| |||||||||||||
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power usersMena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power usersPosted Nov 17, 2012 2:25 UTC (Sat) by wagerrard (subscriber, #87558)In reply to: Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users by luya Parent article: Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users
After doing all that, and assuming it works, what advantage have I gained over Gnome 2? For that matter, what does stock Gnome 3 give me that Gnome 2 does not? GTK3 apps? Yes, but they aren't a Gnome 3 exclusive.
(Log in to post comments)
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 23, 2012 9:11 UTC (Fri) by TRauMa (guest, #16483) [Link]
If you want nothing the new Gnome offers you, why do you keep talking about it? Apart from being the official successor of Gnome 2 and not being installable in parallel (a problem now solved with MATE), what exactly drives you to go to a comment thread and complain? I'm honestly asking because I don't get it.
Usually people complain about stuff they actually want or have to use. How you could end up in the position of having to use Gnome 3 is beyond me.
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 23, 2012 12:31 UTC (Fri) by wagerrard (subscriber, #87558) [Link]
1. It's an interesting topic. Interface design is an unsolved problem. No one does it very well. Gnome 3 is actually the only really innovative approach out there at present. Everyone else remains with some version of the panel/dock and desktop icons approach. Those approaches -- MATE, Cinnamon, etc., -- are dead ends.
2. I actually like Gnome 3 and I'm not particularly infatuated with Gnome 2. My frustration with Gnome 3 comes from the rigidity of some of the underlying design decisions. It could be so much better if it allowed itself just a bit more flexibility. For example, I don't agree that preventing resizing of the dock is a positive feature. The App Overview is an attempt to solve the problem of providing access to potentially hundreds of apps. I think its faulty in concept because it is used to locate and launch apps users use infrequently. That infrequent use means they won't find the app by recognizing the icon, but will simply look for the name. So, the icons really serve little purpose there. (The hierarchical menu approaches of Gnome 2 and KDE break down when they contain a large number of entries.)
3. It's "official successor" status is irrelevant.
4. The Gnome team exaggerates the notion that hostility to Gnome 3 is all down to simple Gnome 2 fanboyism. Likewise, users who insist that Gnome "listen" to detractors and let them guide their designs are naive and very wrong. They would have us simply stay with Gnome 2 forever, and that's untenable.
|
|||||||||||||