GNOME 3 delayed until March 2011

[JustinR]

Hey everyone,

I was looking at GNOME's website today to see the improvements to GNOME 3 and GNOME Shell is probably the ugliest/clumsy and cluttered looking user interface I've ever seen.

I've heard that Maverick Meerkat isn't going to have GNOME Shell installed but its an optional package, which I though was great, I have at least 9 months before it could happen in Ubuntu.

I don't know - it seems like a huge step back from GNOME, just look at KDE 3.5 to 4.0, KDE looks beautiful now. But GNOME Shell just looks plain weird to me, and a huge downturn is that Compiz isn't compatible with it.

So now I heard that even if GNOME Shell will become default in Ubuntu in the future that there's an option to at least disable or worse, downgrade to an unsupported version of GNOME. I'm not sure if any of thats true but it seems like a lot of people aren't liking it and I really hope its not a reality for Ubuntu.

I saw another thread for GNOME Shell but I was wondering about the future of Ubuntu and GNOME.

Any thoughts on Ubuntu and GNOME shell?

[FuturePilot]

Exactly what screenshots were you looking at?

[WinterMadness]

I applaud the gnome team for trying to do something innovative, and i like that theyre finally updating the dinosaur that is gnome.

by the looks of it, i will remain a kde fan but i will surely install it and try it out. theres no point in not giving it a fair chance

[JustinR]

This one:

http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.30/figures/rnlookingforward.shell.png.en_GB

The GNOME Activity journal doesn't look all that great to me either.

[NFblaze]

Looks and most likely will be lame.

Not looking forward to it. Stop fuxxin with UI and start fuxxin with system compatibility and bugs.

[Screwdriver0815]

I am also very keen to see the new Gnome 3 desktop in real life. But yet I was not brave enough to install Gnome shell.

When people always say "the new stuff is terrible", there is no progress anymore. So I am open-minded towards all new innovations, specially in the Linux environment. So I also applaude Gnome for doing new things and keeping innovation in motion.

[themarker0]

Its gonna make my life so easy, sorry :P.

Gnome 2.X will still be supported for a while after 3.X is.

[JustinR]

Its gonna make my life so easy, sorry :P.

Gnome 2.X will still be supported for a while after 3.X is.

According to GNOME, Gnome 2.x will still be supported and even will be everything GNOME 3 is - just without the Shell. So hopefully it will be easy to down grade if it ever makes it into Ubuntu.

[Joe Ker1086]

Gnome definately has some room for improvements, but I don't see much point in making it an extremely "visually pleasing" Desktop environment. It doesnt look bad as it is, and the reason I use Gnome on my laptop instead of KDE is that my graphics card cant quite handle KDE.....Gnome is a nice middle ground between KDE and something like LDXE or XFCE....It would be nice if Gnome 3 were more of a "Skin" to Gnome 2....

[cogar66]

I think it looks cluttered as well, which is the reason I don't use KDE. GNOME is easy to navigate...

[JustinR]

I think it looks cluttered as well, which is the reason I don't use KDE. GNOME is easy to navigate...

Me too - I used GNOME for its speed, it started up much faster than Kubuntu to me, it was also a nice and simple interface - especially when I wanted to introduce Ubuntu to some family members, I can't really show them Ubuntu now because Gnome Shell looks way confusing - especially to someone who's been using Windows for their computer life. ](*,)

[Intel91]

I can't think of a thing you can't really do with gnome as it is. I believe the best thing they can do with gnome is work on the efficiency and stability of it, keep it looking exactly the same, then work on the functional capability of plugins (applets).

You can make gnome look and function like anything you want already, pointless example here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1535386). But what I find lacking in gnome is unfaltering stability and efficiency (speed of execution, precision of speed/execution). From my experience, it isn't uncommon for the gnome desktop to do what it wants, though you can always coax it back to how you want.

So, talking about looks is a bit pointless, distros will still change however they want, and then we will once we get our hands on it. Its the other things that really matter.

