Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 65

Thread: The 2012 GNOME User Survey Begins, Take It Now

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElderSnake View Post
    after a error screen that is as useful as most Windows error messages (as in, not very)
    Not one to quote myself... but apparently these days Windows is actually a bit more informative than even Gnome-Shell and gives you an error keyword to at least search online with http://i.imgur.com/lk57d.jpg

    Although the restarting thing is pretty drastic lol.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElderSnake View Post
    Hello random GNOME dev? Hehe.
    If time permitted, that would likely be true. Unfortunately, it is not.

    Anyway for me, and it seems many others, it's more the "GNOME brand" and "shaping the user experience"... kind of thing they keep spouting. I'm sure for some this seems like a great vision but it doesn't feel right. To me. But hey, that's why I use KDE nowadays. I'm just giving my views.
    I have no problem with people disagreeing. It's the bitching and name calling that ticks me off. If their vision does not fit yours (people in general, not you in particular) then switch to something else. I was a hardcore Ubuntu-user for quite a few years. But since I felt they were going in the wrong direction, I switched to Fedora a few releases ago. And that was the end of that.

    But why? For example in KDE, if Plasma desktop crashes, it restarts itself and everything else is still running just fine. So, minor annoyance to the user, but everything still intact.
    Any time something goes boom in Gnome-Shell, in my experience, after a error screen that is as useful as most Windows error messages (as in, not very) you end up back at the login manager and have to start again.

    Also I actually don't mind Unity when its working well. But it's a concern to me why someone would build a desktop into a, at times, fragile accelerated environment when instead you could build the desktop itself and then add the compositing integration.
    GS/Mutter have been very stable to me, so I have not seen that error message. I am just saying that I don't see it as a problem that software builds on other software. All software on my machine is tied to some other piece of software. If anything lower in the chain falls over, everything on top of it will obviously do too. GS sitting on top of Mutter is really no different than all environments sitting on top of X, which sits on top of the kernel, and so on.
    Modularity is of course nice when it makes sense. If it is trivial to make something modular, then go ahead. Often, it is not, so unless you have good reasons to make your software modular, the problems are likely to be bigger than the benefits. Since I can think of zero benefits to GNOME to have GS running on anything other than Mutter, I can see why they did as they did.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElderSnake View Post
    [...]
    Anyway for me, and it seems many others, it's more the "GNOME brand" and "shaping the user experience"... kind of thing they keep spouting. I'm sure for some this seems like a great vision but it doesn't feel right. To me. But hey, that's why I use KDE nowadays. I'm just giving my views.
    [...]
    if their policy of "shaping the user experience" is so strict like your pretending it to be, why did they even work on extension support for gnome3? This doesn't make any sense. The configurability of gnome 2 is actually considerable worse than it is in Gnome 3.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    I also found this extension a few days ago. It is really helpful. Other extensions I like: Wikipedia Search Provider, Pomodoro, system-monitor

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrin View Post
    if their policy of "shaping the user experience" is so strict like your pretending it to be, why did they even work on extension support for gnome3? This doesn't make any sense. The configurability of gnome 2 is actually considerable worse than it is in Gnome 3.
    Even I'm a bit confused by that one. From what I've seen from some of their main devs, they really don't LIKE the fact there are extensions to change themes and just generally change the shell etc.

    I can only think it's there to appease the masses but I believe, without trawling every single mailing list, they are a tad conflicted by it internally.

    For example this quote by Allan Day:

    Facilitating the unrestricted use of extensions and themes by end users seems contrary to the central tenets of the GNOME 3 design. We’ve fought long and hard to give GNOME 3 a consistent visual appearance, to make it synonymous with a single user experience and to ensure that that experience is of a consistently high quality. A general purpose extensions and themes distribution system seems to threaten much of that.
    And

    Quote Originally Posted by William Jon McCann
    I agree with Allan. I am really concerned about this effort to encourage and sanction themes and extensions.

    In addition to the things Allan mentioned in the preceding mails, I think there are a few other issues to consider.

    1. We rely on enthusiasts for testing
    2. We rely on enthusiasts for building our brand

    I think it is clearly detrimental to both to have more fragmentation and reshaping, recoloring, and replacing the user experience – especially in this critically important group of early adopters.

    The issue is not whether extensions may be useful. The issue is whether they will be harmful to our larger goals.

    If we aren’t careful they will be. I agree with Allan that, if we insist on going through with this idea, we at least have a few places in the design that remain unchanged. I think that themes should notbe included, that the top bar should not be changed, and that the overview should not be fundamentally altered.
    Which may be why the Theme Extension always seems rather broken..hmm. Not only broken extensions, but adding a decent amount of extensions, to me, it seems like the Shell gets slower/choppier. Whether this is a Javascript thing or what I don't know.

    Of course KDE4 took quite some time to get more efficient and stable so that could be a similar thing here.

    It's quite okay if people like Gnome 3, indeed they are probably the audience Gnome are targeting. But the sheer bashing and exodus of the Gnome desktop suggests that not all is well and they have alienated a great number of their original users.

    This is a good article to read over, including the quotes http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/...ing-in-threes/
    Last edited by ElderSnake; 11-18-2012 at 03:55 PM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    Its different enough that it should have been spun off into a separate, optional project. I don't like it for the same reasons I don't like LXDE and XFCE.
    I'm not disputing that it's different - I'm disputing the claim that it represents "wholesale changing the UI paradigm". Because it really doesn't.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    Add shutdown / restart / suspend options <<-- this comes in 3.6 but we lose the logout option

    Add support for tiled window management <<-- this is something I miss

    Other than that, Gnome 3 is great
    Actually, the menu item I miss most is Hibernate. My elderly netbook *can* suspend, but since the battery life is almost non-existent, suspend isn't all that useful - the battery will probably still be dead by the time I switch it on again. Hibernating it is much more useful to me, and works fine on the hardware. I have extensions to add it back, but I'd rather do without them.

    As for tiling, it's not something I care much for, but Shell *does* at least have minimal support for splitting the screen between two windows...

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kigurai View Post
    I have no problem with people disagreeing. It's the bitching and name calling that ticks me off. If their vision does not fit yours (people in general, not you in particular) then switch to something else. I was a hardcore Ubuntu-user for quite a few years. But since I felt they were going in the wrong direction, I switched to Fedora a few releases ago. And that was the end of that.
    Likewise. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Gnome guys, but the amount of nastiness and abuse directed their way is really depressing.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11

    Default

    09. If you could change three things in GNOME, what would they be?
    [...]

    The options given in 09 are very skewed towards a
    particular vocal minority of the Linux community. This is what i would
    like to change:
    1) more content apps (they're apparently in the making)
    2) application sandboxing
    3) better handling of system resources (think moving from gnome-session to a systemd powered session that starts apps in cgroups, that you do some resource management magic on. This to make it possible to do heavy duty work in the background while still watching a movie for example)

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    49

    Default

    It was never properly explained to me why I had to have a 2ft long panel on the screen, and the only useful thing I'm allowed on it is a clock right smack dab in the center.

    I have a 27" monitor, I want my desktop to treat it like a monitor... not a 27" phone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •