Hi,
Regarding F15 and GNOME 3.
I just installed F15 with GNOME 3 out of curiosity, after reading so many comments for and against.
The first impression I have is that the system is very responsive - I assume thanks to kernel-2.6.38's group scheduling, but it could be the new underlying GNOME 3 architecture as well (I hope so).
I hope that GNOME 3 devs will concentrate on its architecture and performance issues - this is where the benefit will be most obvious.
Unfortunatelly, the GNOME 3 user interface, or the so called "user experience", is a step backwards - I can not believe that basically the same bunch of devs, having gained so much experience with functional and easy-on-the-user GUI, has come up with this chaos.
They should consider returning to the proven way of handling menus in GNOME 2, as a basis for some minor adjustments, and that's all. I say no to these menus on desktop space as it is now. They have to address the menu system seriously. They should think about continuity (see remarks below regarding the money- paying customers with their conservative users base). If they can unnerve tolerant-for-"progress" techies like me, they can only imagine what's coming from that users group.
We know that Fedora is a dev environment, but it is also a feeder to RHEL-like business systems, where the world looks a bit different, to say it mildly. You should take it into consideration.
You have to consider the mass of corporate, organizational, and private RHEL and its clones (and other distros) systems in long-term deployments, reaching life expectations of up to 8-10 years - this is the base you should be concerned about in the context of long-term support. And they use GNOME 2.x and KDE 3.x/4.x desktops. And they are conservative in their approach to a change - it is very costly in particular in terms of training and productivity of end users, who are often not "techies".
That's all for now.
JB
JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> writes:
...
The business desktop end users are already puzzled when they see you coming to work on roller skates and singing "La La La" :-)
What happens when they see your "find and catch me if you can" GNOME 3 menus ?
Either go back to GNOME-2-type menus, or *at least* offer it as a configurable option. Do it now while you are still in early dev phase, so you can adjust other GUI design concepts and elements accordingly.
You will be glad you did it. If not IT (support) people then the business end users will force it upon them and you. Or they will avoid your products as "geeky" and "unreliable".
JB
It_is_time_to_question_bio-engineering
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:55 +0000, JB wrote:
JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> writes:
...
The business desktop end users are already puzzled when they see you coming to work on roller skates and singing "La La La" :-)
I'm sorry to have to explain this, but your mails are completely off topic for this list, which is about testing - as in assuring the functionality of - Fedora. It is not about the design of upstream components of Fedora releases. The appropriate places to discuss the design of GNOME 3 would be the GNOME design IRC channel or the GNOME Shell mailing list, but as a bit of friendly advice, I would suggest that what you take to those places should be concrete proposals backed up with evidence or at least a consistent concept, not Grand Pronouncements That They're Doing It All Wrong. Those don't go down so well.
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/ irc://irc.gnome.org/gnome-design gnome-shell-list A T gnome.org
Thanks!
Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:55 +0000, JB wrote:
JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> writes:
...
The business desktop end users are already puzzled when they see you coming to work on roller skates and singing "La La La"
I'm sorry to have to explain this, but your mails are completely off topic for this list, which is about testing - as in assuring the functionality of - Fedora. It is not about the design of upstream components of Fedora releases. The appropriate places to discuss the design of GNOME 3 would be the GNOME design IRC channel or the GNOME Shell mailing list, but as a bit of friendly advice, I would suggest that what you take to those places should be concrete proposals backed up with evidence or at least a consistent concept, not Grand Pronouncements That They're Doing It All Wrong. Those don't go down so well. ...
Adam,
The Lady protests too much ... ;-)
Fedora, by including GNOME 3 (or any other distro component) in its test release, is effectively *endorsing* it and expecting a feedback from users. So, Fedora test list is the right place to talk about it (yes, in addition to specific component's list as well).
I expressed satisfaction about desktop responsiveness, which I ascribed possibly to GNOME 3's architecture (what's under the hood) as well. I may add that I liked the GUI graphics elements quality as well.
I expressed dissatisfaction with menuing system. This is the "window" thru which users (most of them non technical) will access your entire Fedora (and later RH Enterprise) product's functionality.
Fedora, by *edorsing* the above, made a mistake. It can be undone (yes, it is a test version of both products, Fedora and GNOME 3).
