Quote Originally Posted by mr_bombastic View Post
This video left me seriously disappointed. I thought "oh, someone from Gnome, at a conference. This will probably be enlightening". Turns out I was wrong. He went on to say Gnome 2 was ok, but that is was "old" and the community wanted to do something new, so keep improving or making incremental changes to 2 was out of the question. That's it. I've heard better reasoning for Gnome 3 reading /. flame wars. Really. He asks the audience if they thought Gnome 3.0 was ready for users. When pretty much everyone disagrees, he says "well, it's a matter of point of view, and I thought it was ready, so there. Myth debunked. Next.". Really, I don't dislike Gnome 3 with passion or anything, but this whole video was so uninformative it's actually amazing. The part about removing features (edit: about 8 minutes in the video) is jaw-dropping. He says it's a myth that they keep removing features because they decide a certain way is best and so they take configurability away from the UI. That's what removing features is, how can he say it's a myth? He's affirming what he's supposedly denying!
I agree with you that some of the "myths" are actually just fact and it would have been better to just offer their rationale for a decision rather than deny reality.

But the presentation seemed to be a little bit "missing the point" in the sense that the criticism is not necessarily with GNOME 3 per se, but rather the shell they've given us which, frankly, doesn't work for some of us. I respect that they have their vision and for some users it's a great shell, but for a lot of us it just doesn't work, it's not simply a superficial appearance thing, and they've lost us.

To pretend that it's all just a myth in our heads is perplexing.

I'm not saying that Win 7 or OS X or Unity or GNOME 2 (gnome-panel) all give us perfect shells but for many of us we can at least balance the usability against the sacrifices and make it work. For some of us GNOME Shell can't do that. At all.