PDA

View Full Version : Gnome Shell: Worth all the hype?



Uncle Spellbinder
April 18th, 2010, 08:07 PM
This whole Gnome Shell/Gnome 3 thing has got me puzzled. I just don't get it. On another thread, I said the following...

I tried to like Gnome Shell. I really did. I used it on Karmic for 10 days, exclusively. I dislike it immensely. I see no real purpose for it except as an option if desired. Seems that won't be the case though. If this is the direction Gnome 3 will be taking, then I'll need to get use to using the closest thing to Gnome in it's current state...XFCE. Or maybe give LXDE a spin. In any event, Gnome Shell just is not something I'd ever use.

I particularly liked HolidayQueen's comment:

Anyone who doesn't use workspaces and doesn't appreciate his recent documents visible to everyone who passes by will find most of shell's features useless, and since it takes away compiz and gnome-panel applets, they'll further concluded that it's another layer to gnome that doesn't add anything for them and takes quite a few things away.

Thoughts? Opinions? Am I only but one of few who will move on to XFCE or LXDE when this whole new Gnome finally arrives?

Uncle Spellbinder
April 18th, 2010, 08:08 PM
Damn. I thought I was in the Cafe. Could a Mod please move this thread to the Cafe?

sorry. :oops:

Elfy
April 18th, 2010, 08:11 PM
done

rudihawk
April 18th, 2010, 08:13 PM
Meh, I used it. Not that keen on it.

Directive 4
April 18th, 2010, 08:27 PM
nah, not keen.

Mr. Picklesworth
April 18th, 2010, 08:33 PM
Keep in mind it is a very fast-moving work in progress; the version in Ubuntu's repositories is woefully out of date. (Even in Lucid's). Not much can be done about that, but it's really easy to build and test the latest version (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell).

Uncle Spellbinder
April 18th, 2010, 08:47 PM
Well, to be honest, it's the whole concept that eludes me. I just don't get it at all. I'd like to see some screenies or video of the most current build. But as I said, it's the concept in general that I do not like. At least from what I've seen and experienced thus far.

bash
April 18th, 2010, 08:48 PM
Gnome Shell: Worth all the hype?

What hype? So far all I have seen with GNOME Shell are huge amounts of bashing and often even random FUD about how somehow GNOME Shell is teh new evil (tm).

zekopeko
April 18th, 2010, 08:50 PM
Keep in mind it is a very fast-moving work in progress; the version in Ubuntu's repositories is woefully out of date. (Even in Lucid's). Not much can be done about that, but it's really easy to build and test the latest version (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell).

What are you talking about? Gnome-shell changed very little since they announced it. Its still broken IMO. I don't understand what it tries to solve.

benjamimgois
April 18th, 2010, 09:25 PM
I'm really afraid of what GnomeShell can do to the Linux Desktop. That workspace's thing isn't easy and intuitive to work with. I hope that canonical takes much care with it.

FuturePilot
April 18th, 2010, 09:29 PM
What hype? So far all I have seen with GNOME Shell are huge amounts of bashing and often even random FUD about how somehow GNOME Shell is teh new evil (tm).

My thoughts exactly.

RiceMonster
April 18th, 2010, 09:32 PM
What hype? So far all I have seen with GNOME Shell are huge amounts of bashing and often even random FUD about how somehow GNOME Shell is teh new evil (tm).

+1

I haven't heard any hype at all.

Uncle Spellbinder
April 18th, 2010, 09:34 PM
I'm not bashing. I'm just saying that I don't like the concept. The whole workspace idea seems to me to be aimed at a niche user to me rather than the typical user. Though I know there are lots of users using workspaces, of the dozen or so Linux users I know, none do.

Just curious as to why this is even being considered as standard. It will make a lot of Gnome users happy. But it will drive many more away, I'm afraid.

As far as "hype". Gnome Shell is being discussed all over the place. Perhaps I'm to much a Gnome fan and seek these discussions out. Maybe "hype" was a bad choice of words. But the sentiment behind the topic remains.

swoll1980
April 18th, 2010, 09:36 PM
I think people should wait until it's actually done before the smack begins. Think KDE 4.0 vs KDE 4.4

swoll1980
April 18th, 2010, 09:38 PM
Just curious as to why this is even being considered as standard. It will make a lot of Gnome users happy. But it will drive many more away, I'm afraid.

Why wouldn't they just use metacity instead of gnome shell?

jaco223
April 18th, 2010, 09:40 PM
I have found it to be buggy on my system. Just my opinion.

Uncle Spellbinder
April 18th, 2010, 09:41 PM
Why wouldn't they just use metacity instead of gnome shell?

I'm sure many will. But as has been said in the past, first impressions are everything. And those of us who do not use workspaces may be turned off by the whole thing.

YeOK
April 18th, 2010, 09:49 PM
I see Gnome-shell as something we'll all hate right up until we see just how much it can actually be customized.

Once the themes start appearing, i think we'll all change our minds.

dragos240
April 18th, 2010, 09:50 PM
If you don't like it, don't use it. I don't think gnome will make users completely switch over, it will most likely be optional.

antenna
April 18th, 2010, 09:54 PM
I just built and tried the latest version. Honestly it doesn't seem that different to gnome 2.* to me, a bit of shuffling of various elements here and there but nothing major. I use the expo plugin in compiz set for the top left corner usually so the overall experience is practically the same. I quite like it anyway, despite being a bit buggy at this stage.

Also I think it has the potential for some amazing looking desktops.


(I can barely comprehend not using multiple workspaces in Linux but it takes all sorts) :P

lovinglinux
April 18th, 2010, 10:30 PM
Some people love it, lots of people hate it, some people say it's too soon to judge. I'm included in the group who hate it and switched to KDE when they released the first testing version. I couldn't be happier. KDE rocks, specially 4.4.

swoll1980
April 18th, 2010, 10:42 PM
Some people love it, lots of people hate it, some people say it's too soon to judge. I'm included in the group who hate it and switched to KDE when they released the first testing version. I couldn't be happier. KDE rocks, specially 4.4.

There was a time when KDE 4 murdered puppies, and ate people's first born children. I think Gnome 3 will go through a similar phase.

lovinglinux
April 18th, 2010, 11:11 PM
There was a time when KDE 4 murdered puppies, and ate people's first born children. I think Gnome 3 will go through a similar phase.

:lolflag:

scouser73
April 18th, 2010, 11:14 PM
I've heard about Gnome Shell, and yesterday and today I've taken a look at the screen shots and I wanted to install it to see what all the fuss was about but for the life of me it just wasn't working.

I don't see why this is being forced upon people that don't want it and like Gnome as is, is it worth all the hype?..probably not.

I'm all for making advances in the desktop but this is going to affect people when they choose Linux and their ultimate choice of desktop environment.

I really don't want to use any other d/e other than Gnome as it is presently and there will be many others that's being forced into something they don't want, regardless of using Gnome Shell when it's released or switching d/e.

NightwishFan
April 18th, 2010, 11:18 PM
I use it most of the time. I just hope it gains the ability to be customized. It seems like it has the potential to be very flexible. I would like to see some nice GUI options to do so. I have used the shell since fairly early, and it has changed a lot. I upgraded to GIT intel drivers on Lucid and performance is great. I am sure that by release it will be quite stable, and hopefully stop looking like a phone OS with the top panel. :)

Personally I am willing to give it a chance to mature. It has some great concepts and still has most functionality because Gnome tries to be very incremental. This is not to say I do not have any scruples, especially the required compositing.

bruce89
April 18th, 2010, 11:52 PM
The whole gnome-panel concept is old and stinky.

gnome-shell is very nice, apart maybe from the colour scheme. I really don't understand how people can hate it so much, but I suppose people always resist change.

FuturePilot
April 19th, 2010, 12:02 AM
The whole gnome-panel concept is old and stinky.

gnome-shell is very nice, apart maybe from the colour scheme. I really don't understand how people can hate it so much, but I suppose people always resist change.

Because people look at really really really old screenshots and/or use it for a whole 5 seconds before deciding it's crap.

bruce89
April 19th, 2010, 12:13 AM
Because people look at really really really old screenshots and/or use it for a whole 5 seconds before deciding it's crap.

That is exactly it, you've hit the nail on the head.

Uncle Spellbinder
April 19th, 2010, 12:20 AM
[-X

That's right. Cast as wide a net as possible. Pain everyone who does not like what they've seen so far with as broad a brush as possible.

:roll:

bruce89
April 19th, 2010, 12:23 AM
That's right. Cast as wide a net as possible. Pain everyone who does not like what they've seen so far with as broad a brush as possible.

I fail to see where I did that. Also, I'd like to hear rational arguments against it as opposed to the usual "it's new, it must be evil".


I'm not bashing. I'm just saying that I don't like the concept. The whole workspace idea seems to me to be aimed at a niche user to me rather than the typical user. Though I know there are lots of users using workspaces, of the dozen or so Linux users I know, none do.

The reason why workspaces are not currently used is because they are not very discoverable. gnome-shell makes them very obvious. Also, you don't actually have to use workspaces with gnome-shell.


Just curious as to why this is even being considered as standard. It will make a lot of Gnome users happy. But it will drive many more away, I'm afraid.

Because it is what the designers think is best. Designers don't do what's popular, they do what they think is best.

FuturePilot
April 19th, 2010, 12:28 AM
I fail to see where I did that. Also, I'd like to hear rational arguments against it as opposed to the usual "it's new, it must be evil".

I agree. All of the arguments I've heard so far have been irrational FUD.

cariboo
April 19th, 2010, 12:29 AM
I think the big problems that most people assume gnome-shell will be the only interface in Gnome 3. Check out the link in NightwishFan's signature, that should lay some of the fears to rest.

The biggest problem right now is that gnome-shell is not readily customizable, but I think we'll see more as the release date in September approaches.

Uncle Spellbinder
April 19th, 2010, 12:31 AM
I fail to see where I did that.

You agreed with the following statement: "Because people look at really really really old screenshots and/or use it for a whole 5 seconds before deciding it's crap."

That's a ridiculously vast generalization to which you said: "That is exactly it, you've hit the nail on the head."

I've used both the PPA version and a build. I do not like what I've seen so far. It's really as simple as that. Am I willing to see what comes later. By all means. But as of about 2 weeks ago, I didn't like it and wouldn't use it as it is now.

bruce89
April 19th, 2010, 12:32 AM
I think the big problems that most people assume gnome-shell will be the only interface in Gnome 3. Check out the link in NightwishFan's signature, that should lay some of the fears to rest.

Well indeed, a decision on modules has yet to be made.


The biggest problem right now is that gnome-shell is not readily customizable, but I think we'll see more as the release date in September approaches.

That's not true, see http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Development. There's a JS console integrated into it, and theming is possible using CSS.


I've used both the PPA version and a build. I do not like what I've seen so far. It's really as simple as that. Am I willing to see what comes later. By all means. But as of about 2 weeks ago, I didn't like it and wouldn't use it as it is now.

No-one's forcing you to use it you know.

Uncle Spellbinder
April 19th, 2010, 12:36 AM
No-one's forcing you to use it you know.

What the hell kind of uncalled for statement is that? I like testing what is coming. I like to see what is happening with Gnome. Just because I dislike what I've seen (and used) thus far does not mean I'm not entitled to an opinion.

bruce89
April 19th, 2010, 12:39 AM
What the hell kind of uncalled for statement is that? I like testing what is coming. I like to see what is happening with Gnome. Just because I dislike what I've seen (and used) thus far does not mean I'm not entitled to an opinion.

Good grief, I didn't say anything at all rude. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but so are other people. No need to kick off because someone doesn't agree with you.

Uncle Spellbinder
April 19th, 2010, 12:41 AM
Good grief, I didn't say anything at all rude.
Never said it was rude. There's a difference. You make it sound like I shouldn't be involved.

bruce89
April 19th, 2010, 12:43 AM
Never said it was rude. There's a difference. You make it sound like I shouldn't be involved.

I assure you I meant no such thing. I meant that if you don't like something, you don't actually have to use it.

I did not mean "how dare you think of trying gnome-shell, you don't have a GNOME git account".

cariboo
April 19th, 2010, 12:49 AM
Please keep on topic, or you know what will happen. :)

dragos240
April 19th, 2010, 12:52 AM
Shouldn't this go under "recurring discussions"?

NightwishFan
April 19th, 2010, 01:26 AM
I have followed the mailing list for the shell (I am very interested in its development and discussion). The list is quite active and I am sure any comments and concerns would be welcome there. Here are some Gnome Shell related links.

Mailing List:
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list

Bugzilla Open Bugs:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&product=gnome-shell&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO

Irc:
irc.gnome.org #gnome-shell

GIT Log:
http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell/log/

Gnome Shell Tour:
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Tour

Cheat Sheet, which shows come commands and features:
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/CheatSheet

Directive 4
April 19th, 2010, 01:40 AM
id like to know if the one's who think gnome shell is great use tabbed browsing,

would they use a browser that took away this feature (works kind of like the botttom panel imo)

here's what firefox has to say....


Tabbed browsing in Firefox lets you load Web pages in separate tabs of a single browser window, so you can jump between them quickly and easily. Perhaps you’re reading a news story and want to follow an interesting link without losing your place in the original story.



With tabbed browsing, you can do this without filling your desktop with new, unorganized browser windows.
See how much faster and easier it is to stay current with your favorite news, explore search results, and shop multiple Web sites at once. With new drag and drop reordering, you can also rearrange your tabs however you like

scouser73
April 19th, 2010, 01:43 AM
Well I've finally managed to install Gnome-Shell and I like what I see so far, it's simple to use and there's no clutter also I see something similar to what Docky does; you enter a few characters for an application in the search field and it gives you what you need.

Oh yes, this is good and I'm going to have a bit of fun playing about with this.

bruce89
April 19th, 2010, 01:48 AM
id like to know if the one's who think gnome shell is great use tabbed browsing,

Yes, and I do. However, tabs in Web browsers isn't the optimal solution, Epiphany has plans to move to a sort of "page list" instead of tabs.

However, the window list thing is redundent when you use Alt+Tab.

lovinglinux
April 19th, 2010, 01:53 AM
id like to know if the one's who think gnome shell is great use tabbed browsing,

would they use a browser that took away this feature (works kind of like the botttom panel imo)

here's what firefox has to say....


Tabbed browsing in Firefox lets you load Web pages in separate tabs of a single browser window, so you can jump between them quickly and easily. Perhaps you’re reading a news story and want to follow an interesting link without losing your place in the original story.



With tabbed browsing, you can do this without filling your desktop with new, unorganized browser windows.
See how much faster and easier it is to stay current with your favorite news, explore search results, and shop multiple Web sites at once. With new drag and drop reordering, you can also rearrange your tabs however you like

I love tabbed browsing and I hate gnome-shell. Nevertheless, I like the new KDE 4.4 tabbed windows (yes you can organize any window in tabs automatically or manually), although I haven't be able to use them productively yet. I usually go for the panel tray to open what I need, instead of going to the tabs.

I would love if there was an extension for Firefox, capable of tabbing other application windows :) I have already thought about developing such extension, but I don't have the skills and don't know if it's even possible (I guess not).

Directive 4
April 19th, 2010, 02:11 AM
Yes, and I do. However, tabs in Web browsers isn't the optimal solution, Epiphany has plans to move to a sort of "page list" instead of tabs.

However, the window list thing is redundent when you use Alt+Tab.



yea, but that's part of gnome,

i wonder how many other browsers will follow.


and this alt tab thing, yea, if the windows all look similar then imo the first few words of the title is more usefull,

i've never really used alt tab because of this.

cdude42
April 19th, 2010, 02:15 AM
i dont like it. i gave it a chance and it didnt live up to my expectations. i like gnome the way it currently is. if the becomes the Ubuntu default..... somebody will suffer

bruce89
April 19th, 2010, 02:23 AM
yea, but that's part of gnome,

What are you insinuating?


i dont like it. i gave it a chance and it didnt live up to my expectations. i like gnome the way it currently is. if the becomes the Ubuntu default..... somebody will suffer

How dare the developers do what they think is right!

cdude42
April 19th, 2010, 02:56 AM
what really bothers me is when you right click on a recent item and you dont get a list of things like move to trash, or open with a specific program.

madjr
April 19th, 2010, 04:10 AM
actually gnome-shell is to get normal people to discover and use workspaces

and for developers/designers probably will get them to work faster.

on a netbook is not so bad either.

our Dear Mark is in charged of usability and design, so am curious to see what he thinks about the shell

plans for 10.10:
http://www.workswithu.com/2010/04/08/eye-on-ubuntu-10-10/

swoll1980
April 19th, 2010, 04:22 AM
I don't get what the big deal is. Many people make these huge scenes over default this, and default that. "OMG my buttons are on the wrong side!" It's Linux folks! It's not like when you go out and spend $100 plus for the new version of Windows, and find out you don't like the changes to the interface. In Linux it's very easy to say I don't like the new version of x and move on to y.

Khakilang
April 19th, 2010, 04:25 AM
I never judge a product until it has been fully develop and ship out. The end product maybe different. It just like saying this baby is going to be bad even before he/she can barely walk. I say give it a chance to grow.

-humanaut-
April 19th, 2010, 04:32 AM
Gnome 3 = KDE 4.0 Disaster KDE 4.4.2 is one of the finest Desktop environments I've used Gnome 3 will come along.

Crunchy the Headcrab
April 19th, 2010, 07:42 AM
I think I trust the Gnome project. I love the current generation of Gnome desktops and I believe that Gnome can deliver in the future. I haven't tried shell yet. I'll wait until it's done.

ad_267
April 19th, 2010, 07:49 AM
I've been using Gnome shell quite a bit and I like it, but there's definitely room for a lot of improvement.

The biggest issue I have is the useless applications menu. I read a comment from a Gnome shell developer somewhere that sorting applications into categories is "broken". I don't know how they came to that conclusion. If I want to play a game currently I go to Applications -> Games and can find it easily. In Gnome shell I go to Activities -> Applications, then spend a minute trying to find it in this gigantic mess of icons.

Other than that I really like the direction Gnome shell is going in, though I'm not so sure about the lack of a task bar. Using Alt+Tab or going up to the activities menu feels more hassle than selecting a window from the task bar.

I think I'll stick with Gnome. I've played with KDE a bit but a lot of things with KDE also feel unfinished. The separate workspaces + activities feels like a complete mess to me and always seems to be acting buggy and playing up, especially if I try to combine the activities with workspaces.

Directive 4
April 19th, 2010, 01:19 PM
What are you insinuating?





what do you think i'm insinuating

well, anyone else thing tabbed browsing is a bad idea?

antenna
April 19th, 2010, 01:30 PM
If you think of a workspace as a tab that holds several items it kind of works... In fact I rarely use the task list on the panel, instead just starting on a new workspace when the current one is full with open applications. Easier to manage in my opinion than a bunch of minimized apps. Maybe that's the way they're going.. I don't know - I haven't used it enough.

scouser73
April 21st, 2010, 07:50 PM
Well, after having installed Gnome (S)hell and thinking that it was rather good, my computer experienced an overall slowing down. Now I have ditched it, and I won't be going back to Gnome Shell anytime soon.

Frogs Hair
April 22nd, 2010, 02:26 AM
The Gnome Shell gets some of face time on Youtube, without that I wouldn't know what it looks like.

steveneddy
April 22nd, 2010, 02:49 AM
I think that the important thing to remember here is that Linux will be the leader in real world testing of alternate and cutting edge GUI for the end user.

I was around during the very beginnings of Beryl, which came from Compiz and finally merged with Compiz - at that time everyone was saying the same things.

Useless
Why?
How can you get work done with this?
boring
doesn't do this or that because I'm only used to this or that

Now, everyone, for the most part I believe, uses at least some of the Compiz features - especially since it has matured to the point of becoming useful.

When Beryl came on the scene it would crash, was buggy, video drivers were difficult to install correctly and everyone complained.

I think that Gnome-Shell is simply showing the vast user base of Linux what the future has in store for those of us who would like something out of the ordinary, something fun and something that doesn't look like Mac or Windows - and something that makes work easier.

If one really thinks about what Gnome is trying to accomplish here, they are a very brave crew who is not afraid to challenge what users have come to expect as the standard user interface on a personal computer.

Look where Ubuntu has gone in five years. Wonder what Ubuntu and Linux in general will look and act like in the next five years.

Go here (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell) and get involved in testing and development and help Linux remain the look of the future in personal computing.

ndefontenay
April 22nd, 2010, 03:20 AM
I tried gnome-shell on karmic a couple of months ago, meaning a light year back in gnome-shell development standards.

I've seen a lot of bugs, but that was expected. It's not even alpha. There was about only one thing I really didn't like: searching for my applications. But when I come to think of it, that's exactly what Mac does. Search apps if it's not docked already.

There is really a lot of cool discussion going on in the mailing list about how the tab behavior should be. How are we going to switch from one application: 1) Is it going to be workspace contextual? 2) Will it be regardless of what workspace the context is?

There's also talk of Applications grouping. The idea would be to save a bunch of apps and documents in a new tab based on what you use for a certain task. Then you can profile it and by selecting said profile you would get the most recent document for when you do your accounting. The idea here is to avoid having your most recent document as say a saved game or a movie simply because you do that more than accounting.

The list is long but the guys are doing a tremendous work and I really love what's going on. It will allow people who knows nothing to work normally (no need to use advanced options) and those who really want to improve their productivity to completely own their OS.

Something really good is coming.

chessnerd
April 22nd, 2010, 04:58 AM
I just tried to use Gnome-Shell but I couldn't. Not because it was terrible, but because it just wouldn't function. I ran gnome-shell --replace and, when Gnome-Shell was fully loaded my computer slowed to a crawl. It was so slow that it took me 5 minutes just to open up a second terminal window to run metacity --replace.

I was sure it had to be a problem with the build in the repositories, so I removed the old Gnome-Shell and built it myself using instructions on the Gnome website. The building took about 15 minutes. I rebooted and started up Gnome-Shell again. It was just as bad as the one in the repos.

Is this thing for real? Is it really this buggy and slow? Is it actually being created by the Gnome development team or is it actually a bunch of high school kids they hired out? It can't even run on my laptop. I'll admit, it isn't a powerhouse machine, but if it can't run on a dual-core computer with integrated graphics it can't run on 80% of the computers in the world. Not a good thing to see coming to the leading Linux DE. Yeah, it's months away from release, but I should have been able to do something with it...

Honestly, I expected that I would hate Gnome-Shell, but I also expected that it would at least function on my hardware. After all, the website claims that it will work on almost all hardware made in the last 4 years. My computer is 1 1/2 years old. Come on. ](*,)

maverickz
April 22nd, 2010, 10:00 AM
I like how its going to look like, but right now I got a problem: I installed it on my laptop, but the only notification icon I have is internet (wifi and ethernet). So its not quite usable if I cant see battery nor sound notification icons. Do u guys now how to fix this? Thanks in advance

Magnes
April 22nd, 2010, 10:15 AM
When Beryl came on the scene it would crash, was buggy, video drivers were difficult to install correctly and everyone complained.

I don't remember much complaining on Beryl. Just praising it for doing things more stable Compiz couldn't. People were installing Beryl to make their desktop look like a thing from the future.
Beryl was great, and Compiz Fusion is great - in look and functions.

Gnome Shell doesn't offer anything that would attract co many people as Beryl did - people who installed it fighting with bugs, drivers, XGL, made movies on YouTube, praised it, even complained... Sorry, for me AWN+Compiz Fusion is much better than anything Gnome Shell has to offer.

NCLI
April 25th, 2010, 05:57 PM
I just tried to use Gnome-Shell but I couldn't. Not because it was terrible, but because it just wouldn't function. I ran gnome-shell --replace and, when Gnome-Shell was fully loaded my computer slowed to a crawl. It was so slow that it took me 5 minutes just to open up a second terminal window to run metacity --replace.

I was sure it had to be a problem with the build in the repositories, so I removed the old Gnome-Shell and built it myself using instructions on the Gnome website. The building took about 15 minutes. I rebooted and started up Gnome-Shell again. It was just as bad as the one in the repos.

Is this thing for real? Is it really this buggy and slow? Is it actually being created by the Gnome development team or is it actually a bunch of high school kids they hired out? It can't even run on my laptop. I'll admit, it isn't a powerhouse machine, but if it can't run on a dual-core computer with integrated graphics it can't run on 80% of the computers in the world. Not a good thing to see coming to the leading Linux DE. Yeah, it's months away from release, but I should have been able to do something with it...

Honestly, I expected that I would hate Gnome-Shell, but I also expected that it would at least function on my hardware. After all, the website claims that it will work on almost all hardware made in the last 4 years. My computer is 1 1/2 years old. Come on. ](*,)

It runs just fine on my netbook. Does your driver/hardware support compositing?

Linye
April 25th, 2010, 08:02 PM
I just watch some videos on YouTube and I liked what I saw. Seems like a whole new way to use the desktop which is exciting but I won't try it until September because I don't want to be disappointed by some unfinished product.

NightwishFan
April 25th, 2010, 08:35 PM
Preview it, and post to the mailing list about what you like and do not like! :D

I have to say it is getting amazing. When I boot up I just slide the mouse to the corner, and easily drag and drop firefox, rhythmbox, evolution, and pidgin and they all open and do not steal focus. :D so I just click on fox when it's up, and the others when I want. Its so easy. It takes me around 2 seconds to drag them all out.

I am using the shell full time though the current ricotz build of mutter has problems making things maximized, I have to reset the gnome shell sometimes because it blanks the window.

How do you report bugs for a PPA to the ppa poster? Just send them a message?

chessnerd
April 26th, 2010, 03:01 AM
It runs just fine on my netbook. Does your driver/hardware support compositing?

Yes. This machine isn't bad. It's worked well with everything I'd thrown at it up to this point.

