9:54 a.m.
Started a new thread for the user, as looks like stole another thread
and changed the subject. Anyway, here is the original post and can
comment on it from there if you like.
Don't flame ME, I care less bout the subject, just trying to help get
someone going in right direction.
From: 夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato(a)yahoo.co.jp>
To: users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Gnome 3 ~ Windows 8?
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:39:01 +0900 (07/13/2011 09:39:01 AM)
Without intending a flamewar (after all, we have to move forward,
wherever that means), the linked article[1] is not interesting or unique
in its blatant criticism of the Windows 8 interface, but it is
interesting that the author sees the Windows 8 interface as a chance for
Linux to get the upper hand on the desktop:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386343,00.asp?obref=obinsite
Is he right and we're moving badly in the wrong direction (as in, an
interface with a more traditional GUI feel would be a big winner?) or is
competing with a similar look-and-feel as the default while providing
lots of traditional-feeling alternatives a winning attitude?
I haven't found any debate written anywhere public about a deliberate
decision to try to "out-Windows8 Windows8" as far as interface is
concerned, but it seems this is what Gnome 3 is aimed at.
Now that F15 has had a few weeks of heavy use, and people have either
adapted to the new interface or adopted a permanently frustrated
attitude toward it, I'm curious the general feeling. (Sorry, my English
is giving out -- I think this last sentence may be weird.)
-Iwao
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"The best town on Earth!"
2:53 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Frantisek Hanzlik <franta(a)hanzlici.cz> wrote:
Tim wrote:
> I don't... They all (Linux too) seem to be heading for being some sort
> of iPad clone. Being all the more inappropriate for trying to use a
> touch-screen type of interface, when you don't have a touch-screen.
>
> They're also being painful as far as multi-tasking is concerned.
> Wacking great big oversized GUIs for things, so you can't use two or
> three applications side by side. You have to window shuffle.
>
> Starting things from the icons on the desktop background, so you have to
> get your windows out of the way to get to the icons. Having to search
> for your program, because there isn't a structured menu (either one
> that's categorised, or one that doesn't keep re-arranging the order that
> things and jumbled together).
This is exactly one what I think about Gnome 3 - maybe good for
PADs, but tedious for power desktop users with many installed and
simultaneously running apps.
Golden Gnome 2!
Gnome 2 is now offically dead.
Now, back to what I said earlier. YOU, the Linux user, have a CHOICE
of desktop/window managers. YOU should avail yourself of this
feature. If you want to 'resurect' Gnome2, you are more than welcome
to. It is after all, GPL/LGPL licensed and you should be free to spin
off whatever you want. However, do not expect the Gnome support team
to help in your efforts.
For all concerned: The goal behind some of the moves you folks see in
desktops is to move more users to Linux vice 'that other stuff'. This
means making things familiar to those folks. I really would like for
the old projects to be continued for us older 'power users' and new
desktops to be introduced for those who need/desire those features. I
did not like what happened when Windows95 introduced the 'Start'
button feature. Over the years, I grew used to this. I still think
that the idea is 'stupid' but I now understand why this happened. And
I was and remain a command line power guru.
James McKenzie
7:58 p.m.
On 7/15/11 4:55 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
I for myself have been a big Gnome fan over a lot of years, and have
been using it both at home and at work. I also have been a big LXDE
and xmonad fan, which runs on all of my laptops. Not a big thing for
me, I'll drop F15, and when F16 comes out, I'll stick with LXDE. It
simply works and does not want to convince some Wind*ws users that
Linux is the better choice...
Heinz:
I agree with this. This is why I keep on harping on Windows. It has
NOT worked properly since the 2.x days (and YES I do go back that far)
and each version introduces more and more 'back flips' of things you
have to do to get the job done. I love the fact that the system has to
be locked down so tight it squeaks to keep the 'bad guys' out. Most of
the systems I work with have not just one but TWO anti-virus systems.
Every mail system in the world that touches a Windows system has to have
anti-virus installed in case the system is infected, and so on. The
other thing that I love about Linux is that there is usually more than
one way to get the job done. Just is that the kernel developers have
been infected with this 'got to include the kitchen sink' thinking as
well. Makes it hell when you have to build a custom kernel to get it be
within the reference monitor version of things.
Anyway, let's see who sues who first....Should be interesting to see the
hordes of lawyers going at each other.
James
7:53 p.m.
On 7/15/11 6:31 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 14:18 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
<snip>
>> I agree with you that Gnome2 is dead but someone has to explain why
> a
>> feature like holding the ALT key is necessary to power off in the
> User
>> Menu. It seems to me there was room in the original list for a Power
> off
>> option.
