PDA

View Full Version : GNOME 3: Why It Failed



t1497f35
March 22nd, 2012, 01:29 AM
Hi,
Tom's hardware did a review of Gnome 3, here's the verdict (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fedora-16-gnome-3-review,3155-27.html), and here's the starting page (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fedora-16-gnome-3-review,3155.html).

Enjoy!

LowSky
March 22nd, 2012, 01:44 AM
I've been using Gnome 3 since it was released. I find it pretty decent. Also I find Tom's Hardware to be a horrible site for reviews.

kelvin spratt
March 22nd, 2012, 02:04 AM
I've been using Gnome 3 since it was released. I find it pretty decent. Also I find Tom's Hardware to be a horrible site for reviews.
its more than horrible and very biased. I also have used gnome 3 since release and I find it excellent in all aspects.

Docaltmed
March 22nd, 2012, 02:12 AM
Oh god. The guy is a moron.

I haven't visited that site for ages. Thanks for reminding me why.

SemiExpert
March 22nd, 2012, 02:21 AM
So far, gnome-panel is the only unstable aspect of 12.04, at least from my personal experience. Goodbye gnome-panel. Since 11.10 I've been able to live with Unity, without a single crash, meanwhile I had two Gnome 3 crashes in the space of a couple of minutes. And that was today, not back in 2011. I'm not about to suggest that the solution is to look back to Gnome 2.x (Mate) or to fork 3.x (Cinnamon), but to deal with the alternatives as they are. Unity is finally worthy of a LTS.

Roasted
March 22nd, 2012, 02:30 AM
Gnome 3 is all I use on all of my Linux systems. I flippin love that desktop environment.

cariboo
March 22nd, 2012, 02:51 AM
Here's another blog post basically saying the same thing.:

http://ploum.net/post/what-if-ubuntu-were-right

Paqman
March 22nd, 2012, 03:11 AM
Little early to say it's "failed" isn't it? Ubuntu was never going to use it, so them not doing so isn't a comment on its quality. Mint maybe, but they're relatively smallfry. We'll see what RHEL do, but whichever way they jump it won't be any time soon.

chipbuster
March 22nd, 2012, 04:46 AM
I think one of the reasons I had such a hard time wrapping my head around DEs when I first entered the Linux world is because I'm still not too peeved by anything. I haven't used any one interface long enough for things to become hardwired (no, not even Windows, which I was on for over a decade).

I can move between GNOME Shell, Unity, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, and OpenBox and still get a good chunk of my normal work done.

Now, when I'm trying to do other things (e.g. analyze a trojan horse that showed up in my mailbox), Unity and GS quickly go to hell, but that's not what most users are going to do.

wolfen69
March 22nd, 2012, 07:15 AM
Who said it failed?

wolfen69
March 22nd, 2012, 07:26 AM
I can run anything from openbox to unity. But that's just me.

woxuxow
March 22nd, 2012, 07:26 AM
Gnome3 is good and unity is the best

JDShu
March 22nd, 2012, 07:28 AM
Here's another blog post basically saying the same thing.:

http://ploum.net/post/what-if-ubuntu-were-right

He's not saying the same thing. He's saying that there are legitimate reasons for Canonical creating their own desktop environment.

sffvba[e0rt
March 22nd, 2012, 07:35 AM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.


404

cariboo
March 22nd, 2012, 07:49 AM
Little early to say it's "failed" isn't it? Ubuntu was never going to use it, so them not doing so isn't a comment on its quality. Mint maybe, but they're relatively smallfry. We'll see what RHEL do, but whichever way they jump it won't be any time soon.

RedHat isn't a good metric, as many of the main Gnome team are employed by them. I'd say keep an eye on Debian to see what really happens.

keithpeter
March 22nd, 2012, 08:06 AM
RedHat isn't a good metric, as many of the main Gnome team are employed by them. I'd say keep an eye on Debian to see what really happens.

That's interesting, I'd assumed that Debian would simply move over to gnome-shell as the new packages entered their three stage process...

Support for RHEL 6 has been extended until 2020. I gather the reasons are to do with providing customers with the opportunity to keep their servers supported without a reinstall.

However, part of me can't help imagining a presentation by Gnome Shell designers to IT directors in customer companies :twisted:

3rdalbum
March 22nd, 2012, 10:46 AM
The desktop is not your old desktop. Although users haven't demanded it yet, there's been a developer-led push to make cleaner, more appliance-like user interfaces for desktop computers.

Rather than copying the same desktop as everyone else, developers are actually thinking about things they can do to make the interface smarter, prettier, more simple to use, and more appropriate for the new computers coming out today (touchscreen-enabled, remote-controlled, etc).

The last true leap forward in this space was the Macintosh in 1984. But even then, some people found it difficult to adapt. People complained that the Macintosh was "visually tiring", or assumed that a graphical user interface was "just for games" and that serious work would be done on the command-line.