The hardware lets me run Windows Vista and 7, with full Aero and transparency, and can play semi-recent games like Spore. I'm able to use most of the Compiz Advanced Settings (just one or two don't work) and those that work run smoothly. I'm not sure why Gnome-Shell wouldn't function. I can try again on my desktop, which is running Lucid and has a dedicated GeForce card. That might work better.

Still, this concerns me. If Gnome-Shell slows down Gnome, to the point that it won't work without dedicated graphics, it will be a sad day for the world of Linux. Any computer that can easily handle Windows Aero, a bloatware, resource hog, should work well with all Linux desktop environments. Period.

EDIT: Scratch that, it didn't work on my desktop either. This time it was pretty snappy. Only two problems:
First, all the text was a bunch of unintelligible blocks.
Second, and more importantly, the desktop didn't show up at all, only blackness. In the "Workspace Manager/Activities" mode you could see the "X" in the corner of the desktop to remove it, but the desktop itself was nothing but blackness.

*sarcasm* Yeah. I'm really looking forward to more of this in a few months. It's gonna be a lot of fun trying different ways to get Gnome-Shell to work.

ratdude747
April 26th, 2010, 03:57 AM
what i think will happen is gnome 3 will either be gnome-shell or metacity, and the other will become a fork.

i prefer the shell, as i am using it at this instant.

my $0.02

Granny_Geek
April 26th, 2010, 05:30 AM
I've been using and enjoying Gnome Shell for around a week, I have it on my second partition on Super OS, I like the expose view that can be accessed by tapping the 'Super' key, the view of the desktops are much larger than in Compiz and that suits me, all I need now is the ability to customize the Taskbar and transparency which I am sure they will be working on. I think you will find it more useful using either Gnome do Docky or Cario dock along side it, then you will have an option to launch programs from there, Cario dock provides a 'desktop app' that allows more functionality while using Gnome Shell (I add programs to the dock while in metacity,then switch to gnome-shell) Here is the version that I am using http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4lW_eaeO8&playnext_from=TL&videos=tWBExjkg-7A

yztlyrn
April 27th, 2010, 08:47 PM
Throwing out the baby with the bath water.
We loose the following:

1. Panel Applets! I love my panel applets. Why must we loose those?
2. A simple menu. Geez!!! I railed on M$ for killing the simple menu option.
Now Gnome is going to do the same thing? Grrr...
3. Panel launchers. Essentially the Mac Doc without the steroids. Simple
One Click launching of any selected app.
4. Our ability to focus as the screen zooms in and out every time you try
to launch anything.
5. The task list. M$ had this one right. The ability to one-click switch
between any running application. Even Apple borrowed this one.

dyltman
April 27th, 2010, 09:03 PM
Throwing out the baby with the bath water.
We loose the following:

1. Panel Applets! I love my panel applets. Why must we loose those?
2. A simple menu. Geez!!! I railed on M$ for killing the simple menu option.
Now Gnome is going to do the same thing? Grrr...
3. Panel launchers. Essentially the Mac Doc without the steroids. Simple
One Click launching of any selected app.
4. Our ability to focus as the screen zooms in and out every time you try
to launch anything.
5. The task list. M$ had this one right. The ability to one-click switch
between any running application. Even Apple borrowed this one.

1. They posted a reason somewhere, they believed that only the more important stuff should be there

3. This is one of the features I think will come in the future but I'm just guessing

4. I know I'm not really watching something else while I open something, I keep my eyes focused on the applications menu to make sure I browse correctly. You don't really need to look at the other stuff while opening an app IMHO.

NightwishFan
April 27th, 2010, 09:12 PM
Remember that it is not done. The shell is pretty extensible, so a lot of stuff should probably come out.

23meg
April 27th, 2010, 09:29 PM
1. Panel Applets! I love my panel applets. Why must we loose those?

Have you ever thought the opposite? Why must we have those?

Why must we have a distinction between "big applications" and "small applications"? Can the use cases that "small applications" (applets) have come to serve be served (maybe even better served) without such a distinction?

yztlyrn
April 28th, 2010, 02:31 AM
1. They posted a reason somewhere, they believed that only the more important stuff should be there

3. This is one of the features I think will come in the future but I'm just guessing

4. I know I'm not really watching something else while I open something, I keep my eyes focused on the applications menu to make sure I browse correctly. You don't really need to look at the other stuff while opening an app IMHO.

1. So "They" are determining what is important to me?
3. No proof or indication that they will.
4. You can't base it on you. It gives me headaches. I should have the ability to at least turn it off.

#4 also leads to the biggest thing we lose: CUSTOMIZABILITY! It's what drove me to Linux in the first place. First I went to KDE but it was too rigid, so I went to Gnome and found a playland. I could make it whatever I wanted. It can look like Win95/98, XP, Vista, 7, MacOS (take your pick), Amiga and on and on. Or I could just gin up my own ideas. This think is so rigid I cannot even move the d*mn bar! I cannot have an Icon in the Activities button let alone change the goofy work "Activities". Geez why must we be forced to be so much like Mickysoft and RottenApple. I'm giving Lxde a look. Maybe I'll find an new home.

23meg
April 28th, 2010, 02:49 AM
1. So "They" are determining what is important to me?

Yes, that's basically what designers do. It's their job to determine what's important to the largest part of their audiences, and design software accordingly.

The only way to completely avoid the notion of other people making decisions that they think will suit you is to write your own software from the ground up.

Luckily for us, with free software, there's always that sweet middle ground of disagreeing with some design decisions while continuing to benefit from the rest, by modifying the aspects we don't like.

Which brings us to:


#4 also leads to the biggest thing we lose: CUSTOMIZABILITY!

GNOME Shell is way more customizable under the hood than the GNOME 2.x interface elements could ever dream of being, thanks to the extensions system (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Extensions), which lets you tweak any shell element on the fly with arbitrary CSS and JavaScript, without needing even recompilation.

The reason you don't see a vibrant ecosystem of GS extensions (similar to Firefox extensions) right now is that GS is relatively new and hasn't stabilized enough for extension development to be meaningful.

koleoptero
April 28th, 2010, 03:17 AM
Assuming gnome-shell will be what gnome 3 is about I have to say one thing:

It's gnome 2 all over again.

Greg Xix
April 28th, 2010, 05:25 PM
How is Gnome Shell going to look to new users trying Ubuntu out for the first time. New users coming from Windows?

They want something that is familiar somewhat like Windows, just less buggy, less power-intensive and a lot cleaner. That is why I chose Ubuntu as my only operating system and completely booted out Windows altogether.

The reasons I HATE Gnome Shell with a passion:

1. You cant customize themes(icons, panels, buttons, etc..)
2. You cant select between multiple apps without opening another desktop environment then moving them to the other Desktop Environment
3. You then cannot close the open, blank desktop environment's that you dont want to use. Just that big "plus" sign to open new ones
4. The sidebar(large menu) is always there, you cant remove it, close it or change whats in it. Like the recent documents.
5. You cant move panels around
6. Its difficult to navigate


If they force this down my throat. I will move to XFCE or LXDE.

But my main concern is for New users and the growth of Ubuntu. We experienced users know how to tweak and try other options. Noobies will be in more uncharted territory to know how and where to look for other options.


Just my Three Cents.

NCLI
April 28th, 2010, 05:29 PM
Yes. This machine isn't bad. It's worked well with everything I'd thrown at it up to this point.

The hardware lets me run Windows Vista and 7, with full Aero and transparency, and can play semi-recent games like Spore. I'm able to use most of the Compiz Advanced Settings (just one or two don't work) and those that work run smoothly. I'm not sure why Gnome-Shell wouldn't function. I can try again on my desktop, which is running Lucid and has a dedicated GeForce card. That might work better.

Still, this concerns me. If Gnome-Shell slows down Gnome, to the point that it won't work without dedicated graphics, it will be a sad day for the world of Linux. Any computer that can easily handle Windows Aero, a bloatware, resource hog, should work well with all Linux desktop environments. Period.

EDIT: Scratch that, it didn't work on my desktop either. This time it was pretty snappy. Only two problems:
First, all the text was a bunch of unintelligible blocks.
Second, and more importantly, the desktop didn't show up at all, only blackness. In the "Workspace Manager/Activities" mode you could see the "X" in the corner of the desktop to remove it, but the desktop itself was nothing but blackness.

*sarcasm* Yeah. I'm really looking forward to more of this in a few months. It's gonna be a lot of fun trying different ways to get Gnome-Shell to work.

Weird. I think you should report bugs for this, sounds like a hardware-specific issue.


How is Gnome Shell going to look to new users trying Ubuntu out for the first time. New users coming from Windows?

They want something that is familiar somewhat like Windows, just less buggy, less power-intensive and a lot cleaner. That is why I chose Ubuntu as my only operating system and completely booted out Windows altogether.
Linux is not windows. If the desktop environment is enough to turn the new users off, they should stop right there, as that's the easiest thing to adapt to.

The reasons I HATE Gnome Shell with a passion:

1. You cant customize themes(icons, panels, buttons, etc..)
Of course you can. Right now you have to edit some config files, but as soon as Shell is released, you can expect to see lots of themes for it.

2. You cant select between multiple apps without opening another desktop environment then moving them to the other Desktop Environment
What do you mean?

3. You then cannot close the open, blank desktop environment's that you dont want to use. Just that big "plus" sign to open new ones
You can, just click the minus to remove workspaces.

4. The sidebar(large menu) is always there, you cant remove it, close it or change whats in it. Like the recent documents.
Are you talking about the actual sidebar, or the menu shown when you zoom out to the shell? The sidebar can easily be turned on and off by right-clicking your name in the top-right corner, and the application menu is only shown when zoomed out of the desktop.

5. You cant move panels around
Again, you currently need to edit config files, as the code isn't stable enough for GNOME to make any applications for customizing it, but moving the "panel" should be no problem.

6. Its difficult to navigate
This is your personal opinion, I find it easy, that's mine.


If they force this down my throat. I will move to XFCE or LXDE.

They're not, Gnome 2.XX will still be available, Shell will simply be the default.


But my main concern is for New users and the growth of Ubuntu. We experienced users know how to tweak and try other options. Noobies will be in more uncharted territory to know how and where to look for other options.


Just my Three Cents.
People come to Ubuntu to try something new. If they're not prepared for change, they should stick to Windows.

Mr. Picklesworth
April 28th, 2010, 05:47 PM
You can, just click the minus to remove workspaces.I should mention that this has been hugely improved nowadays and you can see it in git (which is why I really wish Ubuntu didn't even have gnome-shell in the repositories). It is possible to remove any workspace — not just the last one you opened — even if there are currently windows on it.


Are you talking about the actual sidebar, or the menu shown when you zoom out to the shell? The sidebar can easily be turned on and off by right-clicking your name in the top-right corner, and the application menu is only shown when zoomed out of the desktop.The sidebar is also now gone. (At least for the time being. To be honest, I don't know if there are any plans for it. I haven't seen any).


Again, you currently need to edit config files, as the code isn't stable enough for GNOME to make any applications for customizing it, but moving the "panel" should be no problem.I would have just grumpily pointed to this: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3Myths ;)


People come to Ubuntu to try something new. If they're not prepared for change, they should stick to Windows.Thank you!

NCLI
April 28th, 2010, 05:55 PM
Thanks for the backup, Mr. Picklesworth! I haven't been using the shell lately as my netbook has had some issues with it's graphics driver(Nothing to do with Shell, just makes it impossible to run it), so I appreciate the update as to what GS is like currently.

@Greg Xix: I forgot to ask you this, but are you running the latest version? If not, you can get it from here (https://launchpad.net/~ricotz/+archive/testing).

NightwishFan
April 28th, 2010, 05:59 PM
My grandmother has a hard time with normal desktops like Gnome or Windows, but she likes how she can see everything with the shell with one button push, rather than read the tiny panel task bar. (metakey)

I just hope the shell gets customizable, so we can use it like we want. I already know it will be them-able and extensible.

NightwishFan
April 28th, 2010, 06:20 PM
The shell makes my smaller laptop screen far more efficient at a glance, and I can get all the apps I want open much faster than before. The notification history shows up, so I can see what happened while I was away. (Wireless off, messages, etc..) I can quickly organize things by task in workspaces. The panel is spaced well and looks great, I am eager to see what they will do with it. The shell is designed with more usability goals in mind than Gnome2.

Vista, 7, and OSX will likely only run with machines that are capable of compositing anyway, so why does the shell need to run on legacy machines. Gnome2 will be available for using virtual machines or remote desktops.

Greg Xix
April 28th, 2010, 06:28 PM
Thanks for the backup, Mr. Picklesworth! I haven't been using the shell lately as my netbook has had some issues with it's graphics driver(Nothing to do with Shell, just makes it impossible to run it), so I appreciate the update as to what GS is like currently.

@Greg Xix: I forgot to ask you this, but are you running the latest version? If not, you can get it from here (https://launchpad.net/~ricotz/+archive/testing).


No but I tried a version from about 10 days ago.