>>
>> I think that there is general agreement among the majority of F15
> users
>> other than the Gnome developers that there are aspects of Gnome3
> that
>> are just plain screwy.
> This is definitely not one of those things that should exist. Maybe
> the team feels that a new user would not understand what 'power off'
> means. I would find that insulting as a new Linux user coming from
> the other world. I think this is the wrong way to deal with this. I
> have not had the time to look at Gnome3 yet, but this makes me less
> likely to do so from an engineering/quality assurance/user experience
> view point. BTW, do they have a 'do you really want to do this'
> dialog or does Gnome3 go immediately into power down mode?
>
>
You have the usual dialog about what you really want too do.
You know I expected
that...
James
1:39 p.m.
On 07/13/2011 10:32 AM, Tim wrote:
Hmmph... Then goes ahead and does something that's likely to do
so.
Statements, like that, are similar to: With all due respect...
And: I don't mean to be critical, but...
That's not how I read it. It looked to me as though the OP was asking
us our opinion of the article, especially when compared to the recent
changes in Gnome. The most important difference, IMO, is the fact that
with Gnome, if you really don't like the changes or aren't interested in
that particular kind of change, you can always try a different DE and
probably find one that works the way you like. If you get a computer
with Windows 8 and it works the way the article describes, you have no
choice if you stick with Windows. Just as there are people who love
Gnome 3, there will people who would love that kind of a GUI for
Windows, and that's great. And, of course, there are those who don't
like them at first but will either learn to like them or at least to
adapt to them and that's also fine. In the long run, the Linux Desktop
evolves, following Darwin's maxim. Not, however, the way it's usually
misquoted, but as originally written: "Survival of the fit." (Survival
of the fittest is neither what he wrote or intended. If only the
fittest survived and bred, few species would be able to survive long
enough to become the fittest; being fit to survive is all it takes.)
Thus, any DE that does what people need can survive in the Linux
universe as long as there are people who like the way it works, and
users are free to look around until they find the one that's best for
them and if that article is right, that freedom may be the "killer app"
that brings large numbers of average users away from the Dark Side.
10:02 a.m.
New subject: Gnome 3 ~ Windows 8? => choosing the fedora desktop
Genes MailLists wrote:
So - lets choose the default desktop manager for fedora from among:
Gnome 3
KDE
XFCE
LXDE
? Other?
...so, if we actually get a vote that counts, I'd say XFCE.
Of course, this is *my* personal opinion. There were technical choices
the Gnome team made that I have never been happy with, but until v3 the
interface worked the way I wanted so I used it and now it doesn't so I
don't. I am now looking at the other desktops and so far XFCE come
closest *my* preferences. Pick what you like, vote with your keyboard.
...new is not always better
...except when it is 8^/
...this time it wasn't 8^(
--
//Steve sends
1:54 p.m.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:04:12 +0000 (UTC)
JB wrote:
Some of these Ubuntu and Unity frustrated users are so clueless that
they seek
a remedy by wanting to move to Fedora ...
There are some wolves waiting for them: GNOME 3, systemd, ... :-)
Have you tried Unity? I didn't think it was possible to make
a more absurd user interface than Gnome 3 right up until
I tried Unity, then Gnome 3 suddenly looked like sheer
genius in comparison.
1:36 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 10:44 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
as a Linux user you have a VARIETY of desktops to select from.
GNOME is just one of them.
Actually, there is a little bit more to it than that...
At the basic level, yes, you can pick a desktop that appears in a manner
that pleases you. But there's other things that Gnome and KDE have
handled, that some other desktops have not (hardware ownership,
automatic disk mounting, networking, etc.).
What irritates me, and others, was that we found Gnome 2 to be just
about what we wanted, in a myriad of ways. But Gnome 3 is just too
different that we now need to find something else that is how Gnome 2
used to be. Or, jumping distros to one of the long-term ones, that
still uses Gnome 2, and doesn't do major package updates within its
lifespan.
We're back to finding the "least objectionable" out of several choices.
Which doesn't bode well for software design, in general, when that's
your method of choosing something, rather than looking for "the best."
Unfortunately, that seems to be par for the course.
I see the sense in pushing the boundaries for high end computing. I
don't see the sense in making low end computing require high end
hardware. What's low end computing? Email, web browsing, not playing
video games. It's just gross inefficiency to require a 4 GHz computer
to do that.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
8:27 p.m.
