Gnome Shell

Matthias Clasen mclasen at
Fri Jan 28 15:07:43 UTC 2011

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.

More information about the desktop mailing list