[Screwdriver0815]

Me too - I used GNOME for its speed, it started up much faster than Kubuntu to me, it was also a nice and simple interface - especially when I wanted to introduce Ubuntu to some family members, I can't really show them Ubuntu now because Gnome Shell looks way confusing - especially to someone who's been using Windows for their computer life. ](*,)

why should the whole opensource community stop and wait?
Why should new stuff and innovation not happen = sitting in the mind of thousends of people?
Because Windows is so oldfashioned and slow in adopting innovations and people always just and only adopt to new things when Windows brings them up and when someone else comes up with new things, THESE new things are generally bad, ugly and useless?

[JustinR]

why should the whole opensource community stop and wait?
Why should new stuff and innovation not happen = sitting in the mind of thousends of people?
Because Windows is so oldfashioned and slow in adopting innovations and people always just and only adopt to new things when Windows brings them up and when someone else comes up with new things, THESE new things are generally bad, ugly and useless?

Because these innovations, to me, are pointless. There was no reason to replace the desktop with something new and flashy - especially something that is so incompatible (Even GNOME designers have admitted that GNOME 3.0 is incompatible with custom Canonical code they have made for GNOME), which is most likely why Gnome Shell won't be implemented in Maverick Meerkat.

Also you argument reminds me of Windows Vista. It was very innovative, especially with graphics like what GNOME Shell is trying to do, but Vista was a piece of junk. Shell is not ready - GNOME designers even took an extra 6 months to complete Shell and it still looks awful to me.

[Joe Ker1086]

Gotta agree with Screwdriver. Gnome needs some innovations, and no one should try to prevent progress and new Ideas. As long as Gnome doesn't stray away from its "ideaology" then I welcome any changes they attempt.

[Screwdriver0815]

Because these innovations, to me, are pointless. There was no reason to replace the desktop with something new and flashy - especially something that is so incompatible (Even GNOME designers have admitted that GNOME 3.0 is incompatible with custom Canonical code they have made for GNOME), which is most likely why Gnome Shell won't be implemented in Maverick Meerkat.

Also you argument reminds me of Windows Vista. It was very innovative, especially with graphics like what GNOME Shell is trying to do, but Vista was a piece of junk. Shell is not ready - GNOME designers even took an extra 6 months to complete Shell and it still looks awful to me.

when these innovations are pointless to you, okay, your opinion. I see it from a different standpoint.
Maybe there is a reason to replace the desktop or there is no. I think there is. Because you need to drive the wheel. The one who stops, will be the one who fails. Progress never stops. So does the implementation of new usability models and all that stuff.

KDE was the first, then Windows 7 came. Why is Windows 7 different to XP or Vista? Because there are competitors. Competitors who have turned the wheel a bit further.
So Gnome also has to innovate.

We do not know right now whether this release will be successful or not. I hope: yes. But if not, then the user-feedback (which is really important) will drive the development much faster as if the Gnome guys would sit in their rooms and think about what the user could want...

And because Gnome 3 will be compatible (as far as I understood) to the older versions and so on, I see no problem, usage-wise.

[cogar66]

Screwdriver:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8BryeLcXfQLaJWOruIT_JV0IJvp4Ri NvixZAX903ZF8HSJTA&t=1&usg=__GqojPSkRjkrZW0KFk4r_BWxRhnQ=

[Linye]

I support the gnome shell. Even if it fails, something good must come out of it.

[shazbut]

Yeah, screw gnome 3.0, I'm going back to gnome 1 ;)

Actually I do recall early versions being quite speedy at the time, compared with the equivalent KDE. Perhaps this is where the whole 'gnome is lighter/faster than KDE' mentality comes from?

[Intel91]

Well, the great thing about linux is that you can choose whatever desktop environment you want. With Windows this is different, so when they mess up they rightfully receive criticism. When it comes to Gnome, they can make Gnome 100,000,000.00, and you can still use 2.x as you like. In this sense, we can have our cake, and you can eat our leftovers.

[wewantutopia]

Gnome shell looks very clunky. Mind you, I know this is my opinion and just they way I use it.

A huge portion of the menu is recent documents which I think is a waste of space. I don't even use recent documents in gnome now.

