Fedora Proposal To Use Cinnamon Desktop By Default

[Delgarde]

I have said it many times and i will repeat it: Gnome Shell is not well suited for heavy duty multitasking. This does NOT mean that it is not possible to be used in such a way. Hell, even a pure Console could be used for this if someone really wanted. This simply means that it is not the ideal solution. Gnome Shell is mainly targeted at consumers, not producers.

Stating something many times doesn't make it a fact. And the counterpoint is that some of us *do* find it well suited to doing real work - not just adequate, but optimal.

And I really don't know where this consumers vs producers nonsense comes from - it runs the same content-creation apps as any other Linux desktop...

[Delgarde]

GS supporters all seem act as if each person who complains individually is the only person complaining. You also have the sheer arrogance to assume that we haven't given it a chance. Why do you think this whole issue has created such a stink? It's not just me.

Possibly you're confusing me with one of the other posters, since nowhere in this thread (or any other) have I suggested that opposition to Shell comes from a handful of individuals, nor that those opponents haven't used it.

But yea, the operative word in your post was some. Not majority, not all..

I realise that - that's why I used the word I did. I *know* a lot of people don't like it - but what frustrates me is how many of the antis seem reluctant to accept that they don't represent a totality either. Many statements of "this is unusable" from people who actually mean "...for me".

Your combatant responses show a sheer arrogance and disregard for the preferences of anyone who doesn't like gnome 3. I suggested a reasonable compromise, you dismissed it out of hand and with no reasoning.

Which compromise was that? That's a genuine question - I can't see which post you're referring to. Nor am I disregarding the preferences of those who don't like Shell - I'm objecting to those who seem to have trouble with the idea that I (as a happy Shell user) actually exist.

[Delgarde]

Ok, I get it, interfacing with your keyboard is one way to avoid interacting with GS. Though, if you are using your keyboard for everything then all desktop environments are equal as long as they have key bindings. . Surprisingly, many people only use the keyboard for typing. Try using a mouse for everything (or touch) and you will see it's exactly like Android with some multi-window support bolted on.

It's not that all environments are *equal* if they have decent keybindings - it's more that a desktop that lacks them will immediately be discounted as not fitting my needs. All the other stuff can be important too, but the ability to do almost everything without taking my hands off they keyboard is a real plus. And it's more than just "bindings" - it's that being able to drive the entire Shell with the keyboard means that nothing is more than a few keystrokes away. I do use a mouse where appropriate - web browsing, or apps with drag-drop interfaces - but not much for desktop stuff. It feels clumsy on any desktop, be it navigating Shell, the Windows start menu, or other equivalents.

And I still don't get why you say multi-window support is bolted on. It's not - it's as integral as it is in every other common desktop. The program launcher is a bit different, sure, but when I'm actually using programs rather than starting them, there's very little difference between Shell and it's rivals.

[zxy_thf]

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.

That IS what Gnome 3 haters are doing actually.

In my opinion, haters have already lost the ability to learn new things, and got used to shortcomings of old things.
If Gnome 3 is bad, I felt Gnome 2 is worse. I can't see any reason to stick with Gnome 2.

[Vim_User]

In my opinion, haters have already lost the ability to learn new things, and got used to shortcomings of old things.

And there it is again. I tried Gnome Shell, just to see what all the fuss is about. And I don't like it. Full stop.
And that now indicates that I have lost the ability to learn something new? Where did you get from? In the last three years I learned many DEs and WMs until I came to the point where I have found the one that fits my needs best. It is i3, not Gnome Shell. Because I can make it behave exactly like I want without any restrictions or the need for externally developed extensions. Because it supports my workflow instead of forcing me to a different one.

Now, please tell me: How is that even possible, how have I learned to configure and use i3 most efficiently when I have lost the ability to learn new things because I don't like Gnome Shell? How got I used to the shortcomings of old things when I have searched a long time to find something that has no shortcomings for me?

