They are different.
Originally Posted by TemplarGR
Cars have over 100 years of history, and have changed much before their "modern" look.
For Desktop UIs, every major Windows version has visible and invisible improvements.
I think people can enjoy a 15 years old car but cannot bear the incontinent UI of Windows 98, although it is also 15 years old.
See, that's the thing that puzzles me with that particular piece of Shell criticism - that it's a tablet UI, which is absurd. It's an entirely traditional desktop UI, and the only possible basis for that criticism is, as you say, that the task bar is black like the one in iOS or Android. As someone who actually uses both Shell and Android, there is literally no other point of similarity that I can see.
Originally Posted by V!NCENT
openSUSE doesn't actually have a default setting. It has a screen with both KDE and GNOME presented on equal terms, and it's down to the user to select which one to install:
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
According to the discussions, GNOME and KDE users were pretty much in equal halves last time I checked. There are no usage statistics in OBS just yet, but it should be integrated soon enough, so it will be possible to get some harder numbers.
I think that this is something Fedora could use as well. No default option. Have users select what they like.
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.
Originally Posted by thalaric
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Akka
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.
So, just because you have something installed doesn't mean you actually use it or prefer it. I tend to install many packages since i want to be able to have every function available the time i want it, try new things (funny how shell fanbois accuse me of refusing to try) etc...
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?
People really enjoyed the UI of Windows 98 back in the day. It once holded the vast majority of OS market share for a time... If they really couldn't bare it, they wouldn't use it.
Originally Posted by zxy_thf
The reason people can't bare Windows 98 UI TODAY, is simply because it has less eye candy and it was designed with lower resolutions in mind. Its design principles are the same with Windows 7: Start menu, system tray, open windows showing in the middle etc. When you are using Windows 7, 99% of your actions are the same you would be using if you had Windows 98, just with less eye candy and no grouping for open windows.
Switch to another one of 3 major DE and shut up already
What's hilarious is:
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
- GS-haters prefer to use GS and whine instead of switch to Xfce, LXDE or the, praised by glass-plastic-90s-fetishists, KDE. It's easy on Linux to switch to another desktop environment, even to have them installed on one system!
- if they don't use GS, then what's left? They bash it and don't use it?
I can't decide on my own which one is more pathetic. Please, help.
This is a forum. A forum is a place where people gather to say their opinion about a matter. Sometimes they like a thing, sometimes they don't. As long as they provide arguments in the discussion, both are welcome.
Originally Posted by Bucic
A forum isn't a place where everything needs to be written only by people who like a particular subject, and avoid criticism at all costs. If that is what you need, create a GnomeShell-is-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread blog and gather all similar minded people and share your passion for this UI and rejoice!
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?
Originally Posted by TemplarGR
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.
01-26-2013, 06:56 AM
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.
Originally Posted by Delgarde
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:
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
- 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
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.