The favorite programs at the top of the menu is also a downgrade in functionality. All my favorite or most used programs are launchers pined on the top panel so the only reason I would open the menu to begin with is for programs not frequently used. In gnome shell you have to open the menu>more>then there's the menu. TOO many steps. Definitely lost productivity.

Now I love eye candy and have tons of it on my system, but... Every time the menu is accessed every thing on the screen is resized upon opening and closing... looks nauseating.

I am not looking forward to the shell and plan on sticking with a version of gnome that is compiz compatible and doesn't require shell use as long a possible!

[earthpigg]

the timing works very well for Canonical.

Gnome 3.0 will have issues, no doubt. Fortunate that it came soon after an LTS and not soon before.

And, from Canonical's POV, hopefully they are fixed by 12.04LTS.

From GNOME's POV, all of us Ubuntu-ers get to be "Beta Plus One" testers following the 18 months following the 10.10 release. Not that GNOME 'needs' us for that, as iirc Fedora, etc, already have GNOME 3.0.

I'm ok with all of this, btw, if anyone thinks it was a criticism. If I wanted stability, I'd stick with LTS or go to Debian Stable (or maybe CentOS? :P ).

[gradinaruvasile]

I dont know if it turns out to be good or bad, but i am sure of one thing:
There will be people who will support it (like it) and some dont.
Anyway the Gnome dev team will either have to support gnome 2.x and 3.x side by side and that will make fixing stuff harder or drop 2.x and support only 3.x to focus their efforts. But given the fact that there are many distros out there that use (and will use) 2.x i think both versions should be supported.

My opinion is, like many others, that the 3,x radical UI changes are pointless. With the effort gone in the developing of 3.x they could have solved many bugs and improved performance.
People need stability in UI and stuff. Windows (and probably Apple too) for example is succesful because did not change the working fundamentals of its UI for 10+ years.
Vista/7 changed some of the visuals UI-wise but did not redefine the desktop. I wonder what would come out of them if they looked like Gnome shell/3.x...
Or what will happen if Gnome 3.x will be implemented as default in distro level - new people will sure find it out of this world and this will not help Linux.

People who want a Windows-lookalike just install KDE. Let Gnome be what it was designed for - straightforward, simple and usable.
Change for the sake of change is not good. You have to convince many people in this case...

[Screwdriver0815]

People who want a Windows-lookalike just install KDE. Let Gnome be what it was designed for - straightforward, simple and usable.
Change for the sake of change is not good. You have to convince many people in this case...

KDE is no windows-lookalike. This is the issue which bothers me a little bit. Because KDE just looks like windows when you just look at the desktop. Usage-wise KDE is more different to windows than every other desktop out there.
I think, after reading all the stuff on gnome.org, Gnome 3 is also simple and usable. There are some differences to Gnome 2.x, that's for sure, but also Windows 7 has major differences to the GUI's before it. And people adopt to it, just because they have to, as it is their new system.

It is no change for the sake of change. It is a change for the sake of progress and bringing new technologies in terms of "how do people who have never been using a computer use a GUI" and "how to adopt the desktop to the way people use it, instead of adopting people to a desktop and how it has to be used"

I think, we as people, who have used computers for a long time and with that, adopted ourselves to the way, the desktop demanded us to the way it needs to be used, we have to open our minds towards new ways and new shapes of computing and user interface technology. That's why I am very positive about the upcoming changes. But I also don't know if I will like it or not.

[topdownjimmy]

Looks like it won't be in Maverick after all.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/07/gnome-3-not-ready-yet-release-pushed-back-to-2011.ars

Or was that even a certainty?

In any case, how is Ubuntu going to deal with GNOME Shell?

[cariboo]

It never was a certainty that Gnome3 would be in Maverick, gnome-shell was not going to be a default, but it is available in the repositories.

[MadCookie]

Looks like it won't be in Maverick after all.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/07/gnome-3-not-ready-yet-release-pushed-back-to-2011.ars

Or was that even a certainty?

In any case, how is Ubuntu going to deal with GNOME Shell?