Clearly, I don't like GS, I must be dumb and unable to learn, not able to use the new shiny thing that has exactly zero advantages for me.

[intellivision]

There is one thing that irks me about both Gnome Shell and Unity as far as DE's go, the fact that you have to stop what you're doing to bring up the global application launcher.
Wouldn't something like KRunner (opens in a little bar on top of the screen) be a far better way to approach this?
Just saying, while they are trying to make launching applications this way faster, the full screen launcher approach isn't the way to go.

[eliac]

There is one thing that irks me about both Gnome Shell and Unity as far as DE's go, the fact that you have to stop what you're doing to bring up the global application launcher.
Wouldn't something like KRunner (opens in a little bar on top of the screen) be a far better way to approach this?
Just saying, while they are trying to make launching applications this way faster, the full screen launcher approach isn't the way to go.

I don't see the point of that. If you're launching a new application then you're presumably going to use it. Thus the focus naturally should go to finding and presenting that application, as it is not a distraction from an ongoing task: the new application becomes - in an overwhelming percentage of the cases - the current central task.
If the full screen launcher is correctly designed, then opening a top bar instead does not speed up the workflow one bit: stop doing whatever I am doing, hit a special key combo, type in a partial name, press enter, wait for new application to show up.
A top bar just looks different and imo worse, as it doesn't underline enough what is really happening workflow-wise.

Now if you have a problem with slow or confusing mode-change animations, then the solution is simply to fix them so that they are understated, quick and not in the way of typing for your application. Ask any UX designer: modal is bad when it is not clear enough in which mode you are, how did you get there, how do you leave that mode. But if modality is needed - and a user has only one set of eyes and one brain - then it should be evidently shown.

[kigurai]

And there it is again. I tried Gnome Shell, just to see what all the fuss is about. And I don't like it. Full stop.
And that now indicates that I have lost the ability to learn something new? Where did you get from? In the last three years I learned many DEs and WMs until I came to the point where I have found the one that fits my needs best. It is i3, not Gnome Shell. Because I can make it behave exactly like I want without any restrictions or the need for externally developed extensions. Because it supports my workflow instead of forcing me to a different one.

Then perhaps you were not the target of his post?

here is one thing that irks me about both Gnome Shell and Unity as far as DE's go, the fact that you have to stop what you're doing to bring up the global application launcher.
Wouldn't something like KRunner (opens in a little bar on top of the screen) be a far better way to approach this?
Just saying, while they are trying to make launching applications this way faster, the full screen launcher approach isn't the way to go.

Starting an application is, regardless of method, always a mental context switch. That the window of your previous task is still open does not really mean that you are able to simultaneously work with it while you are opening the new application.

[Vim_User]

Then perhaps you were not the target of his post?

Well, I don't like Gnome Shell, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone for desktop use (I haven't tried it with touch interface, so can't comment on that) and i think that the Gnome developers are weird at best (actually I have pretty much the same opinion as this guy: http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/...ing-in-threes/)
Doesn't that qualify me as a Gnome Shell hater?

But even if not, there are several simply wrong statements in that guys post that I wanted to point out, beginning with the wide spread but wrong new=better.

[Awesomeness]

Wow thanks, I hadn't quite realised it was THAT bad for gnome 3.
For a DE that used to be #1 with over 40% that IS terrible. Its user base has more than halved

So some users left. Pawlerson's original claim that users prefer Plasma Desktop, Xfce, Unity, and Cinnamon over Gnome 3 was disproved by me nonetheless and the polls are mostly in line with the reasonable assumption that a large quantity of users stick with the default.

Considering that the self-proclaimed “most popular” distributions Ubuntu and Mint did not easily take the #1 and #2 spots for Cinnamon and Unity is a testament to Gnome 3’s popularity. After all, Fedora is the only major distribution that ships Gnome 3 by default and yet no where except the Mint poll Cinnamon is even remotely popular and in the cross-distro Pollator poll Gnome 3 beat Unity slightly.