Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 159

Thread: GNOME Playing Around With New Middle-Click Action

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    282

    Default

    And more generally, what about clipboard management in wayland ?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Getting kind of sick how every time gnome makes any kind of change its just 'ZOMG GNOME IS WORSE THAN HITLER EVERY CHANGE THEY MAKE IS WRONG AND THE DEVELOPERS DONT CARE ABOUT ANYONE'

    so much hyperbole I don't see this change as a big deal at all, it could potentially be interesting, I'd have to wait and see how they'd implement it before forming a proper opinion.

    Personally I really like gnome-shell and don't think it deserves all the hate. If you don't like it then you aren't forced to use gnome. Gnome 2 was also a very simple and clean desktop with limited options, which is what many people liked about it compared to the comparatively convoluted kde, I don't get how some people seem to think this is a new thing with gnome 3...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bwat47 View Post
    Getting kind of sick how every time gnome makes any kind of change its just 'ZOMG GNOME IS WORSE THAN HITLER EVERY CHANGE THEY MAKE IS WRONG AND THE DEVELOPERS DONT CARE ABOUT ANYONE'

    so much hyperbole I don't see this change as a big deal at all, it could potentially be interesting, I'd have to wait and see how they'd implement it before forming a proper opinion.

    Personally I really like gnome-shell and don't think it deserves all the hate. If you don't like it then you aren't forced to use gnome. Gnome 2 was also a very simple and clean desktop with limited options, which is what many people liked about it compared to the comparatively convoluted kde, I don't get how some people seem to think this is a new thing with gnome 3...
    The problem is while gnome 2 was relatively simple and straight-forward, it had more options than windows but less options than KDE. It was easy to drastically change it's appearance and functionality and up until the last half year of it's life, most things you'd care about changing were accessible in an easy-to-use GUI. GNOME now is incredibly locked down with very little customization of any kind, with many standard features being completely missing, it's considerably more bloated than before, and less productive to use. I personally think it's a nice interface but it's not ideal for experienced linux users.

    The problem with gnome 3 is the same problem as Windows RT - they're not bad platforms but the developers stuck with an old name that people trust. Windows RT doesn't run programs designed for Windows, and gnome 3 doesn't look or act like it's predecessors at all. Also, both Windows RT and gnome 3 are clearly touch-screen oriented. If they just didn't call it gnome, it wouldn't receive so much hate. Linux is all about change and alternative solutions, but it doesn't FEEL like an alternative when the software collection you used to like has an identity so different you feel uncomfortable - kinda like Michael Jackson.
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 08-26-2013 at 11:19 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    The problem is while gnome 2 was relatively simple and straight-forward, it had more options than windows but less options than KDE. It was easy to drastically change it's appearance and functionality and up until the last half year of it's life, most things you'd care about changing were accessible in an easy-to-use GUI. GNOME now is incredibly locked down with very little customization of any kind, with many standard features being completely missing, it's considerably more bloated than before, and less productive to use. I personally think it's a nice interface but it's not ideal for experienced linux users.

    The problem with gnome 3 is the same problem as Windows RT - they're not bad platforms but the developers stuck with an old name that people trust. Windows RT doesn't run programs designed for Windows, and gnome 3 doesn't look or act like it's predecessors at all. Also, both Windows RT and gnome 3 are clearly touch-screen oriented. If they just didn't call it gnome, it wouldn't receive so much hate. Linux is all about change and alternative solutions, but it doesn't FEEL like an alternative when the software collection you used to like has an identity so different you feel uncomfortable - kinda like Michael Jackson.
    Gnome 3 is not "less customizable" than gnome 2. It does have less built in preferences, but it is designed in a way that actually makes it far more customizable than gnome 2 due to its support for extensions. People tend to greatly exaggerate gnome 3's "lack of customization".