New subject: Gnome 3 ~ Windows 8? => choosing the fedora desktop
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:53:57 +0900
夜神 岩男 wrote:
but the underlying base is so
solid and logical that people who are really familiar with it are just
enduring the arguments for now while they prepare Good Things. I
consider this to be fairly likely
Really, Can I sell you some swampland? :-)
8:31 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 14:18 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
<snip>
> I agree with you that Gnome2 is dead but someone has to explain
why
a
> feature like holding the ALT key is necessary to power off in the
User
> Menu. It seems to me there was room in the original list for a Power
off
> option.
>
> I think that there is general agreement among the majority of F15
users
> other than the Gnome developers that there are aspects of Gnome3
that
> are just plain screwy.
This is definitely not one of those things that should exist. Maybe
the team feels that a new user would not understand what 'power off'
means. I would find that insulting as a new Linux user coming from
the other world. I think this is the wrong way to deal with this. I
have not had the time to look at Gnome3 yet, but this makes me less
likely to do so from an engineering/quality assurance/user experience
view point. BTW, do they have a 'do you really want to do this'
dialog or does Gnome3 go immediately into power down mode?
You have the usual dialog about what you really want too do.
--
=======================================================================
Dishonor will not trouble me, once I am dead. -- Euripides
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
6:58 a.m.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:18:40 +0930
Tim wrote:
Over time, *what* did the automounting has changed. Somewhere along
the
way HAL did it, and some of those other desktops didn't appear to make
use of it.
And now HAL is a dinosaur and if you try to ask about using it,
people look at you like you have lobsters crawling out of you ears
(FYI: udev is now the king).
I love the way subsystems come and go like cosmology theories.
One day a theory will be hailed as the one true explanation for
the entire universe, the next day it will be scoffed at as a
more "elegant" theory replaces it. (And none of them had any
way to be tested for validity :-).
6:55 a.m.
On 15.07.2011, James McKenzie wrote:
If you even THINK that the current breed of developers CARE about
what
the user base wants/needs, you are living in dream-land.
As you mentioned before, all is about choices. If there's no interest in what
the user base needs, well, the user base will move away, resulting in less and less
feedback,
which lets developing get more and more difficult. Bugs remain undiscovered, features get
less testing,
and so on.
In case of Gnome 3, I guess it it won't collect much new users over from Wind*ws or
Apple
related systems. Think logically: those who try will probably have a great optical
experience,
but when things are unstable, unreliable and buggy and you have work to be done,
you'll quickly move away
and blame "the difficult Linux" or whatever for the bad experience. Not to
mention what such a user will
write if anybody is asking how Gnome 3 can be an alternative to let's say Wind*ws 7,
and how many users
are just too busy to try it by themselves after a lot of negative publicity...
I for myself have been a big Gnome fan over a lot of years, and have been using it both at
home and at work.
I also have been a big LXDE and xmonad fan, which runs on all of my laptops. Not a big
thing for me,
I'll drop F15, and when F16 comes out, I'll stick with LXDE. It simply works and
does not want to convince some
Wind*ws users that Linux is the better choice...
6:48 a.m.
Tim:
> I see the sense in pushing the boundaries for high end computing.
I
> don't see the sense in making low end computing require high end
> hardware. What's low end computing? Email, web browsing, not playing
> video games. It's just gross inefficiency to require a 4 GHz computer
> to do that.
James McKenzie:
I agree with this comment. You should not need a multi-core system
just
to read mail and browse the web. Adding a high end desktop system to
this is aggravating and a nuisance. That is why some folks recommend
the 'lower end' windowing systems that do the basic things.
I think it's getting close to the point where the default desktop for
Fedora ought not to be Gnome, and the flashier desktops ought to be the
additional try them out options, rather than the lightweight ones.
I've seen people state that Gnome is needed to automount drives.
Never found that to be the case when I was running RedHat 7/8 or 9.
Over time, *what* did the automounting has changed. Somewhere along the
way HAL did it, and some of those other desktops didn't appear to make
use of it.
Likewise, when I tried using a lightweight desktop, some time ago, I got
no sound. Because the console kit helper that assigned hardware to a
user wasn't part of that desktop's equation.
It seems to have got to the point that to use new Linux, you need a new
computer. That does rather preclude new users, who will get a new
computer with windows.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
10:23 p.m.
On 7/13/11 11:36 AM, Tim wrote:
I see the sense in pushing the boundaries for high end computing. I
don't see the sense in making low end computing require high end
hardware. What's low end computing? Email, web browsing, not playing
video games. It's just gross inefficiency to require a 4 GHz computer
to do that.
