Fedora Proposal To Use Cinnamon Desktop By Default

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TemplarGR

If you don't understand what is a forum, do not participate in one... I am tired of all these politically-correct "if you don't like it don't use it but don't say your opinion" BS...

---

So, do you think it is a good use of a forum to spew hate and (in some cases) disinformation?
I don't think any of us "Gnome-fanbois"(sic!) have anything against a good discussion. The problem is that there is no discussion.
I see very little actual arguments on why GNOME3 is bad. Only a lot of emotional/subjective opinions.
I think I also speak for a lot of GNOME3-users that we are geting kind of tired of hearing that we are only "casual" (read "stupid") users who don't do real work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delgarde

Um, no? You can minimize applications in Shell, even if the button is hidden by default - just right-click the title bar, and minimize. Nor is Shell optimised for single window (though certain Gnome applications are) - for the most part it behaves identically to G2 or KDE. And half the other features you list are common to almost every desktop - the "dock" is something I first recall encountering in CDE years ago, the "app draw" is pretty much the same thing as the Windows start button, and the "notifications area" is just a variation on the standard system tray.

Further, it's a hugely keyboard-optimised interface, much more so than it's predecessor. Yes, parts of it are probably quite usable with a touch screen, but not really on a keyboard-less device like a tablet. If aimed at touch devices at all, it's at the same laptop hardware that's becoming common post-Windows8 - i.e with touch support supplementing the conventional desktop.

---

By your rationale we must determine that there is nothing substantively different between any classic desktop and Android/iOS, since they all share the same basic elements. Except that isn't true, there is a large functional and look a feel difference between a mobile OS and a desktop OS. A mobile OS, due to having to fit on small form factors, tend to use the entire screen, while desktops use parts of a larger screen. In gnome shell the task bar is moved from part of the desktop screen to an overlay that uses the entire screen. The App Drawer is a mode change within the overlay that takes up the entire screen, not a collapsible menu such as on the desktop. This is what Android/iOS do. Minimize is hidden. You have to switch to overview to switch applications, like in Android. Indeed, many of the responses here have claimed the right method for using gnome shell is not to minimize but just open the app again.

We don't have to argue, we can look at some of the design considerations for Gnome Shell from 2009: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...8IIBIY1AkePikA

Among a larger list of goals and rationale you will find:

[QUOTE]
Manage Complexity and Encourage Flexibility
- Allow the experience to adapt to the usage
- Work as well for the user that uses only two applications and the one that uses tens on
multiple workspaces
- Core concepts should scale to capabilities of devices other than "desktop" computers
- Must be usable with a touch or single button input device
- Must be usable in when rotated or resized
[Quote]

Mobile/touch computing was a core design principle from the beginning of the project, and it shows in the result. This is good but their mistake was trying to unify the experience instead of taking a two prong approach. Now the interface isn't optimized for either mobile or a workstation.

OK I haven't read the entire thread so maybe someone else mentioned this but, if Gnome looses it's support from major distributions out there (Ubuntu, Mint and for the sake of the argument let's say Fedora) how do you think that will reflect on Gnome development and what would become of "DE's" that are based on Gnome such as Cinnamon and Unity. THIS is why I wasn't too keen on distro's having their own DE's/WM. And right now, if someone asked me what DE/Distro should I use for deployment in enterprise enviroment I wouldn't know what to say, Xfce probably on Ubuntu or Fedora or Debian with Gnome 2.

Xfce dev's will profit from all of this, their code base is relatively small and easy to maintain, they don't rush the features in and you are more or less certain that what you are using today won't change in the near future that much. And they are light on the hardware requirements wich is very important in the enterprise segment.

I, for one, don't like GS or G3 for that matter, but nevertheless I think that Fedora shouldn't change anything and continue to ship G3 as a default desktop enviroment and to show strong support for it's respins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TemplarGR

Arch Linux stats don't mean much. I have installed Gnome AND KDE but currently i am using Cinnamon which , correct me if i am wrong, isn't counted in those stats as it is in AUR at the moment.

I am using Cinnamon although i prefer KDE's UI. The reason for not using it is that for some reason Kwin stalls when there is serious HD activity and sometimes completely freezes. In other WM i don't face this issue.

---

If you look in the last category it's its counted there. Cinnamon has 2.3% installation base in there stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kigurai

So, do you think it is a good use of a forum to spew hate and (in some cases) disinformation?
I don't think any of us "Gnome-fanbois"(sic!) have anything against a good discussion. The problem is that there is no discussion.
I see very little actual arguments on why GNOME3 is bad. Only a lot of emotional/subjective opinions.
I think I also speak for a lot of GNOME3-users that we are geting kind of tired of hearing that we are only "casual" (read "stupid") users who don't do real work.

