Summary:
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Jan 29, 2013 4:33 AM EDT |
"You just don't like change". (The title doesn't seem to like colons). What a useless piece of fluff. All the beaten to death cliché's pass in review once again. Unity/Gnome Shell are modern. Unity/Gnome Shell are easy. Unity/Gnome Shell have a distraction free and efficient workflow. Unity/Gnome Shell are the future.Yadda, yadda, yadda. If you don't like them, you just don't like change. It's poppycock. People who don't like Unity/Gnome Shell are not averse to change. They are averse to change that doesn't benefit them in any way. It's a problem for Unity/Gnome Shell, but longtime Linux users are not the kind of people to just roll over when a project takes the stance: Shut up and get with the program. Sorry Unity/Gnome Shell, you will have to get that coveted new user base all by yourself. People who want their multiple open applications, with multiple instances of those applications and who are not afraid of using their mouse to switch between them, don't want a cumbersome single tasking interface where switching between applications is a pain with a mouse. (For all the "typers" out there. No, the "Keyboard shortcut cheatsheet" is not the answer to our criticism that the new interfaces suck with using a mouse.) Personally, I find it hilarious that my refusal to use these limited interfaces is brushed off with labeling me being averse to any change. I started out with an Amiga 500 with Amiga Workbench 3.5. After that it was a IBM PC Compatible with MS DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11. I've been on Windows 95 (+OSR 2), Windows 98 (+SE), Windows NT, Windows XP, Windows 7. I've occasionally used a Mac (if that was the only machine present). I have been using Linux on my desktop full-time since 2000. I've used FVWM95, Window maker, KDE 3.x, KDE 4.x, Gnome 2.x, LXDE, XFCE, RazorQt, MATE, Cinnamon. I've even dabbled with Ubuntu Netbook Remix. I've looked into Unity and Shell. I've used Symbian, Android and iOS on phones. so it is safe to say that I'm not afraid of different interfaces. It's just that I'm not willing to learn a completely new workflow for an interface paradigm, which I feel is an inherently regressed UI for quick and efficient multitasking. Sorry, for my own computing needs, I will go for an interface that helps me. Too bad for the hordes of swiping, computer illiterate phone zombies, but I'm not compromising on my computing too accomodate them. Instead of us losing interface refinement, why don't they up their skillset? It makes for a better resume than putting "phone ninja" on there. |
| gary_newell Jan 29, 2013 5:30 AM EDT |
Couldn't agree more with you. It is like when Microsoft decided everyone needed that ribbon bar on every application. A menu and toolbar structure that everyone had pretty much memorised for the past 20 years wiped out with one ill-conceived attempt to "make it easier". Easier for who exactly? Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. Now nobody can do stuff in Microsoft Office without hunting through dozens of tabs and options to find a checkbox for a function that they know is there but just can't find. Microsoft also did it with the windows control panel. They keep renaming things to try and make it easier but the people who know what the control panel is for don't need it made easier. Supermarkets do it all the time as well. Move stuff around the shop because it is what their customers want. No it isn't. Customers like the bread to be in the same place everytime they go there. Gnome 3 and Unity have done the same thing. They have listened to their customers and designed an interface that works for the masses but for the people who are actually really likely to use it the interfaces are lacking. |
| tracyanne Jan 29, 2013 6:57 AM EDT |
This is the bit that really anoys meQuoting:After using GNOME 3 as my primary desktop for a week, I just can’t figure out why everyone is so up in arms about this desktop. I understand the majority of users do not like change. But change is inevitable. And with the enormously popular mobile platforms, users have started growing accustomed to various interface metaphors. People used that in an attempt to denigrate those who complained about KDE 4.0, they used it to denigrate those who complained about Unity and GNOME 3 It just really annoys me that the apologists can so easily be allowed to get away with reframing the argument as quote Fear Of Change unquote. Especially when the majority of thosecomplaining are giving good usability, or lack thereof as reasons for why the new "best thing since sliced bread" is no good. |
| r_a_trip Jan 29, 2013 8:06 AM EDT |
Tracyanne, denigrating is one thing, but preempting debate (and opportunities for real improvements) by dismissing you as "won't change, waste of time" is another. It's insidious. I don't know what happened, but both Unity and Gnome Shell seem to be all about branding. From Canonical's viewpoint I get it. They want to be more than a really polished Debian. So creating your own flavour of launcher is a quick and easy way to "differentiate". (Why it ends up looking so much like Gnome Shell is curious.) From the Gnome team? Not really. What is in it for them? "We want people to look at a desktop and know it is Gnome." I'd say they failed at that. Cinnamon, Consort, Pear Linux, and the myriad of panel and menu extensions that completely destroy the look of a standard Shell setup. I wonder how many of the users who stayed with Gnome Shell are using it in its pure form. Thing is, it is just an inconvenient speed bump. While we don't have a consolidated desktop with momentum right now, it is only a matter of time before one emerges. My guess, it won't be Unity or Shell. The only annoying thing about the Gnome team and Canonical is that they both assume they have more than a niche interface, because both used to be king in the Gnome 2.x days. The really sad part right now is that I don't care anymore about how Unity or Gnome Shell develop and what they look like. I won't use them anyways. The only thing on my mind is what I'll use, when Cinnamon can't build on Gnome 3 anymore, because of the development direction of the Gnome team. |