As I go through this rather lengthy thread I find a few more things to
comment about.
I agree with this comment. You should not need a multi-core system just
to read mail and browse the web. Adding a high end desktop system to
this is aggravating and a nuisance. That is why some folks recommend
the 'lower end' windowing systems that do the basic things. I've seen
people state that Gnome is needed to automount drives. Never found that
to be the case when I was running RedHat 7/8 or 9. However, I could be
totally incorrect. The point is that we should not saddle folks with a
high end front end if their computer just cannot provide the
horsepower. This also extends to the Kernel and other items. I don't
have a system with 1 GB of memory, nor will it ever get there for
running Linux. It is 12 years old and still runs. That is what some
folks want. They don't want to add to the bottom lines of the likes of
Dell/Gateway/HP and of course, indirectly, Microsoft. Now, what can I
use on an IBM Thinkpad A22p/PIII 833/384MB/60GB hard drive for a front
end? Sounds like GNOME3 and KDE4 are out of the question if I want any
sort of functionality with the system.
James
9:29 p.m.
On 7/14/11 3:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/14/2011 09:53 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Frantisek Hanzlik<franta(a)hanzlici.cz>
wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
> Now, back to what I said earlier. YOU, the Linux user, have a CHOICE
> of desktop/window managers.
> YOU should avail yourself of this
> feature. If you want to 'resurect' Gnome2, you are more than welcome
> to. It is after all, GPL/LGPL licensed and you should be free to spin
> off whatever you want. However, do not expect the Gnome support team
> to help in your efforts.
YOU, the Gnome devs, should learn that you have turned the product we
loved into an entirely different product and are not addressing us -
your users' demands - anymore.
If you even THINK that the current breed of
developers CARE about what
the user base wants/needs, you are living in dream-land. I work with a
product that had a HUGE installed user base that ran nothing but SUN
Solaris. The company decided that they would go after a non-existent
Windows Server user base. They lost about 1/2 of their user base and
they are not coming back, ever. However, this company now has MORE
installed copies of their product with massive licensing/support
income. I stand by what I said based on PAST experience. You can
leave, the developers don't care. They want the 5% that say "I don't
like xxxx operating system and would move to Linux but it is so damn
hard to work with". That will definitely increase the number of users
that will work with their product. They don't want to re-learn how to
work their computers. I know that WE don't like that, but we now know
who is the target audience. And like you, I'm upset that Gnome2 was
dropped like a rock. That means one less OPTION to select. However,
the developers might feel they can only support one windowing system.
James
8:56 p.m.
New subject: Gnome 3 ~ Windows 8? => choosing the fedora desktop
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 21:27 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:53:57 +0900
夜神 岩男 wrote:
> but the underlying base is so
> solid and logical that people who are really familiar with it are just
> enduring the arguments for now while they prepare Good Things. I
> consider this to be fairly likely
Really, Can I sell you some swampland? :-)
lol
Well, I haven't read the core code myself, so I can't say that its bad
tech. I can see that the Gnome devs and FESCO seem to be clinging to it
quite tightly, however, and both tend to have more sound reasons than
insane ones -- and based on that I have to assume at the core there lay
some glowing gem of brilliance upon which great things can be built.
(Ubuntu seems to be holding to it as well -- though the Ubuntu team's
thoughts carry much less weight with me than FESCO.)
A lot of good tech manifests an awkward userland at first -- and I'm
hoping this is a similar case. Adding a slot for widgets, moving menus
around, adding some protections against poorly written GTK+ code (like
where a fixed-size window fixes its size at something larger than the
available screen a la "Disk Utility"), etc. are somewhat trivial
compared to the core code required -- if the suite is well designed. So
I could understand if some of the interface issues have taken second
stage to core development issues. Of course, open source is a mind-share
market and keeping a positive spin on things is necessary, so
announcements can't include tags like "interface still awkward!" in the
feature list for version ?.0...
But that's me being positive, perhaps overly so.
-Iwao
7:16 p.m.
New subject: Gnome 3 ~ Windows 8? => choosing the fedora desktop
On 07/14/2011 03:53 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
Gnome 2 is now offically dead
Fine i agree whole heartedly .. that leaves ..
Now, back to what I said earlier. YOU, the Linux user, have a CHOICE
of desktop/window managers. YOU should avail yourself of this
Ok then - so then the debate here should not be about gnome 3 missing
features - we all agree - that should be an upstream discussion.