I will not attempt to try it again until it is officially released with Ubuntu, presumably that will be this October with the 10.10 release.

If I dont see ENORMOUS changes back to the what I am familiar with, I am going to XFCE.

In your first response to me:


...

People come to Ubuntu to try something new. If they're not prepared for change, they should stick to Windows.

Now that is the reason I was able to adapt to Ubuntu in the first place and I am sure a lot of people agree. Its the simplest, most familiar looking(not KDE), vanilla(again not KDE), Linux Destop Environment there is for new users with the most information available on forums and websites such as this one because there are it has been used longer and had the most experienced users with its community. With Gnome Shell, new users and experienced ones will ALL be starting from scratch.

Dont you want Ubuntu to be used by more than 1% of the world's computers? I do, so do most people on here. Many new users will be confused, and so will an unhealthy chunk of experienced users, and with this entirely new concept there will be little information out there. Many will "adapt", but many more will get fed-up and go to LDXE or XFCE.

Here is just one of the articles I came across with a bad opinion of Gnome Shell, its only about 1 month old. Pay Special attention to what people are saying in the Comments.

http://www.workswithu.com/2010/03/23/five-things-to-fix-in-gnome-shell/


The only reason I am complaining is not for myself, but for the potential this has to stunt the growth of Ubuntu with new users.

NCLI
April 28th, 2010, 06:55 PM
No but I tried a version from about 10 days ago.

I will not attempt to try it again until it is officially released with Ubuntu, presumably that will be this October with the 10.10 release.

If I dont see ENORMOUS changes back to the what I am familiar with, I am going to XFCE.
Feel free.


Now that is the reason I was able to adapt to Ubuntu in the first place and I am sure a lot of people agree. Its the simplest, most familiar looking(not KDE), vanilla(again not KDE), Linux Destop Environment there is for new users with the most information available on forums and websites such as this one because there are it has been used longer and had the most experienced users with its community. With Gnome Shell, new users and experienced ones will ALL be starting from scratch.
Actually, many experienced users, like me, have been using GS regularly for the past year, so we won't all be starting from scratch ;)

And how can you call Gnome 2.0 familiar-looking from a Windows perspective? It has two "taskbars," a "start-menu" split in three, a totally different approach to installing applications, etc. It feels familiar now because you've gotten used to it.


Dont you want Ubuntu to be used by more than 1% of the world's computers? I do, so do most people on here. Many new users will be confused, and so will an unhealthy chunk of experienced users, and with this entirely new concept there will be little information out there. Many will "adapt", but many more will get fed-up and go to LDXE or XFCE.
Of course I do, but not at the cost of innovation. Gnome 2.0 looks like Win 98. Sure, we theme it to make it look better, but fundamentally, we're still interacting with or computers in the same way that we have been since Windows 95.

If we don't experiment, there will be no progress.


Here is just one of the articles I came across with a bad opinion of Gnome Shell, its only about 1 month old. Pay Special attention to what people are saying in the Comments.

http://www.workswithu.com/2010/03/23/five-things-to-fix-in-gnome-shell/
I'll just do a quick summary, and dismissal, of his points:

1. Laggy interface - This is still an alpha-release. It should be expected.

2. No taskbar - It's easy to add one via the awesome extension system, but many GS-users, me included, have adapted to not having a taskbar. In fact, I prefer it. My mother, who has always been confused by the taskbar, finds it much easier to see all of her applications laid out when she clicks on the "Activities" button.

3. No support for compiz - The Compiz project is pretty much dead. Besides, GS' extension system can easily handle tat task, and I have no doubt someone will port the most popular Compiz plugins.

4. Applications can’t be categorized - This is currently being discussed in the mailing-list, but the general opinion seems to be that it is easier to simple type and search for applications from the overlay.
It does seem to be a common complaint though, so it will probably be added. Remember: This is an alpha.

5. It’s Ugly! - Again, this is easy to fix with the deep theming options in GS.

I did read the comments. Most of the complaints were from people who haven't used it for an extended period of time, or people who had bought in to many of the common myths (http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3Myths).


The only reason I am complaining is not for myself, but for the potential this has to stunt the growth of Ubuntu with new users.

In my completely honest opinion, and apparently that of the Gnome devs as well, progress is more important than popularity. I'm sure users will learn the new system, and find that it is way better than what it replaces.

yztlyrn
April 29th, 2010, 02:20 AM
Yes, that's basically what designers do. It's their job to determine what's important to the largest part of their audiences, and design software accordingly.

The only way to completely avoid the notion of other people making decisions that they think will suit you is to write your own software from the ground up.

Luckily for us, with free software, there's always that sweet middle ground of disagreeing with some design decisions while continuing to benefit from the rest, by modifying the aspects we don't like.

Which brings us to:



GNOME Shell is way more customizable under the hood than the GNOME 2.x interface elements could ever dream of being, thanks to the extensions system (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Extensions), which lets you tweak any shell element on the fly with arbitrary CSS and JavaScript, without needing even recompilation.

The reason you don't see a vibrant ecosystem of GS extensions (similar to Firefox extensions) right now is that GS is relatively new and hasn't stabilized enough for extension development to be meaningful.

1. No it's not their job to REMOVE already designed and working features in favour of re-inventing the wheel on designs that don't work. If they want to do that they should start a new project, not destroy one that has a large following.

2. "Under the hood" doesn't do the average users any good. Besides you say this ability to customize is there but how do you get to it? I see not path anywhere to access it.

Destroying the panel setup is just stupid. Why couldn't be improved rather than destroyed. Apple and Microsoft understand this. The only time M$ re-invented everything was Win95 and only because their UI was a dog. Apple hasn't changed their UI since 1984. They've added to it, upgraded it and improved upon it, but it's still the finder and desktop! Get a clue.

23meg
April 29th, 2010, 02:28 AM
1. No it's not their job to REMOVE already designed and working features in favour of re-inventing the wheel on designs that don't work. If they want to do that they should start a new project, not destroy one that has a large following.

GNOME Shell doesn't remove or destroy anything. If you don't like it, you can use GNOME Panel + Metacity or any other window manager with the rest of GNOME 3.x.


2. "Under the hood" doesn't do the average users any good.

Besides you say this ability to customize is there but how do you get to it? I see not path anywhere to access it.

You get to it by writing an extension, or using existing ones. And no, you won't have to do that for basic configuration tasks once GNOME Shell is part of GNOME.

Mr. Picklesworth
April 29th, 2010, 02:55 AM
I'm sure there are some good car analogies here, but I can't think of any.



2. "Under the hood" doesn't do the average users any good. Besides you say this ability to customize is there but how do you get to it? I see not path anywhere to access it.

So, if gnome-shell had a pretty interface but nothing under the hood at this point, users would be better served running software that isn't finished?

The missing path to customization that you observe is because, as is being Constantly Repeated, it is a work in progress. You clearly have a lot of interest in this stuff to be installing gnome-shell and commenting on it, so I really recommend you poke around and try customizing it with the interface that does exist. (Your file manager). Extensions are really easy to write, with lots of Javascript and CSS.


Destroying the panel setup is just stupid. Why couldn't be improved rather than destroyed. Apple and Microsoft understand this. The only time M$ re-invented everything was Win95 and only because their UI was a dog. Apple hasn't changed their UI since 1984. They've added to it, upgraded it and improved upon it, but it's still the finder and desktop! Get a clue.

"Finder and desktop" is a nice comparison, actually. Gnome Shell still has the same file manager and the same desktop (Nautilus) ;)

Meanwhile Apple has built up around Finder, adding the Dock and the menu bar at the top, which have profoundly affected MacOS's design. (And, if I recall correctly, they were polarizing changes).
Microsoft recently rethought their task bar. By default, it does not show windows at a glance any more.

The panel setup could not be improved. Trust us on that. Most of the rationale has been exhausted, though. New one: There's a reason why GNOME Panel takes so long to start. It reaches straight down to its heart.

itsjustarumour
April 29th, 2010, 04:35 AM
There was a time when KDE 4 murdered puppies, and ate people's first born children. I think Gnome 3 will go through a similar phase.

I totally agree - I think its going to upset a lot of people.

FWIW I found KDE 4.0 totally unusable, although I think KDE 4.4 is excellent now and at least on a par with GNOME 2.30. I like "GNOME 3.0", although theres a lot of features that are missing right now so its not something I could use for everyday proper work (yet).

yztlyrn
April 30th, 2010, 06:39 PM
GNOME Shell doesn't remove or destroy anything. If you don't like it, you can use GNOME Panel + Metacity or any other window manager with the rest of GNOME 3.x.



You get to it by writing an extension, or using existing ones. And no, you won't have to do that for basic configuration tasks once GNOME Shell is part of GNOME.

1. Wrong, maybe for now I can user the old system but how long before it is unsupported. Best I can tell Gnome has already stopped it's development. Look at the new stuff that's been done with it recently (examble Ubuntu netbook remix).

2. Write an extension? So everyone is expected to be a programer now? I can't just right click the whatever-you-call-it bar and change it's color or add an applet? I thought this was supposed to be simpler? What if I would like an icon for activities instead of the word "Activites"? What if I would like to move the clock. Yea it's sooooo much better.

yztlyrn
April 30th, 2010, 06:47 PM
I'm sure there are some good car analogies here, but I can't think of any.




So, if gnome-shell had a pretty interface but nothing under the hood at this point, users would be better served running software that isn't finished?

The missing path to customization that you observe is because, as is being Constantly Repeated, it is a work in progress. You clearly have a lot of interest in this stuff to be installing gnome-shell and commenting on it, so I really recommend you poke around and try customizing it with the interface that does exist. (Your file manager). Extensions are really easy to write, with lots of Javascript and CSS.



Destroying the panel setup is just stupid. Why couldn't be improved rather than destroyed. Apple and Microsoft understand this. The only time M$ re-invented everything was Win95 and only because their UI was a dog. Apple hasn't changed their UI since 1984. They've added to it, upgraded it and improved upon it, but it's still the finder and desktop! Get a clue.
"Finder and desktop" is a nice comparison, actually. Gnome Shell still has the same file manager and the same desktop (Nautilus) ;)

Meanwhile Apple has built up around Finder, adding the Dock and the menu bar at the top, which have profoundly affected MacOS's design. (And, if I recall correctly, they were polarizing changes).
Microsoft recently rethought their task bar. By default, it does not show windows at a glance any more.

The panel setup could not be improved. Trust us on that. Most of the rationale has been exhausted, though. New one: There's a reason why GNOME Panel takes so long to start. It reaches straight down to its heart.

Have you ever used a Mac? The menu bar at the top has ALWAYS been there every since the original MAC. The only thing they added was the dock. And I repeat ADDED, they did not abandon the existing user interface and replace it. If you used a MAC in 1984 you can feel comfortable on a MAC in 2010. The fact is they are going to alienate too many users. This not only impacts Gnome but Ubuntu and any other distro that choose gnome for its attributes. It will alienate their users too. This could be damaging to Linux in general. It makes us look like we cannot make up our mind on how our OS is supposed to work. Change for the sake of change is not a good idea.

As for the "missing path to customization" this product has been pushed back and is still due to release by the next relase of Ubuntu. Are they going to release to us an unfinished product?

Yes I am very interested as I have convinced 30+ people to convert to Linux. I asst them as needed. They are common folk and I see how they use their computers. I also see how this will compeletly disorient them. It won't matter how long I can keep them on the panels because if I eventually must move them due to lack of support then they will still be completely lost. This is the kind of thing Microsoft does to it's users (example Office 2007). Why should we be like them. Why can't the new extensions you taunt be added to a new version of the panel system. Why can't the "Activities" zoomy text searchy menu thing be a panel applet to extend the existing system? You guys have never answered these questions.

23meg
April 30th, 2010, 08:35 PM
1. Wrong, maybe for now I can user the old system but how long before it is unsupported.

Since Metacity and GNOME Panel are in Ubuntu 10.04, their present versions will be guaranteed to be maintained for three years. If there's further demand, they'll perhaps be maintained longer.

Sawfish (the 1.x era window manager) is still maintained seven years after the release of GNOME 2.2, at which point Metacity replaced it.

Besides, there are lots of other window managers that you can use if you wish.


2. Write an extension? So everyone is expected to be a programer now? I can't just right click the whatever-you-call-it bar and change it's color or add an applet? I thought this was supposed to be simpler? What if I would like an icon for activities instead of the word "Activites"? What if I would like to move the clock. Yea it's sooooo much better.

As I (and others) said before, you can rest assured that basic configuration options will be available before GNOME Shell is accepted as a GNOME module. That doesn't mean there won't be radical changes, and not everything that GNOME Panel does will be retained (that's because not everything it does is sane).

It's more advanced tweaking that's possible with JavaScript and CSS thanks to the extensions system, which everyone who has dabbled in making web pages / applications is familiar with on some level. GNOME Panel is way harder to customize with such flexibility.

Merk42
April 30th, 2010, 08:52 PM
Have you ever used a Mac? The menu bar at the top has ALWAYS been there every since the original MAC. The only thing they added was the dock. And I repeat ADDED, they did not abandon the existing user interface and replace it. If you used a MAC in 1984 you can feel comfortable on a MAC in 2010.

