On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 09:41 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:27:43AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 09:20 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > If we are not there yet, then why don't we wait until F16 for Gnome
> > 3/Gnome Shell? I see this as being exactly the same as the situation
> > was with systemd--it wasn't polished in time for F14, so it had to
> > wait until F15. Why should Gnome be any different? Why should the
> > users have to put up with a half-baked user experience for F15?
>
> Lack of extensions != half-baked user experience. GNOME 3 will give you
> a fully baked, crip user experience without extensions...
Thanks, good to know. Sorry for my scepticism. Now that you've reset
my expectations, I'll try it out during the Test Days to make sure
there are no regressions in user experience & capabilities compared to
gnome-panel/nautilus and Gnome 2.
Let me reset your expectations some more.
There will be big changes in the user experience - thats the whole
reason why we are working very hard to get GNOME3 done. And some of
these changes will certainly be perceived as regressions by some people
- if you have had your stock ticker in the upper right corner for 10
years, then that is a very understandable reaction to decry the
disappearance of applets.
What you should expect from GNOME 3.0 as a user is a fully functional
desktop. What you should expect from it as a developer is a good
platform to build on for 3.2 and so on.
But a feature-by-feature and per-ui-detail comparison of GNOME 2.32 and
3.0 does not really make sense. The difference in the minor version
numbers should make clear: GNOME 2 has had 16 revisions to build up UI
details and features; GNOME 3 is just starting out.