The discussion should turn to what the default desktop should be - in
the past it was gnome 2 - gnome 2 is dead and we now have 4 desktop
managers to choose among (gnome 3 being just one).
So - lets choose the default desktop manager for fedora from among:
Gnome 3
KDE
XFCE
LXDE
? Other?
How do we go about changing from gnome 2 to one of the above- since
gnome 3 is not gnome 2 it should be on equal footing from above list -
should this be by a vote on a website - discussion - fesco - what?
What is the best mechanism for the fedora community to choose the
default desktop?
May the best desktop win :-)
5:38 p.m.
On 07/14/2011 09:53 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Frantisek
Hanzlik<franta(a)hanzlici.cz> wrote:
> Tim wrote:
Now, back to what I said earlier. YOU, the Linux user, have a
CHOICE
of desktop/window managers.
YOU should avail yourself of this
feature. If you want to 'resurect' Gnome2, you are more than welcome
to. It is after all, GPL/LGPL licensed and you should be free to spin
off whatever you want. However, do not expect the Gnome support team
to help in your efforts.
YOU, the Gnome devs, should learn that you have turned the product we
loved into an entirely different product and are not addressing us -
your users' demands - anymore.
YOU, the Gnome devs, have left us - your user-base - Your liberty, your
choice, your
As Alan said earlier in this thread, may-be Gnome 3.2 will have matured
into a shape it's worth looking into again, may-be you will have found a
significantly large user-base, may-be you will have vanished.
One thing is sure: Your new user-base will not be your current (old)
user-base.
For all concerned: The goal behind some of the moves you folks see
in
desktops is to move more users to Linux vice 'that other stuff'.
I do not share this opinion - It's naive wishful thinking, IMO:
I'd expect oeople, who are attracted by the kind of GUI, Gnome 3 tries
to implement, to choose the original, i.e. Apple, Microsoft or Google's
products over Gnome 3 (which means them not ot use Linux).
Ralf
4:18 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Aaron Konstam <akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:53 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Frantisek Hanzlik <franta(a)hanzlici.cz>
wrote:
> > Tim wrote:
> >> I don't... They all (Linux too) seem to be heading for being some sort
> >> of iPad clone. Being all the more inappropriate for trying to use a
> >> touch-screen type of interface, when you don't have a touch-screen.
> >>
> >> They're also being painful as far as multi-tasking is concerned.
> >> Wacking great big oversized GUIs for things, so you can't use two or
> >> three applications side by side. You have to window shuffle.
> >>
> >> Starting things from the icons on the desktop background, so you have to
> >> get your windows out of the way to get to the icons. Having to search
> >> for your program, because there isn't a structured menu (either one
> >> that's categorised, or one that doesn't keep re-arranging the order
that
> >> things and jumbled together).
> >
> > This is exactly one what I think about Gnome 3 - maybe good for
> > PADs, but tedious for power desktop users with many installed and
> > simultaneously running apps.
> > Golden Gnome 2!
>
> Gnome 2 is now offically dead.
>
> Now, back to what I said earlier. YOU, the Linux user, have a CHOICE
> of desktop/window managers. YOU should avail yourself of this
> feature. If you want to 'resurect' Gnome2, you are more than welcome
> to. It is after all, GPL/LGPL licensed and you should be free to spin
> off whatever you want. However, do not expect the Gnome support team
> to help in your efforts.
>
> For all concerned: The goal behind some of the moves you folks see in
> desktops is to move more users to Linux vice 'that other stuff'. This
> means making things familiar to those folks. I really would like for
> the old projects to be continued for us older 'power users' and new
> desktops to be introduced for those who need/desire those features. I
> did not like what happened when Windows95 introduced the 'Start'
> button feature. Over the years, I grew used to this. I still think
> that the idea is 'stupid' but I now understand why this happened. And
> I was and remain a command line power guru.
>
> James McKenzie
I agree with you that Gnome2 is dead but someone has to explain why a
feature like holding the ALT key is necessary to power off in the User
Menu. It seems to me there was room in the original list for a Power off
option.
I think that there is general agreement among the majority of F15 users
other than the Gnome developers that there are aspects of Gnome3 that
are just plain screwy.
This is definitely not one of those things that should
exist. Maybe
the team feels that a new user would not understand what 'power off'
means. I would find that insulting as a new Linux user coming from
the other world. I think this is the wrong way to deal with this. I
have not had the time to look at Gnome3 yet, but this makes me less
likely to do so from an engineering/quality assurance/user experience
view point. BTW, do they have a 'do you really want to do this'
dialog or does Gnome3 go immediately into power down mode?