*Hypothetical Mac user coming from OS 9*

I'm trying to switch my applications around but clicking on the upper right hand corner doesn't show me a list of what is running. They REMOVED that functionality? Where's the panel at the bottom that was removed too?? They replaced it with what? this thing at the bottom that resizes itself when I hover over it? I FEEL ALIENATED

23meg
May 1st, 2010, 02:11 PM
*Hypothetical Mac user coming from OS 9*

I'm trying to switch my applications around but clicking on the upper right hand corner doesn't show me a list of what is running. They REMOVED that functionality? Where's the panel at the bottom that was removed too?? They replaced it with what? this thing at the bottom that resizes itself when I hover over it? I FEEL ALIENATED

*Hypothetical Windows 7 user coming from Windows XP*

"I'm trying to switch my applications around but clicking on the.. what? No taskbar? What are those big icons on the bottom? What is this application called? They REMOVED application names from the taskbar? How am I supposed to know which application this big red icon belongs to? And no quick launch? They REMOVED that too? And no button labeled "Start"? I FEEL ALIENATED"

yztlyrn
May 2nd, 2010, 05:27 AM
*Hypothetical Mac user coming from OS 9*

I'm trying to switch my applications around but clicking on the upper right hand corner doesn't show me a list of what is running. They REMOVED that functionality? Where's the panel at the bottom that was removed too?? They replaced it with what? this thing at the bottom that resizes itself when I hover over it? I FEEL ALIENATED

They didn't remmove that functionality, they moved it. You do know the difference, don't you? The finder is still at the top. The look and feel is still the same. And the device that replaces the functionality is obvious, not obscure. You really cannot make this comparison. You also claim that these customizability issues will be resolved by release, ignoring the fact that Gnome 3 was supposed to be nearing completion already. When will they develop these functionalities, before are after release of Gnome 3? Again, tell me why you couldn't have added the new framework, activities, even the new window manager along side and complementary to the panel system? Why does no one want to answer that? I'm all for moving forward, adding new features and charting new waters. I'm not for "radically" (as you put it) changing things so suddenly. Ask yourself if the panel system is so bad, why does it have so may defenders. And if you just want to get rid of it, phase it out over time so that users have time to adjust. You ARE behaving like Microsoft. You are assuming you know better than the users what they want. At-least ask the users in an online vote what they want.

Primefalcon
May 2nd, 2010, 05:34 AM
In response to the recent docs thing..... you can disable it (I do)

first delete the file, so that current history is annihilated

rm ~/.recently-used.xbel

create a new blank file

touch ~/.recently-used.xbel

Lock it so nothing can alter it (not even sudo)

sudo chattr +i ~/.recently-used.xbel

benjamimgois
May 2nd, 2010, 05:51 AM
You ARE behaving like Microsoft. You are assuming you know better than the users what they want. At-least ask the users in an online vote what they want.

Like Mark already say. This is NOT a democracy.

Merk42
May 2nd, 2010, 05:58 AM
They didn't remmove that functionality, they moved it. You do know the difference, don't you?and as of right now, GNOME didn't remove the task switcher, they moved it to the overlay. You do know the difference don't you?

The finder is still at the top. The look and feel is still the same.What finder? The Mac OS Finder is the file navigating program, Nautilus would be the equivlent. Do you mean the global menu (file edit view) bar at the top? Okay well the menus (file edit view) are still right below the window's titles in GNOME Shell so that's still similar

You also claim that these customizability issues will be resolved by release, ignoring the fact that Gnome 3 was supposed to be nearing completion already. When will they develop these functionalities, before are after release of Gnome 3?
I didn't claim that in my post, but the answer is "Both". Just like not all of the extensions and the like for GNOME 2 were available from day 1. Just like not every extension was available for firefox (or more recently, Chrome) from day 1
Again, tell me why you couldn't have added the new framework, activities, even the new window manager along side and complementary to the panel system? Why does no one want to answer that? Because GNOME Shell is one element of GNOME 3. GNOME 3 being a total rewrite of GNOME enhancing other elements like the window manager (Mutter instead of Metacity) and file organization (Zeitgeist)
I'm all for moving forward, adding new features and charting new waters. I'm not for "radically" (as you put it) changing things so suddenly.Now I really don't know who you're talking to, I never used the word "radically".
Ask yourself if the panel system is so bad, why does it have so may defenders.People hate change

And if you just want to get rid of it, phase it out over time so that users have time to adjust.They are. You are not required to use GNOME Shell when using GNOME 3. (http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3Myths#GNOME_won.27t_support_the_current_pane l_and_window_manager_anymore)
You ARE behaving like Microsoft. You are assuming you know better than the users what they want.Me? I'm not making GNOME Shell, I just try to educate people about it. But oh well pull the old card of "someone isn't doing what I want wwannnnh MIKKKRO$OFT" Why not compare it to Apple? Their interfaces are even less customizable. Also, you do realize that some sort of default has to be made? Why not get mad at GNOME for having two panels one with menu up top and window list at the bottom (which was different from GNOME 1)? Weren't they assuming that's what the users want then?
At-least ask the users in an online vote what they want.They are, it's in my signature, it's called the mailing list (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/)

yztlyrn
May 2nd, 2010, 06:11 AM
*Hypothetical Windows 7 user coming from Windows XP*

"I'm trying to switch my applications around but clicking on the.. what? No taskbar? What are those big icons on the bottom? What is this application called? They REMOVED application names from the taskbar? How am I supposed to know which application this big red icon belongs to? And no quick launch? They REMOVED that too? And no button labeled "Start"? I FEEL ALIENATED"

Have I argued that the changes in Windows 7 were good? That said the tasks are still in the same basic location and the feature is rather obvious. However, I know many people who were badly disoriented by this change. I am very unhappy with Microsoft not allowing me to switch back to a simple menu. They act as if they know better than I how I would like to use my computer. This is behaviour I have come to expect from them not from the FOSS community. I shall ask again, would someone tell me why these new extensions, features and capabilities could not have been added alongside gnome. If the Activities menu had been a panel app I could simply turn it off in favour of my menu of choice. Metacity is not as much of an issue for me. A window manager is after all a window manager. Your system will cripple distros who have used the panel system to create their own unique look and feel*(LinuxMint comes to mind). This system is so rigid that their setup will be impossible without relying on unsupported software that is no longer updated. All this decreed by fiat from our masters who know better than us how we work (a-la Microsoft).

Primefalcon
May 2nd, 2010, 06:15 AM
to be frank if you don't like gnome use kde or lxde or something.... no one is making you use gnome....

what is it with people who have to complain... for hells sake we should all be just thanking mark, Ubuntu is his baby, if you don't like it go elsewhere

yztlyrn
May 2nd, 2010, 06:17 AM
Like Mark already say. This is NOT a democracy.

But this is FOSS. One of the LARGEST arguments for people to switch is the community driven nature of it. The fact that the developers DO listen to their users. Hmmmmm.... I wouldn't argue soooo hard if I didn't LOVE gnome and FOSS and everything it is supposed to stand for. If gnome shell is so great why are we getting articles on OSnews and LXER about how convoluted it is. All I am saying is listen to the users.

yztlyrn
May 2nd, 2010, 06:37 AM
and as of right now, GNOME didn't remove the task switcher, they moved it to the overlay. You do know the difference don't you?

What finder? The Mac OS Finder is the file navigating program, Nautilus would be the equivlent. Do you mean the global menu (file edit view) bar at the top? Okay well the menus (file edit view) are still right below the window's titles in GNOME Shell so that's still similar

I didn't claim that in my post, but the answer is "Both". Just like not all of the extensions and the like for GNOME 2 were available from day 1. Just like not every extension was available for firefox (or more recently, Chrome) from day 1Because GNOME Shell is one element of GNOME 3. GNOME 3 being a total rewrite of GNOME enhancing other elements like the window manager (Mutter instead of Metacity) and file organization (Zeitgeist) Now I really don't know who you're talking to, I never used the word "radically".People hate change
They are. You are not required to use GNOME Shell when using GNOME 3. (http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3Myths#GNOME_won.27t_support_the_current_pane l_and_window_manager_anymore) Me? I'm not making GNOME Shell, I just try to educate people about it. But oh well pull the old card of "someone isn't doing what I want wwannnnh MIKKKRO$OFT" Why not compare it to Apple? Their interfaces are even less customizable. Also, you do realize that some sort of default has to be made? Why not get mad at GNOME for having two panels one with menu up top and window list at the bottom (which was different from GNOME 1)? Weren't they assuming that's what the users want then? They are, it's in my signature, it's called the mailing list (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/)


The "overlay" is so radically different that the equvilance is not obvious. This could have been phased in. Moreover, the way it functions is no less than nauseating. Everyone I have had try it hated it. Of course let's not let user opinion get in the way of what we want to do.

Ask a mac user the "global menu" is refered to as the finder. And the "file edit view" menu is not the face of gnome the panel system is. You have fundamentally changed the look and feel of the entire UI. Don't give me Apple and M$ did this, because the "Finder" is still at the top with it's functionality and the "Taskbar" is still at the bottom with it's functionality.

The Microsoft comparison is valid. It's not that you are not doing what I want. You are arguing with the user instead of listening to them. You simply defend rather than answer simple questions. An example of this is why couldn't these features be added to the gnome-panel system. I'm sure some people will find these features great in time. I might even come around, but you didn't provide me a path to phase them into my life slowly. I ether dump panel and change how I do things or stay with the panel. There is NO middle ground at all. If these features had been and extension of Gnome I could have configured out the system in a way that I and those I support could transition smoothly. Even M$ sometimes does it this way. And have I ever said that I liked the rigidity of Apple? But you bring up Gnome 1 which was a KDE look alike. I hated Gnome 1. I had been using XFCE. I didn't even discover Gnome 2 until I tried out Ubuntu 6.06 on a whim. The Gnome team at that time did accept and incorporate a lot of user opinion when coming up with the 2 panel paradigm. I understand the need for a default, but I also love that I can make it any way I want it to be. Now we are going to go back to a system where someone else decides for me and I cannot change it. Tell me someday I'll be able to remove the "Activities" menu as a module from that top bar and place a menu someone else wrote that I like better. Or better yet write my own (if I know how). Tell me that I can move that bar to the bottom or side or make it go away entirely. Tell me that if I don't want the clock in the @#$% middle of the bar that I can move it or get rid of it. Yes, Gnome 2 has a default look, but that look is completely modular and user customisable. The modular nature of the panel rocks.

P.S. I stand corrected on the "radical" comment that was 23meg.

Merk42
May 2nd, 2010, 04:34 PM
The "overlay" is so radically different that the equvilance is not obvious. This could have been phased in. Moreover, the way it functions is no less than nauseating. Everyone I have had try it hated it. Of course let's not let user opinion get in the way of what we want to do.
I don't like the overlay as a task switcher. I never said you had to like it either.


Ask a mac user the "global menu" is refered to as the finder. And the "file edit view" menu is not the face of gnome the panel system is. You have fundamentally changed the look and feel of the entire UI. Don't give me Apple and M$ did this, because the "Finder" is still at the top with it's functionality and the "Taskbar" is still at the bottom with it's functionality.I know Apple's definition of the Finder (http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/dock-and-finder.html) (Nautilus being the equivalent), I'm still confused as to yours.
The top bar? Okay that's similar to OS 9, but not 100%. The taskbar at the bottom? Now that's completely different in OS X vs OS 9.


The Microsoft comparison is valid. It's not that you are not doing what I want. You are arguing with the user instead of listening to them.Really? Who says Microsoft wasn't listening to their users?
As for GNOME, as I said, there is a mailing list (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/) when you can voice your opinions.
Microsoft, GNOME, Apple aside, let's do a little imagining. Pretend you alone are in charge of making a rewrite of a GUI, you have two choices:
Keep everything the same, and be risk becoming stagnant and behind the times.
Change something, anything, and risk some person out of all your users won't like the change
I'm sure you'd just answer with "BOTH", but that makes maintaining at nightmare as you're mainting two things now, doubling your code (bloat) and doubling the risk for bugs.
You simply defend rather than answer simple questions. An example of this is why couldn't these features be added to the gnome-panel system. And as I said it's because GNOME 3 is a rewrite of GNOME, one aspect is the Shell.
I ether dump panel and change how I do things or stay with the panel. There is NO middle ground at all. If these features had been and extension of Gnome I could have configured out the system in a way that I and those I support could transition smoothly.
Docky, AWN, etc run fine in GNOME Shell you can use them to switch applications during a transition period. Yes they don't look exactly like the GNOME Panel's task switcher because that would have been duplicating functionality so it was never coded. Once GNOME Shell is released there may be enough demand for that sort of look with Docky, AWN, etc.

