Fedora Proposal To Use Cinnamon Desktop By Default

[bkor]

They don't listen to users and this is also a fact that you even confirmed. So, they're some kind of sect with some strange vision? Ignoring smart critique just to follow some idiotic vision is well... idiotic.

This is a forum, so listening is a bit difficult of course.

However, I am involved in GNOME and I read these forums as well as other sites. I read, reply, try to see what problems people have. Please don't ignore that I do this! :P

[thalaric]

I think you read my reply a bit too quickly, I said a new component, not that it would move to GNOME shell.

Then I fail to see the relevance of your response to my criticism of gnome shell.

[finalzone]

Exactly, Cinnamon makes Gnome3 technology useful again.

So does Gnome Shell. Usefulness depends of users themselves wishing to add functionality through extensions. Cinnamon demonstrated Gnome Shell flexibility which hardly needs to be forked.
Gnome Classic (using well crafted extensions) made Cinnamon moot.

This is a problem with large amounts of windows open, and the traditional fix is application grouping. Personally I prefer it without grouping to save a click since I usually don't have over 10 windows open on each workspace.

You can use shortcut keys to navigate. Having several windows from the same applications: use Alt+`

Faster.

How? Which method?

[thalaric]

So does Gnome Shell. Usefulness depends of users themselves wishing to add functionality through extensions. Cinnamon demonstrated Gnome Shell flexibility which hardly needs to be forked.
Gnome Classic (using well crafted extensions) made Cinnamon moot.

Linux Mint started with gnome shell extensions. MGSE was abandoned in favor of something that would be less limiting.

[bkor]

Then I fail to see the relevance of your response to my criticism of gnome shell.

I quoted exactly what I responded to, namely that Nautilus doesn't allow for rendering background anymore. Suggest to actually read, not be so aggressive towards me.

[thalaric]

Take a deep breath and read my post again.
I answered intellivision about something like krunner - supposedly used in a keyboard centered workflow - vs launching applications via a full screen launcher. My answer is that a properly done full screen launcher is as good as a top bar for such job. The same is true of gnome-do and can be true of searchable menu systems like in cinnamon or other environments.
I did not write anything about Gnome shell being specifically faster than any of the other good options, nor did I set up any straw man.
What I did say is that the design of the application launcher as a full screen interface makes sense for an intrinsically disrupting operation such as starting a new application. On the other hand someone finds gnome shell's overview too distracting as a task switcher. I can't really say how much of that is simply the habit of having a task bar, but I'm glad they are getting one with official support in 3.8
I don't know who you're assigning to your mythical "you people" group, but you're barking under the wrong tree here. I'm simply interested in UI design, whatever OS and DE I can find useful ideas in.

Apologies. I did not realize that Krunner was a keyboard launcher like Gnome Do, so I didn't realize the context of your response. I thought it was an argument redirecting from Gnome Shell's difficult GUI by promoting it's key bindings. My patience for that tactic is getting thin as of late.

[thalaric]

I quoted exactly what I responded to, namely that Nautilus doesn't allow for rendering background anymore. Suggest to actually read, not be so aggressive towards me.

Perhaps you don't understand my original criticism. Gnome Shell does not do anything useful with the desktop nor do they support nautilus controlling the desktop. Whether or not code from nautilus is going to be placed in a different component is irrelevant unless Gnome Shell has plans to use that component. I doubt they do, because putting useful things anywhere but in the overlay does not follow their design strategy.

[movieman]

Usefulness depends of users themselves wishing to add functionality through extensions.

Because the average user is definitely going to sit down and learn to write extensions just to add functionality that the developers refuse to countenance, and then maintain it as future updates break them.

Or they could just dump it and switch to a GUI that's actually useful out of the box, as so many previous Gnome 2 users have done.

[finalzone]

Because the average user is definitely going to sit down and learn to write extensions just to add functionality that the developers refuse to countenance, and then maintain it as future updates break them.

The word "average user" is overly abused as a cloak for the lack of active participation from those spending their time flaming and whining how their holy functionalities are missing.
Many developers have priority to work on core functionality and will including extras one coming from the extensions as demonstrated by the incoming Gnome Classic. The key point is look at the reason of the refusal and find a better way to communicate in a respectful manner.

[yogi_berra]

The word "average user" is overly abused as a cloak for the lack of active participation from those spending their time flaming and whining how their holy functionalities are missing.
Many developers have priority to work on core functionality and will including extras one coming from the extensions as demonstrated by the incoming Gnome Classic. The key point is look at the reason of the refusal and find a better way to communicate in a respectful manner.

Hobbyist mentality aside, if it doesn't contain the functionality that you need out of the box and requires end-user hacking, then it is not worth using.