktop day in day out. Aesthetics is first impression about what to follow and could turn people off. Discussion contradiction. This entire thread is about how "pretty" cannot be considered a feature (a.k.a. not functionality), "pretty" is aesthetics. Just because GNOME's taste in aesthetics doesn't match your own, doesn't mean it's ugly and certainly not bad enough looking that the mere sight of it turns people away. On the Contrary, I think the mere sight of it will bring in a lot of people, but the flow of the interface many may find uncomfortable at first. Fettoosh wrote:You like to give GNOME a break but not KDE, do I sense some Animosity and jealousy here? Contrary to your attitude, I do believe in FOSS and always defended GNOME even though I am not a steady user. No, I'm saying that anyone who disliked GNOME 2 has no place in this discussion, all discussing with such people does is allow them to again vent their long held frustration with the interface for no good reason. Consider what tuxchick said above. If you disliked the transition from 1.4 to 2.0 and have been using KDE ever since, you don't belong in any discussions comparing GNOME 2 to GNOME 3. And again, no bashing here. I'm merely saying the same things said of KDE during the 3.x to 4.0 transition to remind you of KDE's users' attitude during that time. I said these same things about KDE during said transition as well, because I was a KDE 3 user for a long time (switched because it wasn't stable enough during early 4.x and was/is very resource heavy even more so than GNOME 3 currently.) |
| Fettoosh Aug 27, 2012 9:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:No, it isn't enough. The root of the problem is, you don't or you just refuse to understand the problem. Quoting:This entire thread is about how "pretty" cannot be considered a feature (a.k.a. not functionality), Aesthetics includes arrangement, and arrangement is part of functionality also. |
| tracyanne Aug 28, 2012 4:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:The root of the problem is, you don't or you just refuse to understand the problem. I think that pretty much sums up the GNOME devs and any GNOME 3 Shell apologist. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!