Today's grumblings about Gnome 3, Unity and Metro* are just the pains associated with change. In a few years we'll probably all realise that the computer desktop has improved dramatically as a result of this change.

*Well, maybe Metro on Windows 8 is a bad idea, or a bad implementation; taking away windowing entirely could kill the goodwill Microsoft got from Windows 7.

forrestcupp
March 22nd, 2012, 12:10 PM
or assumed that a graphical user interface was "just for games" and that serious work would be done on the command-line.
It's hard to believe that almost 30 years later, Linux people still argue and complain the same thing. ;)

winh8r
March 22nd, 2012, 12:30 PM
The desktop is not your old desktop. Although users haven't demanded it yet, there's been a developer-led push to make cleaner, more appliance-like user interfaces for desktop computers.

Rather than copying the same desktop as everyone else, developers are actually thinking about things they can do to make the interface smarter, prettier, more simple to use, and more appropriate for the new computers coming out today (touchscreen-enabled, remote-controlled, etc).

The last true leap forward in this space was the Macintosh in 1984. But even then, some people found it difficult to adapt. People complained that the Macintosh was "visually tiring", or assumed that a graphical user interface was "just for games" and that serious work would be done on the command-line.

Today's grumblings about Gnome 3, Unity and Metro* are just the pains associated with change. In a few years we'll probably all realise that the computer desktop has improved dramatically as a result of this change.

*Well, maybe Metro on Windows 8 is a bad idea, or a bad implementation; taking away windowing entirely could kill the goodwill Microsoft got from Windows 7.

I agree with this point, and think that the problem at the moment is that users are finding it difficult to deal with being "led" to the new way of doing things.
For so long consumers have been the ones leading the design and now that the design is leading the consumers there is a bit of a hiatus.

Basically large scale teething troubles, that will come right in the end.

kevinmchapman
March 22nd, 2012, 01:04 PM
For so long consumers have been the ones leading the design and now that the design is leading the consumers there is a bit of a hiatus.


I cannot see how consumers have led any design. Indeed, one might argue that consumers have been holding back the design - companies may have been reluctant to make changes for fear of frightening off customers. Looking at some of the recent hysteria, I can see why

winh8r
March 22nd, 2012, 01:24 PM
I cannot see how consumers have led any design. Indeed, one might argue that consumers have been holding back the design - companies may have been reluctant to make changes for fear of frightening off customers. Looking at some of the recent hysteria, I can see why

Which in effect meant that the consumers were in control, and the manufacturers and designers were constrained by what the consumers would accept.

It doesn't matter what product you make or sell, if it does not function as the customer expects and requires it to function, they will either complain or use an alternative that does give them what they require or expect.

Most people will take technological advancement in their stride, just so long as it is done gradually and has some beneficial effect on the things they are doing.

MisterGaribaldi
March 22nd, 2012, 02:12 PM
Y'know, as a computer tech / enthusiast veteran, I find it incredibly ironic that one of the two major Linux DEs is so Mac OS / Mac OS X-like, with the new UI so similar to iOS's, all the while this takes place in a sea which regularly likes to talk about how much it "hates Apple".

I hope this whole sorry mess is sorted out by the time I build another workstation and put Linux on it.

Paqman
March 22nd, 2012, 05:00 PM
RedHat isn't a good metric, as many of the main Gnome team are employed by them. I'd say keep an eye on Debian to see what really happens.

That's interesting about RHEL, I wasn't aware they were that closely tied to Gnome. IMO Debian's main influence in the desktop space comes through Ubuntu these days.

kevinmchapman
March 22nd, 2012, 05:14 PM
Which in effect meant that the consumers were in control, and the manufacturers and designers were constrained by what the consumers would accept.

It doesn't matter what product you make or sell, if it does not function as the customer expects and requires it to function, they will either complain or use an alternative that does give them what they require or expect.

Most people will take technological advancement in their stride, just so long as it is done gradually and has some beneficial effect on the things they are doing.

I mainly agree, except that consumers were not in any way leading the design. It may be that they were not even holding back any advances. It only takes the main companies to think that consumers would not accept change, to become self-fulfilling.

At some point, though, a change becomes an advance. Someone tries something new, and it gets accepted with enthusiasm. Lots of other attempts may fall by the wayside in the process, and there is no guarantee the popular one gained its position on merit. The alternative is to change nothing, and by definition you will get no advances.

Of course, some will decry any change, and so we come back to Gnome3 :) The detractors are making as much fuss as they can in an attempt to influence the direction of Gnome, as with the Tom's Hardware rant, but the simple fact is most people just get on with things, and don't hang around geek forums and blogs. In short, most probably don't care about the "controversy" around Gnome3 in the way the bloggers seem to think.