You, as a Fedora QA representative, lovingly calling yourself Community Monkey with all that it implies, can and should collect and direct Fedora's and users/testers' concerns to GNOME 3 devs as well. You can quote us, if appropriate, when expressing your own views as well, regardless whether you (dis)agree with or are unsure of them.
I find GNOME 3 menu system dysfunctional and an example of inexperience: - do not hide main menu (what used to be in GNOME 2) under artificial and unnecessary top menu (Activities, etc) and work spaces, panes, windows, etc. Juggling between menus and various active windows feels like being a clown in a circus and juggling balls - we like to watch a clown, and laugh, she makes us feel better, but we would not like to be her, strangely ... - do not split System functionality between System Settings under user icon's menu on the panel and System Tools under Activities - Applications (in particular if you include the former in the latter anyway) - do not reinvent/redefine the meanings of computing terms that have been used as a standard for the last 20-30 years by all operating systems and desktop environments. The proper way already reflected in Gnome 2, where you have separate top menu selections: Applications, System, etc. It was done for a good reason, according to computing terms meanings, intuitively. Applications menu is understood to be end-user programs (database, office suit, various helper applications, etc). System menu is understood to be system administration programs (configuration, administration, inclusive of all resources and users). - do not reinvent the wheel (menu system) that is already functional and accepted by end users, in particular if there is nothing of value or original in what you try to change or add
I say once again: - restore the GNOME 2 menu system (Applications, System menu structure) - restore the GNOME 2 panel functionality (menu, current windows and discovery of their focus/need-user-attention, top/bottom placement configuration, etc)
Deal ? Then off to the races :-)
JB
Maria Callas - Bellini - Norma - Casta Diva
On 04/05/2011 08:15 AM, JB wrote:
Fedora, by including GNOME 3 (or any other distro component) in its test release, is effectively*endorsing* it and expecting a feedback from users. So, Fedora test list is the right place to talk about it (yes, in addition to specific component's list as well)
No you are actually wrong here Gnome design and any other *DE or spin design flaws or praises should be mentioned on their relevant list within the project or upstream where all the relevant developers reside which can either answer your question(s) and or take note of what you say.
Adam ( or anyone else for that matter ) should not have to play messenger and collect feedback to pass to them when you or anyone else for that matter can pass your concern directly to them yourself.
JBG
On 04/05/2011 04:33 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 04/05/2011 08:15 AM, JB wrote:
No you are actually wrong here Gnome design and any other *DE or spin design flaws or praises should be mentioned on their relevant list within the project or upstream where all the relevant developers reside which can either answer your question(s) and or take note of what you say.
Adam ( or anyone else for that matter ) should not have to play messenger and collect feedback to pass to them when you or anyone else for that matter can pass your concern directly to them yourself.
Seems reasonable .. that said:
It would be appropriate to discuss here which DE fedora should using ... and in so doing comparative benefits and drawbacks to help decide. Fedora is not (I assume wedded to gnome - its goal is to be the best ... so if Gnome 3 does not come up to snuff and we have a better alternative - we should consider a switch.
[JB gnome 2 is dead - so please stop asking for it here .. its not an option - fedora follows gnome - and the current version is 3 or will be soon - if you have a beef with 2 versus 3, adam and johann are righ - take it to gnome dev]
So if someone has constructive suggestions of an alternative to Gnome 3 - that should be fair game ...
But you'd be targetting F16 at this stage of the game ... I would imagine.
gene/
Genes MailLists <lists <at> sapience.com> writes:
... [JB gnome 2 is dead - so please stop asking for it here .. its not an option - fedora follows gnome - and the current version is 3 or will be soon - if you have a beef with 2 versus 3, adam and johann are righ - take it to gnome dev]
I have posted to GNOME Shell dev list.
Just came first response: "Free Software World is vast, if you want a "conservative desktop", look at XFCE."
Well, let's wait for more responses ... :-)
Regarding GNOME 3. I actually have been a user of GNOME for long time and appreciated its functionality without the desease of too many features. I liked the ecosystem of their applications. I thought it was too slow/unresponsive.
So, I welcomed GNOME 3 as a natural progress and expected it to deliver new architecture (that what their devs were also excited about) that would cure some of that sluggishness, among others. As I said I found the desktop very responsive, lacking at this stage the usual fat (that will come with time any way, hopefully not too soon ...). But I did not expect the obvious screwup with the menu system - you would think it would be impossible from a bunch of devs who delivered by now a mature DE like GNOME 2). I hope they reflect and change that part - it should be easy and not affecting the underlying architecture, as the one "misdeveloped" menu system already exists, but in the wrong place and misconstrued. I am hopeful.
