Agreed. I've been using it on Ubuntu 11.10 at work/home. It's been plenty usable, even on my dual-monitor setup at work after a few tweaks/extensions.
Originally Posted by drag
I have noted that the people who hate Shell are usually the people who shout the loudest, so I feel I should pipe up and say I absolutely love Shell. Been using Linux since Slackware 8, so it's not like I'm particularly new to Linux either. OTOH there's been a resistance in the community ever since the shift towards 'unbreaking' instead of adding options..
Gnome 3 is by far my favorite gui. I've learnt to dislike more traditional desktops like kde and xfce as a result.
I'm sure it doesn't meet everyone's requirements as people have all kinds of workflows but there's huge scope to adapt it to your needs.
There were many constructive comments on Phoronix, LWN and mailing lists. What's the fact gnome shell isn't aiming at Gnome 2 users, but at some not specified target. Now there's Unity, Shell, Cinnamon and the fragmentation was never so high in Linux. Make Gnome Shell to look and behave like Gnome 2 and it will bring many users back.
Originally Posted by nishou
Last edited by kraftman; 03-15-2012 at 12:10 PM.
That argument you mention in the first sentence appeared just after gnome shell was released and it's nothing more than marketing crap. One of the problems with shell is it broke things and removed options same time!
Originally Posted by Rantpaste
This announcement is about *a test day*. Where we test stuff. It is not a 'send your unsolicited opinion about GNOME 3's design into the ether' thread. No-one from the GNOME design team is reading this. There is not a whelk's chance in a supernova that any kind of 'I want you to completely change GNOME's design in way X, Y or Z' post here is going to achieve _anything at all_. You are completely and utterly wasting your time.
I really don't know how else to say it except bluntly, because every other way failed. It's just absurd to hardwire every mention of the word GNOME to 'I don't like the new design and I'm going to repeat my demands for how it be changed'. Even when what's being talked about is nothing to do with the design of GNOME at all.
So again, for the cheap seats: this is a TEST DAY. A TEST DAY. WE TEST THINGS. WE DO NOT FUNDAMENTALLY RE-DESIGN THEM.
If you really, really can't be restrained from complaining about GNOME's design, wouldn't it at least make sense to do it somewhere vaguely appropriate? Like the GNOME design mailing list. Or your blog. Or anywhere at all except messing up the comment thread for an event which has _nothing at all to do with the design of GNOME_.
Really, it's just inappropriate.
allquixotic: I really think you're a long way off base there. I've said this before, and maybe people find it hard to believe, but: Red Hat, as a big evil corporate entity, really doesn't care a whole lot about GNOME. It's the hard truth. You don't need to take my word for it; just follow the money. We famously don't make any money off the desktop, right? Strictly that's not true, but it's true that it forms a very minor part of Red Hat's revenue stream.
Red Hat pays quite a few people to work on GNOME and it has for a long time; this is not really because GNOME forms some sort of crucial strategic interest for Red Hat, but because of RH's general strategy of sponsoring developers on key parts of the F/OSS ecosystem in order to try and keep the whole thing healthy and, yes, get some PR benefits.
There's lots of different categories of 'people who work for Red Hat', really. Some people come into a category you could obviously see as a straightforward 'Red Hat needs this coding work done to make money so Red Hat is going to hire people to write this code, and tell them what to code'. There are definitely those people. But, perhaps oddly enough, those who seem to be courting all the controversy these days - the GNOME developers, insofar as some of them are paid by Red Hat, and people like Lennart - _aren't_ in that category. They're much more in the 'sponsored developers' category, where RH just goes out and finds people who are already doing significant work in F/OSS and gives them a paycheck to keep doing it. The GNOME 3 design isn't some kind of Red Hat corporate mandate that's part of our sekrit long term plan. It really isn't. It's just what the GNOME developers and designers - who are principally GNOME developers and designers, whoever signs their paycheck - genuinely believe their desktop ought to look like. Red Hat as a big evil corporate entity, quite honestly, doesn't give much of a toss. Ditto all Lennart's Big Ideas. Frankly, half of them give people who spend all their time working on RHEL, dressed in suits, conniptions. They're not part of our Big Secret Masterplan, they're just Lennart's firework factory brain going off again.
If you fall into the trap of assuming everyone who's @redhat.com is being directed by a single company-wide grand agenda, you're going to badly misanalyze what happens in RH and Fedora, because that's really not how it works.
I would be using Gnome right now, probably, instead of Xfce if Gnome could still work with Zaphod Mode.
I found Gnome Shell itself to be the most pleasant dual head experience I have had in many ways. That is, if you use the standard xrandr setup. This is one area where the whole unified Activities overview works wonders, when you have several windows dragged on multiple screens.
However, I am a gamer who often runs full screen games, and I like treating my second head as a separate X session. Thus I prefer to use Zaphod Mode, which worked fine with Gnome 2 but does not work with Gnome 3, not even in Fallback mode.
So now I am on Xfce, which has improved considerably over the past few years. It is in many ways superior to Gnome 2 already, and with a little more work I am confident it could be completely.
Kind of off topic, but so is the rest of the thread.
User facing features may be missing
* Removed all, seems that the article is a bit badly targeted. *
allquixotic: as far as cinnamon goes: procedurally, for Fedora, it's just a set of new packages like any other. All the procedure that's required to get new packages into Fedora is to file a review request for each package and have it reviewed. Any packager can review a new package; there are hundreds of packagers, and the majority do not work for Red Hat. It would actually be somewhat difficult for Red Hat to prevent Cinnamon getting into Fedora, assuming for some reason RH wanted to do such a thing.
Cinnamon has been submitted for review by Leigh Scott, who does not work for RH, and is being reviewed by Rahul Sundaram, who also doesn't work for RH. Once the packages pass review they'd land into Fedora. RH would have to do something pretty heavy-handed to prevent that, and it's shown no indication at all of doing anything like that.
The question of whether forks of existing desktops, like Cinnamon, should be considered problematic in some sense was raised as a FESCo (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee) agenda item by Christoph Wickert, who (starting to sense a pattern here...) *also* doesn't work for RH (at least, I don't think we borged him yet). FESCo is currently composed of seven people who work for RH and two who don't (RH would dearly like the numbers to be more balanced, but hilariously enough, the FESCo seats that are *voted for by the community* keep going to people who work for Red Hat, and the seats which are *appointed by Red Hat* keep going to community members...). By a unanimous vote, this shadowy Red Hat cabal...declared that there was no problem at all with desktop forks and they should be treated just like any other package. Clearly, a conspiracy to prevent Cinnamon extends to the very highest levels!
Don't disagree with any of your points but last I checked, I am your colleague still ;-)
Originally Posted by AdamW