At least that mockup gives Gnome Shell some extra hope, as most people now days think GNOME developers are digging their own graves with how the shell looks and functions at the moment.

I think this delay is necessary, if the gnome developers want to keep their users.

[topdownjimmy]

At least that mockup gives Gnome Shell some extra hope, as most people now days think GNOME developers are digging their own graves with how the shell looks and functions at the moment.

I think this delay is necessary, if the gnome developers want to keep their users.

I agree. I'm definitely glad that they're choosing not to jump the gun. GNOME 2.3 has been serving me just fine.

[nrs]

If they're aiming for a perfect release it'll be delayed until 2040. Is GNOME 3 (currently) really that unusable? If they can deliver a OS X 10.0/KDE 4.0/GNOME 2.0 they should just get it over with, the only way you can get over that hump is by having lots of people screaming at you and delivering bug reports.

No .0 release is perfect. It's never been done. Very few beta test, and the ones that do can't catch everything, and some even ignore/tolerate issues a "normal" person wouldn't.

[topdownjimmy]

If they're aiming for a perfect release it'll be delayed until 2040. Is GNOME 3 really that unusable?

I suppose that depends on your definition of "usable." Most open source projects have a pretty low standard in that regard, so I'm glad there's someone setting the bar high for themselves.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I hope Yelp 3 and the fancy new Gnome Control Center still land. Those two beauties are long overdue.

Speaking of long overdue, this delay is long overdue. It's about time they figured out they were rushing themselves! Kudos for being sensible, Gnome, and adopting a development cycle that better fits the gigantic scope of the Gnome 3 project.

[tmette]

I'm perfeclty happy with the current Gnome, I think I can wait until March 2011. It'll be here before we know it anyways!

[MadCookie]

If they're aiming for a perfect release it'll be delayed until 2040. Is GNOME 3 really that unusable?

There are many serious functionality issues with the current gnome shell. There is no way they could solve those issues before the next release of gnome.

GNOME 3.0 was originally planned for 2.30, but then they said that gnome 3 would possibly gnome 2.32 instead of 2.30, now they say that gnome 3 is going to be the 2.34 release....more delays are unacceptable!

[nrs]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "usable." Most open source projects have a pretty low standard in that regard, so I'm glad there's someone setting the bar high for themselves.
The problem with this approach: E17 0.16.999.49898 Nothing is ever perfect, if you wait for things to be perfect you wind up with this. It's been a decade.

Yeah, yeah. KDE 4.0 sucked. Guess what? Now I'm using a stable and mature desktop environment that is just about to get even more stable and mature.

I think this was only possible through a lot of pain. The only people who touch development releases are developers and true believers. Things get overlooked. And you're kidding yourself if you think this a problem unique to open source. OS X 10.0 was so fantastically horrible that Apple gave way 10.1 for free. XP pre SP2 was a complete joke, ...

[jrothwell97]

The problem with this approach: E17 0.16.999.49898 Nothing is ever perfect, if you wait for things to be perfect you wind up with this. It's been a decade.

The issue is not waiting for things to be perfect.

The issue is bug-killing, feature-completion, stability and polish, polish, polish.

Of course the problems of initial instability aren't unique to open-source. Any release is "buggy" until a few update cycles in. However, also consider this: if you rush a release or get sidetracked, as with, say, Vista, KDE4 or many Ubuntu releases, you'll end up:

Delaying new/promised features (just look at WinFS, the endlessly-delayed new look for Ubuntu, and now windicators which may not make it in before Maverick feature freeze)
Not allowing enough time for bugfixing, hardware testing, etc.
Releasing something with inadequate documentation, leading to user frustration when they realise their computer doesn't work how it used to

Depending on how speedily the GNOME developers can work, early 2011 looks like a very reasonable target: providing GNOME 3.1/2/etc has appeared by October 2011, Maverick+2 looks like a reasonable target for adoption as default, and 12.04 LTS one for semi-maturation.

(Assuming, of course, Ubuntu plans to adopt GNOME-Shell as default.)