    The most important "missing options" are available in gnome-tweak-tool (such as font settings). I agree font settings should be available somewhere in the normal preferences, but its silly how some people totally disregard the tweak tool because its not the "regular preferences" or such similar silly arguments. The tweak tool is available in the repos for every distro that offers gnome 3 and is very easy to use (and I hear its got a nice redesign for gnome 3.10). I didn't find it any harder to change themes and font settings in gnome 3 than I did in gnome 2, and it actually takes me longer to change font settings in KDE because it has *too many* font settings (I have to change the font for general, fixed width, small, toolbar, menu, window title, taskbar, desktop) and I have to change them all if I want a consistent font, and then I have to go in and change the clock widgets font because for some reason it doesn't follow the kcm's font settings. In gnome-tweak-tool there's just 4 font settings (general, document, mono, window) that I have to change, much quicker for me to change my font .
    Last edited by bwat47; 08-26-2013 at 11:35 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    The problem is while gnome 2 was relatively simple and straight-forward, it had more options than windows but less options than KDE. It was easy to drastically change it's appearance and functionality and up until the last half year of it's life, most things you'd care about changing were accessible in an easy-to-use GUI. GNOME now is incredibly locked down with very little customization of any kind, with many standard features being completely missing, it's considerably more bloated than before, and less productive to use. I personally think it's a nice interface but it's not ideal for experienced linux users.

    The problem with gnome 3 is the same problem as Windows RT - they're not bad platforms but the developers stuck with an old name that people trust. Windows RT doesn't run programs designed for Windows, and gnome 3 doesn't look or act like it's predecessors at all. Also, both Windows RT and gnome 3 are clearly touch-screen oriented. If they just didn't call it gnome, it wouldn't receive so much hate. Linux is all about change and alternative solutions, but it doesn't FEEL like an alternative when the software collection you used to like has an identity so different you feel uncomfortable - kinda like Michael Jackson.
    That's funny as hell If it makes you feel as uncomfortable as MJ makes me feel, then there are some serious problems.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    89

    Default

    I like the idea of them toying around with new functions - I would like to be able to bind them to a mouse4 or mouse5 though. Keep middle mouse the way it is. The right click button is application controlled, I'm guessing whatever they're planning on doing here will be universal for all applications so it's quite different than a right click.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bwat47 View Post
    The most important "missing options" are available in gnome-tweak-tool (such as font settings). I agree font settings should be available somewhere in the normal preferences, but its silly how some people totally disregard the tweak tool because its not the "regular preferences" or such similar silly arguments.
    From what I've seen, the tweak tool is also somewhat limiting, and my point is many of the options that are in it are things that gnome should've had to begin with. Note that while I don't see anything functionally wrong with the tweak tool, from a system-wide point of view, it's disorganized. So you might have a dedicated program to change volume or screen resolution settings, but you need to break open tweak tool for other system related things, such as changing the font. This is just simply a very inelegant way of cramming in additional miscellaneous features that shouldn't be missing in the first place. They could've done it like XFCE, where you can download separate configuration tools but they can all be optionally attached to the same settings manager. Then, there could have been an "advanced mode" where you could reveal some of the more risky or complicated features. That way everybody wins and you don't have to rely on misfit tools.

    I didn't find it any harder to change themes and font settings in gnome 3 than I did in gnome 2, and it actually takes me longer to change font settings in KDE because it has *too many* font settings (I have to change the font for general, fixed width, small, toolbar, menu, window title, taskbar, desktop) and I have to change them all if I want a consistent font, and then I have to go in and change the clock widgets font because for some reason it doesn't follow the kcm's font settings. In gnome-tweak-tool there's just 4 font settings (general, document, mono, window) that I have to change, much quicker for me to change my font .
    I'd have to agree that KDE sometimes gets a little too carried away with some settings. I also feel KDE's System Settings program is disorganized, but at least everything is all in 1 place. There are a few things in KDE that I just leave at the defaults because they're too tedious to edit myself. I personally feel XFCE is the only distro that really got everything settings related done right, though I feel KDE has the best features.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash63 View Post
    The right click button is application controlled, I'm guessing whatever they're planning on doing here will be universal for all applications so it's quite different than a right click.
    Unlikely. The implementation of right-click menus is already as universal as it can reasonably be - that is, it's handled *mostly* by the toolkit, whether that be Gtk+, Qt, or something else. Because those menu items need to talk to the widgets to do anything, and the toolkit (or the application, in the case of customised stuff) is where the menu behaviour has to be implemented.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    I never use the middle button for pasting... and I don't use Gnome 3. Why would I care about this topic? Well, I don't. Bye!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    At this stage it's time to declare GNOME and GTK+ anachronisms. Qt is the way to go.

Posting Permissions

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