---

It doesn't even have a goddamn taskbar. Here is a reason. That I've stated hundreds of times. And don't give me yet again the alt-tab or going to that corner to change between applications. A taskbar is good and necessary. They removed it -> they are evil and try to fuck my workflow -> fuck them I'm not using it -> complain on forums hoping if we reach critical mass the idiots will listen to the users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thalaric

You have to switch to overview to switch applications, like in Android. Indeed, many of the responses here have claimed the right method for using gnome shell is not to minimize but just open the app again.

---

What's the use case here? If I have multiple apps open (which I usually do) I either use Alt-tab or Super->Overview->click. Not much different from what I do in Windows or GNOME2.
If there is an app that I need to have opened, but I don't want to be shown, I put it on another workspace. Easier to find than using minimize, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Mobile/touch computing was a core design principle from the beginning of the project, and it shows in the result. This is good but their mistake was trying to unify the experience instead of taking a two prong approach. Now the interface isn't optimized for either mobile or a workstation.

---

Whether something is optimized or not is probably hard to measure. I feel that G3 is just as optimized as G2 though. I do things differently, but not slower or worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BO$$

It doesn't even have a goddamn taskbar. Here is a reason. That I've stated hundreds of times. And don't give me yet again the alt-tab or going to that corner to change between applications. A taskbar is good and necessary. They removed it -> they are evil and try to fuck my workflow -> fuck them I'm not using it -> complain on forums hoping if we reach critical mass the idiots will listen to the users.

---

I don't miss the taskbar at all. I find clicking Super and then a big window works just as well (or better?) than trying to click a small area at the bottom of the screen. Especially when I am using a touchpad.
Also, I kind of like freeing up vertical space :)
Not sure why everyone is so obsessed with the hot corner either. Use the keyboard dude :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kigurai

I see very little actual arguments on why GNOME3 is bad. Only a lot of emotional/subjective opinions.

---

How many actualy arguments do you see on why it is good?

Since you were replying to me earlier, I explicitly welcome choice -- as long as the big players cooperate on common desktop infrastructure so things interoperate. However, when people actually argue that there is only one way to use a computer and running anything else is wrong (like the guy I was replying to earlier), then these people have lost all sense of reality.

Once a desktop stops doing what people need it to do, people will not spend years changing their habits, people will flock to software which lets them do what they want. KDE learned and has listened to people's complaints after early KDE 4 versions removed functionality, and it changed for the better as a result. Now it seems like GNOME will have to learn the same lesson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TemplarGR

The Gnome Shell faces legitimate criticism but as is usual with the Gnome mentality, it is their way or the highway. The funny part is that GNOME's mentality was tolerated for so much time because it was the one Ubuntu used, and because Gnome 2 worked both for casual and productive uses. Now that there are other alternatives and GNOME Shell hinders the productive user, people are fleeing in large numbers. Soon the Shell will be used only by its developers and its sworn fanboys, if this trend continues. There is hope though, since in 3.8 the Classic mode will return. What have the fanboys to say about THAT? Is it the wrong move? Why GNOME devs waste precious resources to go back in time? Will "progress" be destroyed? What?

---

Do you realize that your post here is internally inconsistent? First you berate Gnome for not taking "legitimate criticism" and for believing it is "their way or the highway" and then you mention GNOME Classic as if it proves your point. Well, sorry to shatter your allusion, but that was created because they heard the criticism and because they took other users opinions on board. This whole argument is bloody redundant. Please, if you have something useful to add, actually contribute feedback to the people developing the classic mode you guys have been wanting for years instead of continuing to perpetuate this childish and vindictive victimization cult you have going on. Is it really so hard to put your ego aside and actually try and build something for once? And you people have the gall of criticize the developers for supposedly having egos...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat

How many actualy arguments do you see on why it is good?

---

There is a ton of blog posts with cool GNOME features. But I think it is common courtesy to specify why you think something is bad if you are trash-talking it.

Quote:

---

Since you were replying to me earlier, I explicitly welcome choice -- as long as the big players cooperate on common desktop infrastructure so things interoperate. However, when people actually argue that there is only one way to use a computer and running anything else is wrong (like the guy I was replying to earlier), then these people have lost all sense of reality.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Once a desktop stops doing what people need it to do, people will not spend years changing their habits, people will flock to software which lets them do what they want. KDE learned and has listened to people's complaints after early KDE 4 versions removed functionality, and it changed for the better as a result. Now it seems like GNOME will have to learn the same lesson.

---

I think it is good that GNOME dares to go in its own direction. Because I like that direction. There are already a ton of more or less similar desktops, so I fail to see why GNOME should "fall in line" here. Since choice seem to be so important for a lot of people, GNOME going in a different direction should be a good thing, right?