Also, please show me the version of Mac that transitioned from using the upper right hand corner to switch applications to the using the dock at the bottom


The Gnome team at that time did accept and incorporate a lot of user opinion when coming up with the 2 panel paradigm.
Who says they aren't now? Just because they're not doing what you want, doesn't mean they aren't doing what anyone wants. Why don't you tell them in the mailing list (task switcher is a common topic)? Or would you rather not tell them at all and then complain they aren't listening?


I understand the need for a default, but I also love that I can make it any way I want it to be. Now we are going to go back to a system where someone else decides for me and I cannot change it. Tell me someday I'll be able to remove the "Activities" menu as a module from that top bar and place a menu someone else wrote that I like better. Or better yet write my own (if I know how). Tell me that I can move that bar to the bottom or side or make it go away entirely. Tell me that if I don't want the clock in the @#$% middle of the bar that I can move it or get rid of it. Yes, Gnome 2 has a default look, but that look is completely modular and user customisable. The modular nature of the panel rocks.Considering GNOME Shell is mostly built on web languages like Javascript and CSS, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.

yztlyrn
May 3rd, 2010, 12:22 AM
"I don't like the overlay as a task switcher. I never said you had to like it either."

Moot point. But two clicks to switch tasks and it not being visually available on the screen at all times. However, I guess that may be a nit-pick. It's just impractical. The old MAC multi-finder task menu was also impractical in the same way, hence adding it to the dock.

The "Finder" as defined by Apple:

http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT3737/HT3737_1-Finder-Desktop-Elements-labled-en.png

"Really? Who says Microsoft wasn't listening to their users?"

Their users. Where were you during the Vista debacle?

"Pretend you alone are in charge of making a rewrite of a GUI, you have two choices: Keep everything the same, and be risk becoming stagnant and behind the times."

You missed the third choice. Phase in new features and keep useful old features. Had the "Activities" menu and overlay been a panel plug in (as it should be), then the user would have greater options on how to use or not use it. It doesn't make sense, even in a rewrite to throw the baby out with the bath water. How much development, testing and usability are being flushed down the toilet?

"I'm sure you'd just answer with "BOTH", but that makes maintaining at nightmare as you're mainting two things now"

Really? If the "Activities" menu were a panel app then you are extending on a well developed system you won't be maintaing two things. Building on what you already have is intelligent. Would you suggest we throw out all of the underlying CLI stuff in Linux just because you don't want to do it that way?

"Docky, AWN, etc run fine in GNOME Shell"

Okay, explain that to average end users. These can be a nightmare to install and set up.

"Who says they aren't now? Just because they're not doing what you want, doesn't mean they aren't doing what anyone wants."

Haven't I made clear how many people I deal with. If it were just me I'd shut up, but it's not. Furthermore they're removing the ability for me to do what I want. And don't give me the "the panel is still available". Unmaintained it will fall into disarray. What I want is a system that anyone can have it anyway they want. The panels provided that, gnome-shell does not, nor do I see any effort being made to make it so.

"Or would you rather not tell them at all and then complain they aren't listening?"

I and many others are telling them. I came here because our voices aren't being heard there. We are trying to find an ear with anyone who will listen.

"Considering GNOME Shell is mostly built on web languages like Javascript and CSS, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible."

There are aspects of gnome shell that I do like. I am still not sure why the features provided, even the look and feel could not have been done in the framework of the panel system. You say it's because it's a rewrite, but even on a rewrite isn't it smart to start with a good established base and not re-invent the wheel? I really want to like gnome-shell. I've tried every release. I don't see any progress toward customization. All I see is the developers saying "look how great this is, you will love it". Well so far I don't. I know many people who don't. We have voiced our opinions and are being ignored. We abandoned Microsoft because they had this attitude. I love Gnome! I don't want them to hurt themselves, the distros and Linux as a whole. They could have a huge negative impact with this. You have made argued well and I like the spirit of this discussion. At-least I have put my (and many others) opinion(s) out there.

alex_anthony
May 3rd, 2010, 09:52 PM
You missed the third choice. Phase in new features and keep useful old features. Had the "Activities" menu and overlay been a panel plug in (as it should be), then the user would have greater options on how to use or not use it. It doesn't make sense, even in a rewrite to throw the baby out with the bath water. How much development, testing and usability are being flushed down the toilet?

"I'm sure you'd just answer with "BOTH", but that makes maintaining at nightmare as you're mainting two things now"

Really? If the "Activities" menu were a panel app then you are extending on a well developed system you won't be maintaing two things. Building on what you already have is intelligent. Would you suggest we throw out all of the underlying CLI stuff in Linux just because you don't want to do it that way?

But the key to the shell is that it is built completely differently. the panel's architecture makes it a nightmare to maintain and it uses lots of deprecated technologies (e.g. bonobo, libgnome etc). One of the big aims of gnome 3 (not just shell, the whole project) is to clean up the platform to make it easier to maintain and develop for.
Also, the tech used to implement the shell is so different to the panel tech that it (like the recent development of the panel) would be a horrific, unmaintainable hack.


I really want to like gnome-shell. I've tried every release. I don't see any progress toward customization. All I see is the developers saying "look how great this is, you will love it". Well so far I don't. I know many people who don't. We have voiced our opinions and are being ignored. We abandoned Microsoft because they had this attitude. I love Gnome! I don't want them to hurt themselves, the distros and Linux as a whole. They could have a huge negative impact with this. You have made argued well and I like the spirit of this discussion. At-least I have put my (and many others) opinion(s) out there.

I've got my shell customised how i like it (smaller transparent panel, date in the clock, my font) from editing a css file and 2 js files (never having really done css/js before). It was about 10 lines altogether that I had to change (reflecting the power of using css theming). Of course, we cant expect the average user to do this, but if the required changes are so small, I'm sure a gnome dev could knock up some customisation apps in about 15 mins.

As everyone has said, it definitely isnt finished yet. but changes are coming thick and fast. for example, the notification tray (bottom right) with empathy integration was added. theres a GSoC project to add special features for this to various apps. and then there's the task pooper idea, which would be a big deal for the whole "there's no taskbar" thing if i understand it.

yztlyrn
May 5th, 2010, 01:06 AM
But the key to the shell is that it is built completely differently. the panel's architecture makes it a nightmare to maintain and it uses lots of deprecated technologies (e.g. bonobo, libgnome etc). One of the big aims of gnome 3 (not just shell, the whole project) is to clean up the platform to make it easier to maintain and develop for.
Also, the tech used to implement the shell is so different to the panel tech that it (like the recent development of the panel) would be a horrific, unmaintainable hack.



I've got my shell customised how i like it (smaller transparent panel, date in the clock, my font) from editing a css file and 2 js files (never having really done css/js before). It was about 10 lines altogether that I had to change (reflecting the power of using css theming). Of course, we cant expect the average user to do this, but if the required changes are so small, I'm sure a gnome dev could knock up some customisation apps in about 15 mins.

As everyone has said, it definitely isnt finished yet. but changes are coming thick and fast. for example, the notification tray (bottom right) with empathy integration was added. theres a GSoC project to add special features for this to various apps. and then there's the task pooper idea, which would be a big deal for the whole "there's no taskbar" thing if i understand it.

But Shell isn't the least bit modular. The panel is. They are also flushing away all of the development that many have worked years to maintain and perfect. So they're being told "sorry guys your work just wasn't important enough to us." Support for Depreciated code could be dropped without too much fuss. You just can't tell me that the Panel system was too un-salvageable. If the devs are making that are making that argument then they're just plain lazy. If it is a mess, it's their mess but the best they can come up with is flush and start over? That's very disappointing. The argument that it isn't finished yet is weak too. They have been working on it for how long now? Not even basic customization has been written yet. You say you did it in 10 lines of code. You do at-least admit that's more than can be expected of average users. However, if it's that simple why, after all this time hasn't anything been done in this direction? Anything at all? I'll sign off with this, I hope it will be great. I hope it will be earth-shattering and phenomenal. But, from where we are now, I just don't see it.

NightwishFan
May 5th, 2010, 05:20 AM
The Shell is not finished. ](*,)

koleoptero
May 5th, 2010, 05:33 AM
The Shell is not finished. ](*,)

History proves that that's completely irrelevant to everyone moaning about it.

Merk42
May 5th, 2010, 05:47 AM
History proves that that's completely irrelevant to everyone moaning about it.

and then when it is finished, developers will say
"well it's too late now, it's done, why didn't you tell us earlier?"

koleoptero
May 5th, 2010, 05:51 AM
and then when it is finished, developers will say
"well it's too late now, it's done, why didn't you tell us earlier?"

Do you really believe they would say that?

I mean seriously?

Roasted
May 5th, 2010, 05:53 AM
Do you really believe they would say that?

I mean seriously?

Is that a serious question?

Merk42
May 5th, 2010, 05:54 AM
Do you really believe they would say that?

I mean seriously?

you're right, the proper term is WONTFIX


Think of it this way, if you're spending months working on something, wouldn't you rather be given opinions WHILE you're working on it and not a year later when you're done?

koleoptero
May 5th, 2010, 06:00 AM
Is that a serious question?
Yes it is.

you're right, the proper term is WONTFIX


Think of it this way, if you're spending months working on something, wouldn't you rather be given opinions WHILE you're working on it and not a year later when you're done?
Opinions are great. Moanings are another matter.

Merk42
May 5th, 2010, 06:02 AM
Opinions are great. Moanings are another matter.

What to you differs one from the other?

Roasted
May 5th, 2010, 06:58 AM
Yes it is.

Opinions are great.

C'mon, bro. Stop bein sarcastic.

murderslastcrow
May 5th, 2010, 07:39 AM
I'm sure they'll put it together the best way they can when the time comes to ship all the code together. It's compatible with the old stuff, so I can totally see Gnome2 panels showing up in Maverick.

23meg
May 5th, 2010, 07:39 AM
Think of it this way, if you're spending months working on something, wouldn't you rather be given opinions WHILE you're working on it and not a year later when you're done?

That brings us to another common misconception about G-S: that it "isn't even beta yet", but will be "done" by the release of GNOME 3.0.

It will not be "done"; it will only have had its first proper release as part of GNOME. It's going to keep getting serious love every six months.

10027586
May 5th, 2010, 12:06 PM
I didn't much care for the practicality of shell previously and found it didn't work too well with the ATI open drivers in Karmic (was using the 32 kernel and xorg-edgers for the extra kick) but it's working wonderfully in Lucid and it's actually very well thought-out. Missing a few bits like volume applet etc but I like where it's going and while I'm waiting I can come up with work-arounds. Overall I'm impressed and look forward to watching it progress.

[h2o]
May 5th, 2010, 12:07 PM
But Shell isn't the least bit modular.
It halready has an extension system, and most stuff seems to be available via javascript. That seems pretty modular to me already.



The panel is. They are also flushing away all of the development that many have worked years to maintain and perfect. So they're being told "sorry guys your work just wasn't important enough to us." Support for Depreciated code could be dropped without too much fuss. You just can't tell me that the Panel system was too un-salvageable. If the devs are making that are making that argument then they're just plain lazy. If it is a mess, it's their mess but the best they can come up with is flush and start over? That's very disappointing.

The current maintainer of gnome-panel seem to quite like the idea of Gnome Shell. Since there is currently only one person maintaining gnome-panel I am sure they (he) will be happy to see you join :)


The argument that it isn't finished yet is weak too. They have been working on it for how long now? Not even basic customization has been written yet. You say you did it in 10 lines of code. You do at-least admit that's more than can be expected of average users. However, if it's that simple why, after all this time hasn't anything been done in this direction? Anything at all? I'll sign off with this, I hope it will be great. I hope it will be earth-shattering and phenomenal. But, from where we are now, I just don't see it.
It's been hacked on for less than 1,5 years. For something that is to be the new user interface of anything I'd say that's a short time span considering that not very many people are involved.

alex_anthony
May 9th, 2010, 12:30 PM
Clock format customisation just landed in git master. The commit after putting format to getting from a gconf value creates a whole settings dialog.The changes to add this are minimal (3 new files and adding it to the makefiles), so it clearly isn't hard for them to add customisation once stuff is settled. But its not worth doing much of that while everything is in a state of flux.

A_T
May 9th, 2010, 01:00 PM
It will happen like it or not too much time has been spent developing it for anyone to admit it's no good.

LKjell
May 10th, 2010, 08:46 AM
I think they need to change the resize and minimize of windows. It is huge inconvenient to juxtapose two windows. And once you have minimize a window there is no way to get it back unless you tab through a lot of programs or go to the expose window. And when you do a tab it should go through what you have in the virtual desktop and not globally.

Meep3D
May 10th, 2010, 10:36 AM
Why does everyone assume the developers of FOSS apps are competent, know what they are doing and know better than anyone who dares question them? The defence of criticism is commonly 'the developers know what they are doing' but there is virtually no skill overlap between usability and programming, it's like comparing fine art to architecture. The assumption is always that there is a grand plan but as a UI guy I generally don't really see it.