[Grierson Huffman]

The delay is good news. Had the schedule held, users would have gotten a seriously experimental/developmental prototype disguised as an actual release.

[PuddingKnife]

I think this delay is necessary, if the gnome developers want to keep their users.



more delays are unacceptable!



wat

[Sporkman]

...and polish, polish, polish.

Language support is indeed important, but not necessarily a showstopper...



:p

[NCLI]

There are many serious functionality issues with the current gnome shell. There is no way they could solve those issues before the next release of gnome.

GNOME 3.0 was originally planned for 2.30, but then they said that gnome 3 would possibly gnome 2.32 instead of 2.30, now they say that gnome 3 is going to be the 2.34 release....more delays are unacceptable!

That doesn't make sense. At all.

[Dustin2128]

Well that's annoying. I'm guessing the last month or two until release will be mostly language support though, so I can probably download it early. I actually tried a gnome shell 'alpha' a year or so ago, and it was fairly usable. I just didn't like it much. Hopefully gnome shell will be far more polished (read: Refined) upon final release. If not, I'm most likely not using it, I like gnome as is for the most part.

[shafin]

These images are from http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell-design/

To be honest, these mockups look somewhat better than the present incarnation, but there is no scope for recent files, favourite places etc. With a system like this, there is no way to access the drives and places.

You can make a donkey look like a horse, but dep inside, it's still a donkey. Until and unless they take a hard good look at user interaction paradigms at the heart of G-S, unity would trump it easily.

[Frogs Hair]

It never was a certainty that Gnome3 would be in Maverick, gnome-shell was not going to be a default, but it is available in the repositories.

I hope the Gnome shell remains optional even after Gnome 3 is released .

[go7Ul1ai]

I like and don't like these new mockups..

I think the top panel looks really nice, but the GUI for finding applications etc looks a bit messy? and slightly Ubuntu Netbooky.. ^_^

[zekopeko]

To be honest, these mockups look somewhat better than the present incarnation, but there is no scope for recent files, favourite places etc. With a system like this, there is no way to access the drives and places.

It wouldn't be a problem to add the Files and Device tab to the screenshot with Windows and Applications tabs.

[x-shaney-x]

Kind of now looks like a cross between the current ubuntu netbook interface and the new unity one :|

[dext]

the Gnome Devs on Crack or something?

[msrinath80]

Their whole idea of a new UI paradigm at this stage is retarded. I've waited like 8 whole years for a stable GNOME. Just when it starts to come to light, they want to take it away. Instead of spending more time fixing bugs and adding FEATURES that users can CHOOSE to enable/disable they run all around the desktop trying to make it overly friendly to a two-year old. Nearly everyone on the planet has made their peace with panels, window-lists and the like. Just when everything almost settles down, they have to bring in something completely new (and unfortunately readily unusable). I don't want to sound like an air bag, but just to give an example: Nearly every computer (desk or lap) on the planet has adopted the Widescreen format. Would it not make more sense to then sit down and fix the retarded gnome panel window-list applet so that vertical panels can be used? I mean we are having plenty of horizontal space right? No. That will not be their priority. That's just our problem. Sorry, just had to vent!

[autocrosser]

I've been working with the GS project from when it was first buildable & like where it's going---so maybe I'm a minority.....

I DO remember the same gripes when we moved from Gnome 1.x to Gnome 2.0---so nothing new in what I'm reading....If you read some of the stuff from the Gnome developers, there is a "want" to do something new---after-all, 2.0 has been around for 8 years & things will get stale in that time if that's all you get to look at.....


I like the idea of a "fresh" approach to the desktop---I've been using it "mostly" on for a year now--spend over 60% with the Shell now. As soon as it really is released there will be quite a bit of hacking on it---after all it is made with code that will be VERY easy to modify to individual taste--not like the hackfest that Gnome 2 takes. So if you don't like it--change it or stay with Gnome2--it will be around for a year or more after Gnome3 & GS are released...............

This is what my current desktop looks like:

[JustinR]

Why is this in Maverick Meerkat subforum? Gnome Shell isn't going to be in Ubuntu 10.10

[Zorgoth]

Yay!