Second response just came in: " ... Your arguments about RHEL desktop issue are a bit strange to me regarding that most gnome-shell developers and designers are employeed by Red Hat. I am not saying that Red Hat management has a big influence on the design but I am sure that they wouldn't sponser it that much if they didn't like it at all. ... " So far they are easy on me - I was afraid somewhat that they would go to get a rope :-)
... So if someone has constructive suggestions of an alternative to Gnome 3 - that should be fair game ...
But you'd be targetting F16 at this stage of the game ... I would imagine. ...
As you know the movement already started on Fedora users list. But it is too early to jump ship ... We shoud try to fight it out first :-)
JB
On 04/05/2011 06:36 PM, JB wrote:
But I did not expect the obvious screwup with the menu system - you would think it would be impossible from a bunch of devs who delivered by now a mature DE like GNOME 2). I hope they reflect and change that part - it should be easy and not affecting the underlying architecture, as the one "misdeveloped" menu system already exists, but in the wrong place and misconstrued. I am hopeful.
FWIW, I don't think it is a "obvious screwup". It is a different design which some users would like and others wouldn't and telling upstream to go ahead and completely scratch it out and go back to 2.x menu is not going to go down well especially since they are very close to a release. If someone cares deep enough for hierarchical menus, they should go write a extension to do what they want to do and the best thing for GNOME Shell at this point is for a ecosystem of add-ons to flourish like Firefox. Since GNOME Shell uses Javascript, CSS etc, that is not a far off comparison.
Keep a eye on
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Extensions
The feedback in test list is only useful if it can be reported as a straight forward bug but this one is fairly subjective opinion and won't be very useful in achieving the change you desire.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram <metherid <at> gmail.com> writes:
... FWIW, I don't think it is a "obvious screwup". It is a different design which some users would like and others wouldn't and telling upstream to go ahead and completely scratch it out and go back to 2.x menu is not going to go down well especially since they are very close to a release.
As I have already stated on GNOME Shell dev list: "... Before we ask non-technical business end users to get lost and write some extensions to fix problems GNOME 3 delivered to them, there is still a hope that GNOME devs fix the menu systems themselves. It can be done by anchoring back the new GNOME 3 menu system (minus silly Activities and Windows, Application sub-menu items) on a fully functional panel. Bingo. I trust they can do that with one finger, right ? :-) ... "
...
JB
On 04/05/2011 09:01 PM, JB wrote:
"... Before we ask non-technical business end users to get lost and write some extensions to fix problems GNOME 3 delivered to them, there is still a hope that GNOME devs fix the menu systems themselves. It can be done by anchoring back the new GNOME 3 menu system (minus silly Activities and Windows, Application sub-menu items) on a fully functional panel. Bingo. I trust they can do that with one finger, right ? :-) ...
I don't accept that premise that non-technical business end users are negatively impacted. Those same end users are very well used to tablets and smart phones and this interface is quite similar. Anyway, you are free to push for whatever you want to. I am just inclined to tell you, it isn't likely to happen.
Rahul
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 08:11 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
It would be appropriate to discuss here which DE fedora should using ... and in so doing comparative benefits and drawbacks to help decide. Fedora is not (I assume wedded to gnome - its goal is to be the best ... so if Gnome 3 does not come up to snuff and we have a better alternative
- we should consider a switch.
Not 'here' as in test list, really, no: it would probably make more sense on -devel, or the board public list. Arguing the case for a different default desktop on this list isn't likely to achieve much, because QA doesn't get to make those decisions.
But you'd be targetting F16 at this stage of the game ... I would imagine.
At minimum.
On 04/05/2011 11:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 08:11 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
It would be appropriate to discuss here which DE fedora should using
...
Not 'here' as in test list, really, no: it would probably make more sense on -devel, or the board public list. Arguing the case for a
Yep - agreed.. I realized after I sent I was bit too fuzzy about 'here' .. I really just meant fedora-land rather than gnome-world .. :-)
But you'd be targetting F16 at this stage of the game ... I would imagine.
At minimum.