One of the most basic rules of UI development is that the more common the function/information the more easily accessible and visible it is. It's why Apple added the dock, it's why windows got a dedicated close button on the switch from Win 3.1 to Win95. It's why MS added the dock-esque taskbar with grouping and hover-previews as the old grouping style required two clicks to get to a running app rather than one and did not provide enough information to identify what app was what. It's why wireless and battery status are always a system tray prerequisite and why the volume control is always one-click adjustable on almost all systems. It's why the Start Button was green and said 'Start', inviting people to click on it.

One of the most common actions on a modern day system is to switch between applications and essentially what Gnome Shell has done has replaced the old one-click fitts-law friendly bottom bar with a click, a wait for animation, then click on the program you want. All so you can get a fancy Expose/Spaces hybrid who's sole purpose is managing virtual desktops* which 90% of people will probably never use and get confused by.

As someone else said Gnome Shell should be a panel applet used beside the normal way of doing things for people who like multiple desktops. Replacing the simple and obvious 'oh, click on your running app' with a fancy animated all-in-one virtual desktop manager looks cool, but it is terrible for usability.

* Virtual desktops are a solution to desktop clutter, not the solution. There are many approaches to this issue that do not involve the downsides of virtual desktops such as theoretical 'dock groups' where dragging icons/programs into a group will only show the programs in the current group while still allowing you to move programs from one group to another easily giving the same functionality as virtual desktops but without the downsides.

antenna
May 10th, 2010, 11:24 AM
I wouldn't try and defend criticism exactly.. I would say that you can criticise as much as you want but ultimately it's their project, it's free in source and cost and they are entitled to do whatever they want, as we are free to use something else if it doesn't suit.

As far as virtual desktops go, perhaps most people don't use them currently but I think people could get used to them if Gnome Shell turns out to be any good. It was one of the first things that excited me about Linux, after using it for just 5 minutes or so. They are fairly easy to ignore with the current implementation of Gnome but maybe this isn't for the best, they are a great feature and even Apple introduced them. ;)

dyltman
May 12th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Why does everyone assume the developers of FOSS apps are competent, know what they are doing and know better than anyone who dares question them? The defence of criticism is commonly 'the developers know what they are doing' but there is virtually no skill overlap between usability and programming, it's like comparing fine art to architecture. The assumption is always that there is a grand plan but as a UI guy I generally don't really see it.

One of the most basic rules of UI development is that the more common the function/information the more easily accessible and visible it is. It's why Apple added the dock, it's why windows got a dedicated close button on the switch from Win 3.1 to Win95. It's why MS added the dock-esque taskbar with grouping and hover-previews as the old grouping style required two clicks to get to a running app rather than one and did not provide enough information to identify what app was what. It's why wireless and battery status are always a system tray prerequisite and why the volume control is always one-click adjustable on almost all systems. It's why the Start Button was green and said 'Start', inviting people to click on it.

One of the most common actions on a modern day system is to switch between applications and essentially what Gnome Shell has done has replaced the old one-click fitts-law friendly bottom bar with a click, a wait for animation, then click on the program you want. All so you can get a fancy Expose/Spaces hybrid who's sole purpose is managing virtual desktops* which 90% of people will probably never use and get confused by.


First of all, how do you know of this rule? I've never heard on such rule before. Second off all windows does not a green start button except for windows XP and before that, it's just a button with windows logo.

Second, in Gnome shell you do not even click more then you would on previous versions. all you do is move the mouse to the top left corner (wait for the animation) and then click on the thing you want to open, it's easier to see which item you want to click as it fills the entire screen. I'm sure that you will be able to set the duration of the animation if future versions. And when you want to open a common used app you don't really have to think about browsing to get the program you want to as it is in the favorites. If you want to open a noncommon program then it will most likely not take you longer then it would to open a program in the current menu.

Mblackwell
May 12th, 2010, 09:13 PM
I didn't much care for the practicality of shell previously and found it didn't work too well with the ATI open drivers in Karmic (was using the 32 kernel and xorg-edgers for the extra kick) but it's working wonderfully in Lucid and it's actually very well thought-out. Missing a few bits like volume applet etc but I like where it's going and while I'm waiting I can come up with work-arounds. Overall I'm impressed and look forward to watching it progress.

apt-get install gnome-volume-control-applet and launch it at start. It was removed due to notify-osd/indicator-applet taking over this functionality, but there are no applets, except those that run under the notification tray.

Merk42
May 12th, 2010, 09:48 PM
First of all, how do you know of this rule? I've never heard on such rule before. Second off all windows does not a green start button except for windows XP and before that, it's just a button with windows logo.
Because by the time Vista was released, Microsoft already trained people on XP to click on the lower left corner


Second, in Gnome shell you do not even click more then you would on previous versions. all you do is move the mouse to the top left corner (wait for the animation) and then click on the thing you want to open.

Saying you don't click for the overlay is so pedantic. Hey if I set my mouse to dwell click everything, have I made every UI require 0 clicks and therefore better?

Regardless, using the overlay to switch tasks involves more mouse movement. Going up to the Activities button then to the app, which is actually harder to click since it doesn't have "Infinite Height" (http://developer.kde.org/documentation/design/ui/fittslaw.html) like it does with the panel's task switcher.

[h2o]
May 13th, 2010, 09:51 AM
One of the most common actions on a modern day system is to switch between applications and essentially what Gnome Shell has done has replaced the old one-click fitts-law friendly bottom bar with a click, a wait for animation, then click on the program you want. All so you can get a fancy Expose/Spaces hybrid who's sole purpose is managing virtual desktops* which 90% of people will probably never use and get confused by.

I am not going to defend the current implementation of application switching in Gnome Shell.
But I just have to chime in and say that the bottom bar, while familiar, is not always a good way to switch between applications.
In my work I often end up having multiple windows of the same application open. I click on the wrong one more often than the right one, and ALT-Tab is actually a faster way for me to get the correct window. Don't have GS installed on the work machine, but I am considering it since I believe it might actually present me with a better way to switch apps than the Gnome Panel.

But, to reiterate, I am certain that there exist even better ways for application switching.

Meep3D
May 13th, 2010, 10:54 PM
;9291482']I am not going to defend the current implementation of application switching in Gnome Shell.
But I just have to chime in and say that the bottom bar, while familiar, is not always a good way to switch between applications.
In my work I often end up having multiple windows of the same application open. I click on the wrong one more often than the right one, and ALT-Tab is actually a faster way for me to get the correct window. Don't have GS installed on the work machine, but I am considering it since I believe it might actually present me with a better way to switch apps than the Gnome Panel.

But, to reiterate, I am certain that there exist even better ways for application switching.

I hated that grouped windows thing. Windows 7 is actually a great example of how to do this properly - the windows stack and with peek and preview you can easily know which one is the one you want.

dyltman
May 18th, 2010, 08:36 PM
Because by the time Vista was released, Microsoft already trained people on XP to click on the lower left corner

Ok, Activities could be changed to start here.


Saying you don't click for the overlay is so pedantic. Hey if I set my mouse to dwell click everything, have I made every UI require 0 clicks and therefore better?
To a certain edge it is better. Basicly Alt+tab is quicker for changing windows yet people choose not do so. I know I avoid it because I'm to lazy to move my hand to the board and click the combination. I think the same goes when clicking the mouse button, yes it's right at the left finger however most people do one thing at the time, like you move your mouse and then click.


Regardless, using the overlay to switch tasks involves more mouse movement. Going up to the Activities button then to the app, which is actually harder to click since it doesn't have "Infinite Height" (http://developer.kde.org/documentation/design/ui/fittslaw.html) like it does with the panel's task switcher.

Well, it's less complex movement then opening a new app with the current menu. I didn't quite get the points in Fitts' law so I won't reply to that.

Frogs Hair
May 18th, 2010, 09:18 PM
When I first saw the Gnome Shell on You Tube I thought "wow whats that ? " After seeing more it I asked myself would I really want look at that every day? my answer was no . The shell is a work in progress, and it will be interesting to see where it goes . I hope remains an option and does not become a default application.

symon1980
May 20th, 2010, 01:09 PM
I have been using the very latest versions of gnome-shell for atleast the last 6 months and have been watching the mailing list....
Gnome-shell is an interesting idea... But to be honest... in the 6 months I have used it... I have only seen very minor improvements and features added to it... What you see now is pretty much what your going to get with the 3.0 release maybe with a couple more features added....
I'm rather disappointed... Gnome-shell could be a great thing... but it doesn't seem to be getting much better.... we'll find out in the next 4 months or so I guess so I won't judge yet... But I know the Gnome devs have very little Manpower, so I don't see anything huge happening. They are mainly focusing on the Shell and not really changing anything else on the actual Gnome Desktop.... Which is disappointing to me... It's going to be the same old Gnome with a Shell...

HardBall.21
May 22nd, 2010, 12:39 AM
I have been using the very latest versions of gnome-shell for atleast the last 6 months and have been watching the mailing list....
Gnome-shell is an interesting idea... But to be honest... in the 6 months I have used it... I have only seen very minor improvements and features added to it... What you see now is pretty much what your going to get with the 3.0 release maybe with a couple more features added....
I'm rather disappointed... Gnome-shell could be a great thing... but it doesn't seem to be getting much better.... we'll find out in the next 4 months or so I guess so I won't judge yet... But I know the Gnome devs have very little Manpower, so I don't see anything huge happening. They are mainly focusing on the Shell and not really changing anything else on the actual Gnome Desktop.... Which is disappointing to me... It's going to be the same old Gnome with a Shell...

Yes, entirely agree;

While I have always in favor of gnome-shell's way of UI organization, it seems that things are simply stagnating to a point where most of the promised features and customization options won't be ready for release. It's become very apparent now that even the revise Sept 2010 date is wildly unrealistic to get a production quality DE with GS as a component this year.

I last used it about 9-10 months ago, and at that time thought that the overall concept is sound, and the number of issues would be resolved relatively quickly. But just trying it again this week (late PPA version, not a lagging repo version), about 90% of the issues that I saw are still there, and remain as annoying as before. Not the least including a long-promised but non-functional message tray.

Simply put, I don't think Gnome-shell is going to make it, at least not in its current set of goals with the current time line. I guess coding in java-script for an OS level UI may not turn out to be such a good idea after all.

FuturePilot
May 22nd, 2010, 01:03 AM
I have been using the very latest versions of gnome-shell for atleast the last 6 months and have been watching the mailing list....
Gnome-shell is an interesting idea... But to be honest... in the 6 months I have used it... I have only seen very minor improvements and features added to it... What you see now is pretty much what your going to get with the 3.0 release maybe with a couple more features added....
I'm rather disappointed... Gnome-shell could be a great thing... but it doesn't seem to be getting much better.... we'll find out in the next 4 months or so I guess so I won't judge yet... But I know the Gnome devs have very little Manpower, so I don't see anything huge happening. They are mainly focusing on the Shell and not really changing anything else on the actual Gnome Desktop.... Which is disappointing to me... It's going to be the same old Gnome with a Shell...

Remember KDE 4.0?

jetsam
May 22nd, 2010, 01:05 AM
no.

symon1980
May 22nd, 2010, 02:16 AM
Remember KDE 4.0?

sure.. I used Kde throughout the entire development for testing purposes...
the difference is, the kde devs gave clear warning not to use kde4 in a production environment because it will not be nowhere near ready and to stick with the 3.5xx version if you want stability/complete features.....

Gnome are promising a finished/stable/feature complete product with gnome 3 which doesn't look like it is going to happen....

I kind of find it funny that its taken gnome about 2 years to develop just the shell to its current featureless state.... and KDE managed to rewrite an entire Desktop Environment from scratch in just over 2 years to a stable, feature complete state.

Mr. Picklesworth
May 22nd, 2010, 02:33 AM
sure.. I used Kde throughout the entire development for testing purposes...
the difference is, the kde devs gave clear warning not to use kde4 in a production environment because it will not be nowhere near ready and to stick with the 3.5xx version if you want stability/complete features.....

Gnome are promising a finished/stable/feature complete product with gnome 3 which doesn't look like it is going to happen....

I kind of find it funny that its taken gnome about 2 years to develop just the shell to its current featureless state.... and KDE managed to rewrite an entire Desktop Environment from scratch in just over 2 years to a stable, feature complete state.

Do keep in mind that Gnome has had a lot of underlying infrastructure change, which has gone extremely well. Gnome 3 is about that; Gnome Shell Is Not Gnome 3.

Some goodies:
* Bonobo is dead. (Except in Gnome Panel, which should be dead).
* Gobject Introspection. (Allows all sorts of other languages to magically access GObject libraries without needing special bindings).
* GSettings migration.
* Mallard.
* Deprecated junk in GTK+, leading to some nice stuff in the future, maybe.

Some other more visible things that have nothing to do with Gnome Shell:
* Yelp 3. It is FAST and beautiful. Combined with Mallard, it's Help that is helpful.
* Gnome Control Centre being rejigged in beautiful ways. (Should lead us to a configuration shell that works well, similar to KDE's or MacOS's).
* Zeitgeist, maybe, but possibly not.
* Nautilus realigned as something for technical users. (Yet still inexplicably drawing everyone's desktop icons).