James
3:41 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:53 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Frantisek Hanzlik
<franta(a)hanzlici.cz> wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>> I don't... They all (Linux too) seem to be heading for being some sort
>> of iPad clone. Being all the more inappropriate for trying to use a
>> touch-screen type of interface, when you don't have a touch-screen.
>>
>> They're also being painful as far as multi-tasking is concerned.
>> Wacking great big oversized GUIs for things, so you can't use two or
>> three applications side by side. You have to window shuffle.
>>
>> Starting things from the icons on the desktop background, so you have to
>> get your windows out of the way to get to the icons. Having to search
>> for your program, because there isn't a structured menu (either one
>> that's categorised, or one that doesn't keep re-arranging the order
that
>> things and jumbled together).
>
> This is exactly one what I think about Gnome 3 - maybe good for
> PADs, but tedious for power desktop users with many installed and
> simultaneously running apps.
> Golden Gnome 2!
Gnome 2 is now offically dead.
Now, back to what I said earlier. YOU, the Linux user, have a CHOICE
of desktop/window managers. YOU should avail yourself of this
feature. If you want to 'resurect' Gnome2, you are more than welcome
to. It is after all, GPL/LGPL licensed and you should be free to spin
off whatever you want. However, do not expect the Gnome support team
to help in your efforts.
For all concerned: The goal behind some of the moves you folks see in
desktops is to move more users to Linux vice 'that other stuff'. This
means making things familiar to those folks. I really would like for
the old projects to be continued for us older 'power users' and new
desktops to be introduced for those who need/desire those features. I
did not like what happened when Windows95 introduced the 'Start'
button feature. Over the years, I grew used to this. I still think
that the idea is 'stupid' but I now understand why this happened. And
I was and remain a command line power guru.
James McKenzie
I agree with you that Gnome2 is dead but someone has to explain why a
feature like holding the ALT key is necessary to power off in the User
Menu. It seems to me there was room in the original list for a Power off
option.
I think that there is general agreement among the majority of F15 users
other than the Gnome developers that there are aspects of Gnome3 that
are just plain screwy.
--
=======================================================================
A gift of a flower will soon be made to you.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
12:44 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 09:54 -0500, Mike Chambers sent:
> Without intending a flamewar
Hmmph... Then goes ahead and does something that's likely to do so.
Statements, like that, are similar to: With all due respect...
And: I don't mean to be critical, but...
Anyway, this argument has already been done and dusted on this list,
about two weeks ago.
One, as a Linux user you have a VARIETY of desktops to select from.
GNOME is just one of them.
Two, Windows7/8 is a clone of the MacOSX Aqua desktop's look and feel.
Apple has agreed not to sue Microsoft because of an earlier agreement
and U.S. Federal court case.
Three. Who actually cares what anyone thinks at this point about
Windows. This is a Linux distribution mailing list. Let's keep it
that way.
In other words, let's close the subject and let this thing die. (I
know, eat your own words, but that is a summation of the previous
discusssion.)
James
3:39 a.m.
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
What irritates me, and others, was that we found Gnome 2 to be just
about what we wanted, in a myriad of ways. But Gnome 3 is just too
different that we now need to find something else that is how Gnome 2
used to be. Or, jumping distros to one of the long-term ones, that
still uses Gnome 2, and doesn't do major package updates within its
lifespan.
We're back to finding the "least objectionable" out of several choices.
Which doesn't bode well for software design, in general, when that's
your method of choosing something, rather than looking for "the best."
Unfortunately, that seems to be par for the course.
I see the sense in pushing the boundaries for high end computing. I
don't see the sense in making low end computing require high end
hardware. What's low end computing? Email, web browsing, not playing
video games. It's just gross inefficiency to require a 4 GHz computer
to do that.
This is similar to what i tried to say on gnome-shell mailing list, if
you want take a look; also i appreciated that someone other noticed
the similarities between gnome-shell and ipad-tablet devices, and how
it is not very comfortable:
This is exactly one what I think about Gnome 3 - maybe good for
PADs, but tedious for power desktop users with many installed and
simultaneously running apps.
Golden Gnome 2!
Franta Hanzlik
if you want take a look to recent gnome-shell "gnome and android"
thread http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-July/msg00108.html
Daniele
3:07 a.m.
On 07/13/2011 08:54 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:04:12 +0000 (UTC)
JB wrote:
> Some of these Ubuntu and Unity frustrated users are so clueless that they seek
> a remedy by wanting to move to Fedora ...