Yah ... and given wayland + ? is a little ways off the choices are somewhat limited at this juncture ... [Gnome, KDE, XFCE, LXDE, VaporwareDE, and .. ]
On 04/05/2011 07:11 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 04/05/2011 04:33 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 04/05/2011 08:15 AM, JB wrote:
No you are actually wrong here Gnome design and any other *DE or spin design flaws or praises should be mentioned on their relevant list within the project or upstream where all the relevant developers reside which can either answer your question(s) and or take note of what you say.
Adam ( or anyone else for that matter ) should not have to play messenger and collect feedback to pass to them when you or anyone else for that matter can pass your concern directly to them yourself.
Seems reasonable .. that said:
It would be appropriate to discuss here which DE fedora should using ... and in so doing comparative benefits and drawbacks to help decide. Fedora is not (I assume wedded to gnome - its goal is to be the best ... so if Gnome 3 does not come up to snuff and we have a better alternative
we should consider a switch.
[JB gnome 2 is dead - so please stop asking for it here .. its not an
option - fedora follows gnome - and the current version is 3 or will be soon - if you have a beef with 2 versus 3, adam and johann are righ - take it to gnome dev]
So if someone has constructive suggestions of an alternative to Gnome 3 - that should be fair game ...
But you'd be targetting F16 at this stage of the game ... I would imagine.
gene/
I'm really happy now with Gnome 3 and Avant Window Navigator. It turns out to be quite a lot like OS/X.
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 08:15 +0000, JB wrote:
I'm sorry to have to explain this, but your mails are completely off topic for this list, which is about testing - as in assuring the functionality of - Fedora. It is not about the design of upstream components of Fedora releases. The appropriate places to discuss the design of GNOME 3 would be the GNOME design IRC channel or the GNOME Shell mailing list, but as a bit of friendly advice, I would suggest that what you take to those places should be concrete proposals backed up with evidence or at least a consistent concept, not Grand Pronouncements That They're Doing It All Wrong. Those don't go down so well. ...
Adam,
The Lady protests too much ... ;-)
Fedora, by including GNOME 3 (or any other distro component) in its test release, is effectively *endorsing* it
In a way, I guess, sure.
and expecting a feedback from users.
Not so much. It's to do with the mechanics of how stuff gets done. I don't design GNOME Shell. No-one else on this list designs GNOME Shell. Changes to the design of GNOME Shell do not happen in the Fedora project, they happen in the GNOME project. So it makes little sense to take wide-ranging concerns about the design of GNOME Shell to a Fedora group which isn't at all involved in the design of GNOME Shell.
We take feedback, sure. Part of 'taking feedback' is directing that feedback elsewhere, when elsewhere would be a better place for it.
So, Fedora test list is the right place to talk about it (yes, in addition to specific component's list as well).
No, I still disagree. It's a simple practical consideration. You are not going to achieve any significant change in GNOME Shell's design by arguing about it on the Fedora QA mailing list.
Fedora, by *edorsing* the above, made a mistake. It can be undone (yes, it is a test version of both products, Fedora and GNOME 3).
As far as this relates to a Fedora choice it's kind of on topic, so I'll reply to say: no, not really. There would be absolutely no sense in Fedora shipping a dead build of GNOME 2; Fedora is a distribution which prides itself on moving with the times and following upstream, so trying to keep a zombie unsupported old desktop running is not what we do at all. The other choice would be to switch to a different default desktop, which a) isn't a choice QA can make and b) would be just as disruptive as a new GNOME version, anyway.
You, as a Fedora QA representative, lovingly calling yourself Community Monkey with all that it implies, can and should collect and direct Fedora's and users/testers' concerns to GNOME 3 devs as well. You can quote us, if appropriate, when expressing your own views as well, regardless whether you (dis)agree with or are unsure of them.
As Rahul explained, this makes sense if your feedback was a clear-cut and limited bug; that's easy to pass on. Passing on grand concerns about the whole design of the Shell does not fit into this category. I could post a pointer to your post on an upstream list, sure, but then what? They are not going to adopt your idea wholesale. Do they reply with questions and comments, I then forward those to this list, you reply to this list, I forward your reply to the other list, and so on ad absurdam? I hope you can see why that would be silly. There's no point in going through a middle-man for a detailed and wide-ranging question like this.
-
Adam Williamson -
Genes MailLists -
JB -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Rahul Sundaram -
SternData