Time will tell how Gnome3 goes, but it certainly has not "failed" yet.

alco75
March 22nd, 2012, 05:52 PM
Gnome Shell is a better DE than Unity. I don't like the Unity launcher. I do like the 'activities' view in GS. Unity uses about 1GB of memory post-login on my laptop. GS uses half of that; only a little more than xfce. For me, in Oneiric, GS is clearly better.

NadirPoint
March 22nd, 2012, 06:18 PM
Using more memory is not necessarily a "bad" thing as is often implied. In fact, on modern hardware it is actually a "good" thing. More things happen faster in larger memory spaces. With the potential to take advantage of it, that is a "very good" thing.

Maybe that could be an issue if you are using older equipment with certain hardware constraints, but as a blanket criticism, not by any means.

neu5eeCh
March 22nd, 2012, 06:33 PM
The problem with Gnome3 isn't/wasn't that it was unusable -- it was -- but that, initially, it wasn't customisable. Now that the Gnome Extensions page is up, running, and flourishing, Gnome can be customised and made to behave ever more flexibly. I didn't start out liking Gnome Shell, but I've come around since the extensions page. My own opinion (alert) is that the key to a successful OS is customizability. Once DEs take it on themselves to dictate to the world the best way to use a computer, then, yes, they set themselves up to fail.

I'd like to see something like this for Unity. I'd love to see something like an extensions page. (Unity has also bestowed upon itself the notion that it knows better than its users how they should interact with it.)

click4851
March 22nd, 2012, 07:15 PM
I liked the article, and I like the website.

Copper Bezel
March 23rd, 2012, 04:34 AM
Y'know, as a computer tech / enthusiast veteran, I find it incredibly ironic that one of the two major Linux DEs is so Mac OS / Mac OS X-like, with the new UI so similar to iOS's, all the while this takes place in a sea which regularly likes to talk about how much it "hates Apple".

I hope this whole sorry mess is sorted out by the time I build another workstation and put Linux on it.

I love Apple design. I think a lot of Linux users do. Apple is just a particularly nasty corporation.

Gnome Shell is iOS with desktop features, and I love it. The first time I really played with iOS was after using Gnome Shell for a while, and it amused me to find not only that it apes iOS's idiom, but that the UI theme elements I was using were entirely iOS-inspired.

On topic, I really don't care to read an article that assumes a baseless assertion in its title.

SemiExpert
March 24th, 2012, 07:10 PM
The problem with Gnome3 isn't/wasn't that it was unusable -- it was -- but that, initially, it wasn't customisable. Now that the Gnome Extensions page is up, running, and flourishing, Gnome can be customised and made to behave ever more flexibly. I didn't start out liking Gnome Shell, but I've come around since the extensions page.

And what was wrong about installing applets through a simple context menu? Gnome 2.x was simple to customize and reconfigure. Gnome 3.x? Not so much. The real indictment of Gnome 3 is the fact that I actually had to uninstall gnome-panel from 12.04 due to crashes and bizarrely high CPU use.


My own opinion (alert) is that the key to a successful OS is customizability. Once DEs take it on themselves to dictate to the world the best way to use a computer, then, yes, they set themselves up to fail.



I think that comment could apply to any number of desktop environments, such as Gnome 3 or Windows 8 Metro.


I'd like to see something like this for Unity. I'd love to see something like an extensions page. (Unity has also bestowed upon itself the notion that it knows better than its users how they should interact with it.)

There are a number of indicators that integrate seamlessly in to the top panel of Unity. ClassicMenu, System Load Indicator, and Psensor.

Copper Bezel
March 25th, 2012, 03:39 AM
The world does not hinge on indicators. You can't equate "customization" with "indicators" and expect VTPoet's post to make sense. Unity does, most certainly, have fewer customization features available than does Gnome 3. And Fallback with Gnome Panel doesn't really have any bearing on the conversation, because it's not the primary way in which Gnome 3 is used.

Shell, of course, has extensions that add "applets" to the panel, too, and anything that goes to the systray in Unity just goes to the notification tray in Shell. So I'm really, really not sure what you're on about with the indicators.

BrokenKingpin
March 25th, 2012, 04:42 AM
Didn't read the review, mostly because I know why I do not use Gnome 3. It is not because it is buggy or anything like that; I actually found it very stable for the few weeks that I used it. It is more the fundamental design choices and the general layout of the desktop that I do not like. This is a personal preference though, I can understand why a lot of people do like it. Sure I can probably tweak the crap out of it until I like it, but Xfce works for me out of the box.

I really did think Gnome had a good thing going with Gnome2... and I just did not see the point of the huge switch to gnome3. I am sure they have some long term goal that justified the switch (touch devices?), it just left a lot of users wondering why there was a need for something new in the first place.