GNOME3 and au revoir WAS: systemd: please stop trying to take over the world :)

[Bernd Stramm]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:47:38 -0400
Casey Dahlin <cdahlin at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:32:12PM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > So Gnome Shell is not for a good many of the people who had been
> > using Gnome before that.
> > 
> 
> YES! I don't know why more people don't realize this: GNOME 2 was a
> mediocre interface for a lot of people. It COULD NOT be a good
> interface for the same number of people, and there is NOTHING wrong
> with them pruning their userbase to a subset which they can
> adequately serve.
> 
> > It is not good to counter a technical point with a personal attack,
> > which is what you did.
> > 
> 
> No I didn't.

Sure looked like you did. Perhaps it not done with malice, let's go
with that version.

> 
> > Different workloads require different ways of working. In my case,
> > there is not just one task that requires 100% of my attention.
> > There is one big, long term task that can tolerate short
> > interruptions, and several smaller ones. This is a perfectly normal
> > situation.
> > 
> 
> That doesn't mean GNOME shell did not meet the goal you quoted. It
> means that goal contradicts your own goals. The goal was "let the
> user focus on the current task." You want your focus less singularly
> distributed. Serving you brings them further from, not closer to, the
> goal as stated.

That is actually not what I quoted. It is the part of the quote that
your comment addressed. Here is my quote again:

> >Makes it easy for users to focus on their current task and reduces
> > distraction and interruption   

Gnome3 has a problem with the last one. Selecting a new (or an
additional) application causes a major disruption. The switch to a
different screen takes time, causes the user to re-focus their eyes and
their attention. That's a serious context switch, given that the user
isn't necessarily trying to do anything dramatic.

Perhaps the Gnome3 way of thinking is that calling up an additional
application constitutes starting a new task in the work flow, so that
the big interruption happens anyway. I don't think that is a good
assumption for the design of a DE.

> 
> --CJD



-- 
Bernd Stramm
bernd.stramm at gmail.com