> There are some wolves waiting for them: GNOME 3, systemd, ... :-)
Have you tried Unity?
Yes, I did.
I didn't think it was possible to make
a more absurd user interface than Gnome 3 right up until
I tried Unity, then Gnome 3 suddenly looked like sheer
genius in comparison.
IMO, unity and Gnome 3 have both pros and cons in details, while sharing
the same absurd mindset overall - A choice between "pest or colera", as
we say in German.
Anyway, on my netbook, unity appears to be less unusable as Gnome 3 to
me. On desktops, I would have to lie to find any of them compelling.
Ralf
12:32 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 09:54 -0500, Mike Chambers sent:
Without intending a flamewar
Hmmph... Then goes ahead and does something that's likely to do so.
Statements, like that, are similar to: With all due respect...
And: I don't mean to be critical, but...
Anyway, this argument has already been done and dusted on this list,
about two weeks ago.
the linked article[1] is not interesting or unique in its blatant
criticism of the Windows 8 interface, but it is interesting that the
author sees the Windows 8 interface as a chance for Linux to get the
upper hand on the desktop:
I don't... They all (Linux too) seem to be heading for being some sort
of iPad clone. Being all the more inappropriate for trying to use a
touch-screen type of interface, when you don't have a touch-screen.
They're also being painful as far as multi-tasking is concerned.
Wacking great big oversized GUIs for things, so you can't use two or
three applications side by side. You have to window shuffle.
Starting things from the icons on the desktop background, so you have to
get your windows out of the way to get to the icons. Having to search
for your program, because there isn't a structured menu (either one
that's categorised, or one that doesn't keep re-arranging the order that
things and jumbled together).
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
2:36 a.m.
Tom H <tomh0665 <at> gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tom Horsley <horsley1953 <at> gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:04:12 +0000 (UTC)
> JB wrote:
>>
>> Some of these Ubuntu and Unity frustrated users are so clueless that they
>> seek a remedy by wanting to move to Fedora ...
>> There are some wolves waiting for them: GNOME 3, systemd, ...
>
> Have you tried Unity? I didn't think it was possible to make
> a more absurd user interface than Gnome 3 right up until
> I tried Unity, then Gnome 3 suddenly looked like sheer
> genius in comparison.
GNOME Shell and Unity seem very similar - and equally good - to me!
Btw, I always wanted to ask you about it ...
Are you, Tom Horsley and Tom H, the same guys, but just very playful with us
by always standing on the opposite sides of the issue ? :-)
JB
1:01 a.m.
Tim wrote:
I don't... They all (Linux too) seem to be heading for being
some sort
of iPad clone. Being all the more inappropriate for trying to use a
touch-screen type of interface, when you don't have a touch-screen.
They're also being painful as far as multi-tasking is concerned.
Wacking great big oversized GUIs for things, so you can't use two or
three applications side by side. You have to window shuffle.
Starting things from the icons on the desktop background, so you have to
get your windows out of the way to get to the icons. Having to search
for your program, because there isn't a structured menu (either one
that's categorised, or one that doesn't keep re-arranging the order that
things and jumbled together).
This is exactly one what I think about Gnome 3 - maybe good for
PADs, but tedious for power desktop users with many installed and
simultaneously running apps.
Golden Gnome 2!
Franta Hanzlik
8:47 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tom Horsley <horsley1953(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:04:12 +0000 (UTC)
JB wrote:
>
> Some of these Ubuntu and Unity frustrated users are so clueless that they seek
> a remedy by wanting to move to Fedora ...
> There are some wolves waiting for them: GNOME 3, systemd, ... :-)
Have you tried Unity? I didn't think it was possible to make
a more absurd user interface than Gnome 3 right up until
I tried Unity, then Gnome 3 suddenly looked like sheer
genius in comparison.
GNOME Shell and Unity seem very similar - and equally good - to me!
8:45 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM, James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Tim
<ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 09:54 -0500, Mike Chambers sent:
>>
>> Without intending a flamewar
>
> Hmmph... Then goes ahead and does something that's likely to do so.
> Statements, like that, are similar to: With all due respect...
> And: I don't mean to be critical, but...
>
> Anyway, this argument has already been done and dusted on this list,
> about two weeks ago.
One, as a Linux user you have a VARIETY of desktops to select from.
GNOME is just one of them.
True but GNOME is the Fedora default; that's why Fedora's GNOME
edition's called "Fedora 15 Desktop Edition" and the other DEs are
"spins".
http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options#desktops
Two, Windows7/8 is a clone of the MacOSX Aqua desktop's look and
feel.