| jdixon Jan 29, 2013 1:01 PM EDT |
> "You just don't like change". As if that wasn't a truism for 90% of people. |
| dyfet Jan 29, 2013 1:45 PM EDT |
Change was never the problem, nor is the idea of design driven ui development in itself. However, bad change and bad designs are the real problems IMHO. And both seem to be doubling down on the wrong decisions they started from. GNOME is replacing the never completed fallback mode with an even less complete "classic" set of extensions. If they knew what they were doing, they would have instead extended fallback into something actually useful like what consort is doing, which, really is kind of like what KDE does; one common code infrastructure, but separate ui presentations for mobile, netbook, and desktop, as each really are different. While I used to use GNOME 2 everywhere, I am now happy with KDE, which is a leap from GNOME, simply because it works well for getting work done even when you do have to do things differently. Change that is good is worthwhile. I also always liked XFCE, and I even am happy using Cinnamon. GNOME 3 and Unity I tried, really gave it time, neither proved effective even after several months, not even my children liked using them, and it is clear the issues each face, however unique they are in each individually, are also fundamental to design choices and development cultures, and that will not change. The problem indeed may be change aversion, but if so it is within the respective projects, not in the community as a whole... |
| djohnston Jan 29, 2013 2:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:I started out with an Amiga 500 with Amiga Workbench 3.5. After that it was a IBM PC Compatible with MS DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11. I've been on Windows 95 (+OSR 2), Windows 98 (+SE), Windows NT, Windows XP, Windows 7. I've occasionally used a Mac (if that was the only machine present). I have been using Linux on my desktop full-time since 2000. I've used FVWM95, Window maker, KDE 3.x, KDE 4.x, Gnome 2.x, LXDE, XFCE, RazorQt, MATE, Cinnamon. What, no e17? I'm telling Jeff. ;^) Seriously, though, your PC history looks almost the same as mine. Except my first Amiga was a 2000 running Workbench 3.0. |
| cmost Jan 29, 2013 5:56 PM EDT |
@ r_a_trip Your post is my thoughts exactly!! In fact, we have an eerily similar background with regards to machines used and OS experience! :-) Excellent post and very well written. |
| dinotrac Jan 29, 2013 11:08 PM EDT |
Come on guys, people really do not like poorly thought-out, poorly implemented change that turns something good and useful into something horrible. Darned if I can figure out why. |
| BernardSwiss Jan 29, 2013 11:40 PM EDT |
I'm not surprised that some people do like Unity and Gnome Shell. I'll even accept that some who were initially dubious, were won over once they had tried it. But others tried it, and found it lacking, even with the best will and inclination to trust the devs "vision". Unity and Gnome Shell aren't actually that bad, they just aren't well suited to the needs of certain users -- including in particular many of those who were expected to shift to them from the preceding Gnome2. Worse than this though, was the imposed difficulty in adjusting these new DEs to real users real usage needs and workflows. The RatPoison desktop environment (arbitrary example) might not be that well suited to the needs of most users, either -- but the people who are using it, are making the change of their own accord, because it does suit their needs and preferences. |
| r_a_trip Jan 30, 2013 4:00 AM EDT |
Unity and Gnome Shell aren't actually that bad... Depends on how you see it. If you deem Unity and Shell to be successors to Gnome 2, they are a serious regression. If you deem them to be new experimental interfaces, then yeah, not bad for something so young. Both are capable of launching programs and both can switch between windows, albeit very cumbersome. Thing is, I don't mind them being around. I mind that these interfaces are presented as a mature default. They aren't mature and shouldn't be default. They might be the bees knees for casual users who spend their time in a browser alone, but for people who need productivity and need it to be quick, no way. We're lucky that MS went off the deep end around the same time as our Gnome and Canonical overlords did. This gives us the luxury that people will say that it's all rubbish, instead of stomping the Linux desktop in the ground by comparing it to a working Windows desktop. |
| BernardSwiss Jan 30, 2013 5:10 AM EDT |
Quoting: Depends on how you see it. If you deem Unity and Shell to be successors to Gnome 2, they are a serious regression. If you deem them to be new experimental interfaces, then yeah, not bad for something so young... I quite agree (with your entire post). I definitely have little use for either of them, myself. But some people honestly love them. It's the force-feeding that's really raised a lot of hackles. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 30, 2013 2:41 PM EDT |
There's a lot in GNOME 3 that is very solid. While the whole Extensions framework allows for much easier individual contribution to the Shell desktop, there needs to be much more effort taken both on the part of GNOME and the distributions to bundle extensions and provide a more sane, more complete setup utility that brings everything together. GNOME Tweak Tool is a mess, and there are about four other configuration GUIs that I barely understand. Just because it's GNOME shouldn't mean that total configurability is unavailable to users who want it. From what I've seen, KDE has made great strides bringing its configuration into a single tool, and Xfce is also very good about that with its settings screen. The new "classic" mode, delivered through Extensions, should help. Just because a bunch of developers says you shouldn't have a menu doesn't mean you have to go along with it. |
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!