| |||||||||||||
GNOME Shell, extensions, and controlGNOME Shell, extensions, and controlPosted Jun 18, 2011 22:06 UTC (Sat) by elanthis (guest, #6227)In reply to: GNOME Shell, extensions, and control by rgmoore Parent article: GNOME Shell, extensions, and control
I'm not trying to recruit XFCE users, at least. :) I had never even touched XFCE until about 4 months ago, and only did that because GNOME 3 simply did not work for my needs.
I will attempt to recruit XFCE _developers_ out of anyone who says that forking or contributing "fixes" to GNOME is a good idea, though. Yes, people can contribute to the "Fallback Mode" components, and if you believe that's a better use of your time so be it, but I at least would not contribute to code bases that exist in spite of rather than because of the project's vision. (As in, if Mutter/gnome-panel had the foresight to use a toolkit that didn't demand hardware accelerated GL drivers or if the GNOME predictions about Linux graphics drivers had come true, there wouldn't even be a Fallback Mode; it exists as an official part of GNOME out of necessity, not out of desire.)
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME Shell, extensions, and control Posted Jun 20, 2011 20:33 UTC (Mon) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232) [Link] As in, if Mutter/gnome-panel had the foresight to use a toolkit that didn't demand hardware accelerated GL drivers or if the GNOME predictions about Linux graphics drivers had come true, there wouldn't even be a Fallback Mode; it exists as an official part of GNOME out of necessity, not out of desire. This. I have about 7 computers of various friends/family that I nurse along, most of which run whatever is the current Fedora or Ubuntu. That means they're now saddled with GNOME3. I've yet to see this "GNOME Shell" except in screenshots on the web, because none of these machines can run it. None of these machines are used for gaming or visually intensive stuff; their chances of getting a video upgrade just to run a Desktop is exactly zero. The default install of GNOME 3 in Fedora 15 doesn't include the double handful of packages necessary to make fallback mode anywhere close to as usable as prior GNOMES. While the idea of a fork or running your own builds is intriguing, the sad fact is, with real work to do, most users will have to settle for whatever the leading distributions include plus a couple hours tweaking. From what I've seen of GNOME3's fallback, that leaves a pretty unsatisfying desktop experience. I'm really curious to know how many Fedora 15 or Ubuntu 11.04 boxes out there can't even run GNOME Shell. I'm batting 0 for 7 so far.
GNOME Shell, extensions, and control Posted Jun 20, 2011 21:48 UTC (Mon) by nzjrs (subscriber, #35911) [Link]
I'm batting 5/5 for my family (all 2-5 year old laptops, integrated intel/radeon down to i915/R300). Ubuntu 11.04.
GNOME Shell, extensions, and control Posted Jun 21, 2011 8:21 UTC (Tue) by marcel.oliver (subscriber, #5441) [Link] Same here. I think the biggest mistake Fedora made was disabling any reasonable fallback (Gnome classic with compiz is just so horrible that it does not qualify). I am having problems on both of two machines, one with NV4E grahpics is completely unusable under Gnome shell and unstable under compiz (random crashes), my laptop with Intel graphics (two years old) gets a working Gnome shell, but has a number of killer bugs in dual head mode which make it unusable for professional use. (I filed some bugs and will file some more.)I tested both extensively and concluded that I have to stick with F14 for getting actual work done. I have to say that do like most of the design of Gnome 3, except that the mouse handling seems to be optimized for small screen devices and increasingly breaks down with big screen/multi head setups. But I suppose I can get used to keyboard shortcuts. But why is it necessary to have accelerated graphics to implement this rather simple concept? Is it "we do because we can" (on our fancy new machines)? Nothing seems to be so revolutionary that simple conventional 2D shouldn't be able to handle it. The missing Minimize button is a bit funny. I suppose I could get used to working with the keyboard shortcut (which might be faster in the long run anyway), but I wonder about the logic behind. The overview screen now makes it much nicer to find the right window quickly from a mess of open windows, so it appears to invite an aggressive "leave everything open on one virtual desktop and switch windows when you need" workflow. So a prominent Minimize function would help to keep distracting windows out of sight. So I am not sure which kind of workflow Gnome 3 people were actually thinking of when implementing the new shell, there seems to be some disconnect here. Aesthetically, Gnome 3 on F15 looks like a regression compared to the clean and pleasant desktop of earlier Fedora releases. In particular, font sizes seem too small relative to the surrounding space. In particular, the window title bar seems too big (wasting vertical screen space) while the window frame is so small that it is difficult to grab. Colors look a bit depressed, but maybe it's just me. Also, while I am generally supportive of the strategy that setting good defaults is worth more than a hundred configuration options, I would like to see official support from the Gnome project for keeping focus-follows-mouse alive and supported from within the GUI. It's a mode of working with a long tradition on Unix. Over the years I have stopped bothering about changing many settings from defaults, but focus-follows-mouse is one I always come back to. In fact, I believe that pretty much the only reason for not having focus-follows-mouse is that some users use different operating systems at different times, and the mouse focus strategy is something deep in the subconscious that one would like to be as uniform across machines as possible. But for a user not spoilt by prior expectation, I bet that focus-follows-mouse would come out the preferred choice in direct comparison. So my personal conclusion is that the regressions (the most serious being graphics-driver related) appear fixable. I am worried whether they are fixed on time for F16 in a way that does not introduce new regressions (such as a complete removal of focus-follows-mouse). But for now F15 is not ready for serious use on existing pretty standard hardware. I have been using Fedora since FC1, and this is the first time that, after careful evaluation, I cannot upgrade to the latest version for production use.
GNOME Shell, extensions, and control Posted Jun 21, 2011 11:36 UTC (Tue) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] Oh well; don't exaggerate. My TPR61e, dated 2007, with a typical Intel card, is running Gnome Shell happily. All in all, Gnome Shell itself was a pleasant surprise it is really slick and convenient it's not cluttering the screen and is much more pleasant to use than Unity. (Unity is chaotic and in my view completely counterintuitive. I'm tempted to call it an usability disaster, really.) On the other hand, Gnome Shell also a bit rough:
(I do hope, that the GNOME marketroids won't be able to destroy the nice extension mechanism; while it wouldn't be the first software project destroyed solely by self-important marketing people, it would be probably the first free software project suffering that fate.)
|
|||||||||||||