So, please don't doubt the whole of Gnome 3 because of one single component. Even if the release team chose to hold that component out, 3.0 would still be awesome.

jetsam
May 22nd, 2010, 02:58 AM
Gnome shell is not worth this many words. Where is the hype I was promised?

NightwishFan
May 22nd, 2010, 03:06 AM
The Gnome Shell is great.

jetsam
May 22nd, 2010, 03:14 AM
Gnome Desktop: Simple
Gnome Discussion: Lengthy
Gnome User: Complicated
Gnome Shell: Pointless
Gnome: It's Garden Fresh.

cariboo
May 22nd, 2010, 03:16 AM
Gnome Desktop: Simple
Gnome Discussion: Lengthy
Gnome User: Complicated
Gnome Shell: Pointless
Gnome: It's Garden Fresh.

So what's your point?

jetsam
May 22nd, 2010, 03:25 AM
You need more ad men and fewer strategy sessions?

After that I don't have one. The discussion is too long winded to read. It looks that way to an outsider, at any rate.

Have I offended?

BoneKracker
May 22nd, 2010, 03:35 AM
I think people should wait until it's actually done before the smack begins. Think KDE 4.0 vs KDE 4.4

Oh, does KDE 4 actually work now? Last I checked there was still a bunch of stuff broken with it (can't remember what it was, but I remember hearing, "yeah, it's almost all working now" for the whole last year or more).

"It's all good now, except you can't blah blah blah. Oh, and foo doesn't work yet. And bar -- but I don't use bar. And yada yada's pretty buggy."

MCVenom
May 22nd, 2010, 03:49 AM
I have found it to be buggy on my system. Just my opinion.
It's pre-alpha software :p

MCVenom
May 22nd, 2010, 03:56 AM
Well, after having installed Gnome (S)hell and thinking that it was rather good, my computer experienced an overall slowing down. Now I have ditched it, and I won't be going back to Gnome Shell anytime soon.
It's pre-alpha software. Memory leaks happen.

MCVenom
May 22nd, 2010, 04:07 AM
1. Wrong, maybe for now I can user the old system but how long before it is unsupported. Best I can tell Gnome has already stopped it's development. Look at the new stuff that's been done with it recently (examble Ubuntu netbook remix).

FUD. I don't see you on the Gnome Development Lists, I doubt you know that it will be unsupported. Gnome Panel will be around and kept up for the foreseeable future.


2. Write an extension? So everyone is expected to be a programer now? I can't just right click the whatever-you-call-it bar and change it's color or add an applet? I thought this was supposed to be simpler? What if I would like an icon for activities instead of the word "Activites"? What if I would like to move the clock. Yea it's sooooo much better.

Oh yes, because seeing as how Gnome Shell is ready and going to be released tomorrow, there's no way that an app for easy customization or theme installing will be added before it's released stable. /sarcasm :roll:

cariboo
May 22nd, 2010, 04:14 AM
You need more ad men and fewer strategy sessions?

After that I don't have one. The discussion is too long winded to read. It looks that way to an outsider, at any rate.

Have I offended?

If you aren't interested enough in the subject to read the whole thread, why comment?

MCVenom
May 22nd, 2010, 04:29 AM
Oh, does KDE 4 actually work now? Last I checked there was still a bunch of stuff broken with it (can't remember what it was, but I remember hearing, "yeah, it's almost all working now" for the whole last year or more).

"It's all good now, except you can't blah blah blah. Oh, and foo doesn't work yet. And bar -- but I don't use bar. And yada yada's pretty buggy."
Actually, yes! KDE 4.4 is finally somewhat stable. :D

But on another note, I hate how people are making GS out to be some rushed POS to be put in Gnome 3 for the hell of it. Guys, Gnome 3 will probably still use Gnome-Panel as the default UI, I don't see anyone being ballsy enough to put GS as default. GS is just one part of Gnome 3, as has been mentioned many times in this thread.

There are similarities betwixt KDE4 and Gnome Shell will be developed over time... But I would point out also that Gnome 3 will have the panel as a stable fallback until GS reaches maturity, and then probably until a bit after that. Stop freaking out, this will not be forced on anybody. :p

Merk42
May 22nd, 2010, 08:47 PM
...But just trying it again this week (late PPA version, not a lagging repo version), about 90% of the issues that I saw are still there, and remain as annoying as before. Not the least including a long-promised but non-functional message tray.

The message tray has been in a functional state for some time now. There was a bug that broke it but has since been fixed (http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell/commit/?id=b6a47cdf7674b23bb5946d7abc294dd842d9a63c). You may have gotten the PPA in that small window

seeker5528
May 22nd, 2010, 08:55 PM
But on another note, I hate how people are making GS out to be some rushed POS to be put in Gnome 3 for the hell of it. Guys, Gnome 3 will probably still use Gnome-Panel as the default UI, I don't see anyone being ballsy enough to put GS as default. GS is just one part of Gnome 3, as has been mentioned many times in this thread.

It seems highly doubtful that something other than GS would be the Gnome default.

But if I interpret what you are saying correctly.....

It seems reasonably likely that initially some, possibly most, distributions will be more hesitant to ship with it as the default.

Later, Seeker

HardBall.21
May 25th, 2010, 10:07 AM
The message tray has been in a functional state for some time now. There was a bug that broke it but has since been fixed (http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell/commit/?id=b6a47cdf7674b23bb5946d7abc294dd842d9a63c). You may have gotten the PPA in that small window

Actually, you are right. It's probably the bug that you mentioned, with an update a couple of days ago, message tray is working now; although certain features are still not there (such as controls for rhythmbox), but this is at least encouraging. Hopefully they will get it fully working and remove the duplicated proxies in the system tray.

deepclutch
May 26th, 2010, 04:55 AM
Just tried Gnome Shell and for Me,it will not be a reason to replace Gnome.Why is it that ,I cannot see the naming of various placeholder(Applications,Places&Devices etc) in Acitivites Journal?Perhaps due to dark theme ,am using?
--
Will they dump Nautilus File Manager Completely at a later time?If so ,How to Browse Files under Gnome Shell ? :s
Kde got Dolphin File Manager(Somewhere it resembles Nautilus to Me!) even with New Interface.Hope Gnome 3 Will have an alternate Mechanism to browse Files.

Merk42
May 26th, 2010, 05:08 AM
Will they dump Nautilus File Manager Completely at a later time?No

From the GNOME 3 Myths (http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3Myths):

Nautilus will still be available as the default GNOME file manager.
In fact, Nautilus is going through a number of changes to help with GNOME 3.0 integration, such as using browser mode by default (rather than spatial) as GNOME Shell has some overlapping features. This mailing list post (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/nautilus-list/2009-December/msg00001.html) has more information.

toallpointswest
May 28th, 2010, 12:03 PM
After trying Gnome Shell I've found it to be very usable and a desired upgrade. While I wish the Compiz worked with it, it should still be the forward looking interface for Gnome

burdebc
March 20th, 2011, 04:41 AM
I finally got the newest version of gnome shell to build and I think it is terrible. I fell in love with the version on Ubuntu Software Center. However, with the current version (which I built earlier today) seems to have no way to get to the file manager unless you have a folder on your desktop. The old version looked much better, and essentially had the places menu conveniently displayed below the favorites in the activities menu. Now all you have is the favorites displayed when you click the activities menu, and those icons are huge. The fact that the gnome developers have ruined gnome shell so completely so close to launch is very disturbing to me. I have also used unity (10.10 netbook edition) and it was all right, but I believe that I will have to stick with gnome 2 if the current trend continues, or maybe I will check out KDE or XCFE.

DeadSuperHero
March 20th, 2011, 07:09 AM
I love the new Gnome Shell. It took a while to get used to, but the usability ideas are just great. The notification system in particular is excellent. I used it for about three weeks and loved it, and now I'm trying out Unity for three weeks to see which one I like the most.

danbuter
March 20th, 2011, 12:56 PM
If I was a big KDE or XFCE fan, I'd be loving Gnome Shell and telling their devs it's awesome. Same with Unity.

Because I know deep down that both of these programs will end up creating new KDE and XFCE users. And more users means more help on forums, possibly more money for the DE, etc.

slackthumbz
March 20th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Currently building the latest gnome-shell to see how it compares to the version currently in the maverick repos. This should prove interesting...

boydrice
March 20th, 2011, 07:28 PM
I have installed the Fedora 15 Alpha and the Ubuntu Natty Alpha to try out gnome-shell and unity. After using each for a couple days I have to say that gnome-shell to me seems more feature complete and a fresher approach to the traditional desktop. The interface felt snappy and responsive and never crashed. The animations seemed very fluid.

Unity on the other hand felt less responsive and buggy. The compiz window manager crashed 3 or 4 times and had to be restarted. I was also annoyed about having applications not installed showing up in searches for installed applications. I found this to be confusing and not well implemented.

Overall interesting work by both sides on similar concepts. Should be interesting to see how they progress.

arthens
April 16th, 2011, 01:20 AM
I just tried Gnome Shell for the first time... and I had the kde 4.0 feeling all over again (at the time kde4 made me switch to gnome... will gnome 3 make me go back to kde?)
Here's my opinion

(be aware I'm very picky)

PRO:
- I really really love the look (I've never liked the default bar of gnome)
- I like the activity panel (being addicted to Expose it's nice to have a similar concept integrated with the system)
- Nice windows7-like composing window manager. It could be improved, but it's already pretty usable (the W7 one is still better because for example if you drag the top border of the window to the top edge it maximize it vertically... I find it very useful). Of course compiz has much more options... but I'm ok with having a simpler one (however I wouldn't mind a couple of options more ;) )

CONS:
- I don't like the "do it our way". I'm not against new paradigm, but I'm strongly against removing the old ones (e.g. taskbar). I prefer when the user is free to mix old and new and find the perfect mix for its use.
- The active application has an icon on the bar... and clicking it just gives you the option to close it?!? That's pretty useless (I suppose it could be used in interesting ways in future... but right now it really feels like kde 4.0)
- ALT-F2 sucks, it doesn't even autocomplete (yes I know there's a better one in ALT-F1+search, but it's not the same). Also if you click on the background it doesn't close it... I'm not sure it should, but it's implemented like a modal, and modals on internet always close when you click outside them (well, they do when the webdesigner who wrote them had at least some notions of usability). I'm not sure how they should behave on a desktop because it's unusual (the only one I can think of is expose on compiz, and it does close when you click on the background)

CONS with conditionals:
(that is: I don't know if it's not possible or simply well hidden, but if it's impossible than it sucks)
- I want launchers always visible like an old applet (there are a subset of apps that I open/close frequently, I really want to be able to always launch them with 1 click)
- I want to add applets to the top bar (e.g. an applet for the music player, so that I can change song with 1 click), but given that the right click on the bar doesn't give me a "add stuff" option I'm assuming that it is not possible. Really unwise choice.
- I want the task bar. The activity panel is great (I love expose), but IMO it's not a replacement for the taskbar (for example when you have several windows and you keep switching between 2 the taskbar works better. no, activities are not a solution, I don't want to spend my day reorganizing it with eclipse, then eclipse + firefox, then firefox + ie + chrome, than back to eclipse + firefox...)
- I want the task bar (2). It might sound stupid, but I get nervous if I can't see all the open windows (since I have a big monitor I want to be able to see everything that is going on at any time, without having to open a menu or change view mode)
- The bottom notification area (?) seems annoying. I have a big monitor (2 at work), I don't need to be cheap with space. I want everything to be visible (of course not every windows, I just want a representation of everything that is active on my machine)
- By default the desktop was just an image. No icons. No right click to decide what it should be. Not even a link to change the wallpaper. Nothing. This is very kde4, and very wrong (at least the right click to customize what you want it to be should be a must. and IMO icons should be on by default)
- Epiphany and rhythmbox didn't have the usual icon in the notification area, they were only in the weird-hidden "taskbar" at the bottom. Not sure why... I want them to be in the same place (because IMO that's there they belong)
- Accessibility was in the notification are by default and there was no "close" option in the right click menu (seriously... windows 98 had this option, maybe even windows 95). Ok, accessibility is good and whatever, but most of the users won't need it so it should be dead easy to get rid of it.



To sum up it really looks like kde 4 to me. I am excited about what's new (I always get excited with new software :razz: ), but it's also clear that gnome shell is not ready for me. I wonder whether it ever will be ready or if like kde it will take years... to go no where.

d3v1150m471c
April 16th, 2011, 01:24 AM
Once upon a time, i installed gnome-shell and I recoiled in horror. Way too much going on for something I would consider a "shell". You might have a different experience though. You should google some images for it.

VTPoet
April 16th, 2011, 02:53 AM
Thoughts? Opinions? Am I only but one of few who will move on to XFCE or LXDE when this whole new Gnome finally arrives?

No, you're not the only one.

I too will move on to XFCE or LXDE, and for good reason. But I've already spelled it out in two other threads. I don't want to sound like a broken record. I've also cooled on Unity.

Canime
April 16th, 2011, 07:00 AM
It looked good in the tutorial that I was listening to. I'm at work right now, so I can't install and load it to play around, I might later.