Must... not... replace... compiz....

[23meg]

Moved to CC.

[autocrosser]

This is up-coming testing stuff---more that a few of us are working with it right now & it will have a bearing on the next couple of releases--Also it's in the repos right now & when you build GS you need the libraries from Maverick---the libraries from Lucid are too old.

Plus-discussion on the Shell project is really a testing section one---not suitable for most of the other forum areas.


Well-I guess I'm too late---23meg--can you keep the main GS discussion/support in the testing section?

Or merge the threads in testing on this subject?

[Joe Ker1086]

kde is no windows-lookalike. This is the issue which bothers me a little bit. Because kde just looks like windows when you just look at the desktop. Usage-wise kde is more different to windows than every other desktop out there.
I think, after reading all the stuff on gnome.org, gnome 3 is also simple and usable. There are some differences to gnome 2.x, that's for sure, but also windows 7 has major differences to the gui's before it. And people adopt to it, just because they have to, as it is their new system.

It is no change for the sake of change. It is a change for the sake of progress and bringing new technologies in terms of "how do people who have never been using a computer use a gui" and "how to adopt the desktop to the way people use it, instead of adopting people to a desktop and how it has to be used"

i think, we as people, who have used computers for a long time and with that, adopted ourselves to the way, the desktop demanded us to the way it needs to be used, we have to open our minds towards new ways and new shapes of computing and user interface technology. That's why i am very positive about the upcoming changes. But i also don't know if i will like it or not.


+1

[Lucradia]

I've been working with the GS project from when it was first buildable & like where it's going---so maybe I'm a minority.....

I DO remember the same gripes when we moved from Gnome 1.x to Gnome 2.0---so nothing new in what I'm reading....If you read some of the stuff from the Gnome developers, there is a "want" to do something new---after-all, 2.0 has been around for 8 years & things will get stale in that time if that's all you get to look at.....


I like the idea of a "fresh" approach to the desktop---I've been using it "mostly" on for a year now--spend over 60% with the Shell now. As soon as it really is released there will be quite a bit of hacking on it---after all it is made with code that will be VERY easy to modify to individual taste--not like the hackfest that Gnome 2 takes. So if you don't like it--change it or stay with Gnome2--it will be around for a year or more after Gnome3 & GS are released...............

This is what my current desktop looks like:

Your current desktop requires compositing due to the dock,seeing as it is AWN. (All dock programs require compositing except cairo.)

Ubuntu, if ran on a computer with Intel graphics should immediately disable compositing, no questions asked.... Ive had issues with Intel to be honest.

[cariboo]

Unity just like gnome-shell uses mutter, my netbook has an Intel 945 graphics chipset, Unity works quite well here, and doesn't use a whole lot of resources. Currently I'm running chromium and a terminal and only using a little over 200Mb ram:


free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 993 566 426 0 28 336
-/+ buffers/cache: 201 791
Swap: 1905 2 1903

Those mockups look quite a bit like Unity.

[NightwishFan]

I am glad both Gnome and Canonical decided to wait a bit, that sounds like the right idea. As for the shell itself, why I like it I can put this way. Try to teach someone who has never used a computer the concept of Window Management. It is quite difficult, though the shell makes it much more visual and natural.

[cariboo]

Merged 3 Gnome 3 threads, so that they are all in one place.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Good, as Gnome 3 will probably be like KDE4 when it first came out, utterly useless and customizable

[ctrlmd]

KDE loading and installation >>>>>>>> 100% :P

[SunnyRabbiera]

KDE loading and installation >>>>>>>> 100% :P

The problem with KDE4 is that it still lacks a lot of things that KDE3 had, is it better then it was yes but its not quite a knock out of the ballpark yet.

[Joe Ker1086]

The problem with KDE4 is that it still lacks a lot of things that KDE3 had, is it better then it was yes but its not quite a knock out of the ballpark yet.

One of the BIGGEST improvements in KDE4 is that it is modular. And KDE is still visually beyond where Gnome 3 will be... Which is actually one of the reasons I use Gnome on my laptop...