Apple has agreed not to sue Microsoft because of an earlier agreement
and U.S. Federal court case.
Three. Who actually cares what anyone thinks at this point about
Windows. This is a Linux distribution mailing list. Let's keep it
that way.
In other words, let's close the subject and let this thing die. (I
know, eat your own words, but that is a summation of the previous
discusssion.)
I'd understand your logic if the OP'd asked how to do this or that on
Windows. But some people may be interested in comparing Linux with
other OSs, especially since OS X, Windows, GNOME Shell, and Unity are
all converging towards an OSX+iOS look and feel.
11:04 a.m.
Mike Chambers <mike <at> miketc.net> writes:
...
Now that F15 has had a few weeks of heavy use, and people have either
adapted to the new interface or adopted a permanently frustrated
attitude toward it, I'm curious the general feeling. (Sorry, my English
is giving out -- I think this last sentence may be weird.)
...
You may test the "gemeral feeling" e.g. at a popular site like Distrowatch.com
.
See Ditrowatch's Weekly news, go to bottom and see/expand Reader Comments
section, scan page for "gnome" and "unity" (they are in the same
category of
experimentation).
Start with last one, and see also some back editions:
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20110711
Some of these Ubuntu and Unity frustrated users are so clueless that they seek
a remedy by wanting to move to Fedora ...
There are some wolves waiting for them: GNOME 3, systemd, ... :-)
This is hilarious !
JB
10:37 a.m.
On 13/07/11 15:39, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
<snipped>
Is he right and we're moving badly in the wrong direction (as in, an
interface with a more traditional GUI feel would be a big winner?) or is
competing with a similar look-and-feel as the default while providing
lots of traditional-feeling alternatives a winning attitude?
Who cares?
-10 for interest value.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
7:53 p.m.
New subject: Gnome 3 ~ Windows 8? => choosing the fedora desktop
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 20:16 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
Ok then - so then the debate here should not be about gnome 3
missing
features - we all agree - that should be an upstream discussion.
The discussion should turn to what the default desktop should be - in
the past it was gnome 2 - gnome 2 is dead and we now have 4 desktop
managers to choose among (gnome 3 being just one).
So - lets choose the default desktop manager for fedora from among:
Gnome 3
KDE
XFCE
LXDE
? Other?
How do we go about changing from gnome 2 to one of the above- since
gnome 3 is not gnome 2 it should be on equal footing from above list -
should this be by a vote on a website - discussion - fesco - what?
What is the best mechanism for the fedora community to choose the
default desktop?
May the best desktop win :-)
This is a much more interesting way of framing the discussion as regards
Fedora. Gnome 3 =! Gnome 2, therefore why give any special consideration
to Gnome 3 over more well defined projects which predate it? And since
we are discussing defaults, the option to use another DM is not a way
out here.
I think we are living with a cultural assumption that Gnome would be the
default without really considering that Gnome as we knew is gone,
completely. Put another way, if Gnome 3 were called something else it is
perhaps less likely that it would remain the default.
This is not so different from the current BTRFS debate. ext2/3 is not
ext4, which is not BTRFS, but if BTRFS were called "ext5" people would
worry over it a lot less.
Perhaps there is a general sense that we've put so much into the Gnome
community since the switch from KDE that considering an alternative to
it feels bad. Someone on here has a great .sig along the lines of "No
matter how far you've gone down the road, turn back." Old proverbs are
usually worth some contemplation.
On the other hand, perhaps Gnome 3 embodies such a radically better
technical approach that interface silliness is just that -- mere
silliness which can be easily adjusted -- but the underlying base is so
solid and logical that people who are really familiar with it are just
enduring the arguments for now while they prepare Good Things. I
consider this to be fairly likely -- though that doesn't help not scare
desktop users away in the meantime.
Gnome 2, were it to remain alive in some form, would require a great
deal of critical Single Architect cleanup and refactoring. Obviously
that was not considered to be worth the effort (which is interesting,
considering the history of nixy development and of X in general, and the
broad acceptance of Gnome 2 as a platform standard).
-Iwao
4719
days inactive
4723
days old
31 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Aaron Konstam -
Daniele Guerrieri -
Frank Murphy -
Franta Hanzlík -
Genes MailLists -
Heinz Diehl -
James McKenzie -
JB -
Joe Zeff -
Mike Chambers -
Ralf Corsepius -
Steve Lindemann -
Tim -
Tom H -
Tom Horsley -
夜神 岩男