| |||||||||||||
GNOME 3.8 releasedGNOME 3.8 releasedPosted Mar 28, 2013 2:25 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: GNOME 3.8 released by hadrons123 Parent article: GNOME 3.8 released
Totally disagree with you on this. Classic mode doesn't address objective usability regressions that Gnome 3 introduced. About the attitude of developers, you can read here:
http://www.gnome.org/news/2013/03/gnome-3-8-jon-mccann-ta...
Search for the word "nostalgia" in the text. Essentially, when Gnome developers are faced with criticism of their UI, they resort to name calling.
For instance, right now I am using Gnome 3.6 both on my laptop and in a remote session (not fallback - shell). I can tell you that the remote session is borderline unusable (sometimes I need to wait 5 - 10 seconds for things to happen). It doesn't work with 16-bit colour under xrdp/vnc, so this wastes bytes on the wire. It also constantly wants to repaint the whole screen (multiple times - that is the animation artefact), which is even worse on the wire. And to top it all of, CPU is eaten by the shell like there is no tomorrow (software rendering with llvmpipe). Pure molasses. In comparison, fallback works reasonably well.
On the laptop side, of course, I can no longer see where my windows are on various workspaces without constantly animating. Anyone that read this:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing-u...
Would know that relying on short term memory instead of visual clues is not optimal.
These are just some of the examples of detachment of Gnome developers from reality. Thinking that classic mode will somehow fix this (where it is nothing more than a few extensions cobbled together) is even more troublesome.
People that want Gnome 2 can run Mate. The problem is that Gnome 3 needs fixing. Getting rid of the "designed by RFC1925" overview would be a good start.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 2:55 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> In comparison, fallback works reasonably well.
Just to be clear, even with 24-bit colour depth. So, apples to apples (if it somehow matters).
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 3:02 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
You totally disagree with what? I understand you have registered your displeasure with some of the UI features and animations in GNOME 3 but I don't know what it has to do with the comment you replied to.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 3:18 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> If this classic mode was introduced a long time back in 3.0, gnome would not have had all the flak it was receiving for the last 2 years.
The above. Classic mode or not, the fundamental flaws of Gnome 3 are still there. UI usability is still worse (i.e. the system has regressed), so naturally, existing users would complain.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 3:30 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I disagree with you on that point and agree with the OP, an officially blessed Classic mode (not called "fallback") would have done a lot to assuage most of the complaints and frustrations that plagued the early GNOME releases although you are right that it wouldn't have changed some of the UI issues you are concerned about. A lot of the complaints were that the UI was just too different, Classic mode fixes that.
Of course it's all speculation because that's not what happened.
I've been trying out Ubuntu Unity and GNOME Shell on an old laptop and I wasn't expecting it but I actually like GNOME Shell more than the more traditional Unity (definitely more than KDE which just gives me the heebie-jeebies for some reason, and I actually used KDE 1.x-3.x as my primary desktop for many years).
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 6:14 UTC (Thu) by sheepdestroyer (subscriber, #54968) [Link]
Totally agree,
my main concern on my ultrabook is energy efficiency. hence my displeasure when looking at gnome shell's wake up numbers in powertop comparatively to fallback mode. I never saw that angle properly addressed by gnome. Do someone cares for those numbers anymore?
Personally i do not need classic mode but the "Not So Power Waste" mode, thanks.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 7:18 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link]
Agreed on all points, but I would add that people needing a "fixed Gnome 3" should give Cinnamon a try: a sensible mix of old (the "traditional desktop" approach) and new (Gnome 3 framework, expose modes, etc.). Still young, but 1.6 has proved to be very very stable, and there's a lively community coding themes, applets etc.
Rehdon
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 21:26 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
I also have found Cinnamon 1.6 to be very stable. It will occasionally display icons on the desktop (I have this disabled), but that is the only problem that I have had after using it for months on a daily basis.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 8:50 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Seems you will be displeased with various people no matter what.
Regarding animations. If you read the release notes you'll see that GNOME 3.8 will automatically reduce the amount of animations when you're working remotely, as well as when using llvmpipe.
Seems you suffer from the same self-selection bias that you accuse me and various other GNOME developers of. Suggest to get over it and use a different desktop already. If you're already using a different desktop: did you actually read the release notes fully?
When one paragraph is addressed in the new version and this article is about the new version, it gives the impression that you did not read before commenting.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 10:27 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Yeah, I did read the release notes. In fact, I knew low animation mode was coming in 3.8 even before that.
However, that is not enough. There is no valid reason to insist on 3D rendering when no such thing exists on the platform. Somehow, 3D and animations have become essential in Gnome, when they should be used only when they work better.
Furthermore, even when doing trivial things, like scrolling e-mail in Evo, running top etc., gnome-shell is consuming huge chunks of CPU on my VM. The terminal interaction is visibly slower, for instance. Not to mention that shell gobbles up 300 MB of RES there. This slows the system down significantly. I know everyone will wheel out their favourite theories about emulators and JITs. Fact: on my remote VM, Gnome fallback is usable (been using it for work since day one and Gnome 2 before that). Shell is not.
And all that before mentioning all the shell UI silliness, like lack of visibility and basic customisability, as a result of RFC1926(6) implementation.
I am not displeased no matter what. I am displeased because something that worked will be broken, without a real replacement or workaround.
As for using a different desktop, I see the Gnome philosophy of getting rid of existing long term users (which helped chase many a bug) is well and truly alive. Well done.
PS. My criticism of Gnome developers specifically does not apply to Evolution developers. I have been impressed on more than one occasion by Milan and others.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 10:28 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> RFC1926(6)
Typo: RFC1925(6).
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 10:49 UTC (Thu) by sheepdestroyer (subscriber, #54968) [Link]
I want to point out that it is not only a problem on vm or remote systems.
My recent core i7 (sandybridge) has all the horsepower needed but effectively consumes more watts with 3D acceleration on. I Use Fallback mode not for it's "classic" layout but to conserve battery on my ultrabook.
This is i think a valid concern, especially if targeting mobility.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 12:28 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
There is no need for your system to requires more power, no matter if GNOME uses "3D" or not. Only the most basic stuff is used. It should barely make an impact.
In practice, it does. But that is something that should be fixed at the right level. Unfortunately despite GNOME being out for years, not much has happened with drivers/X/whatever causes this.
Reference point is to try Windows 7+ on the same system. It uses "3D", but overall it'll likely have a better power usage while needing more from the "3D" bits.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 29, 2013 22:39 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> In practice, it does. But that is something that should be fixed at the right level. Unfortunately despite GNOME being out for years, not much has happened with drivers/X/whatever causes this.
What is happening is called 'Wayland' and 'DRI 3.0'.
With X Windows as the display manager you have to have write out buffers multiple times, copy textures, do texture conversions, and do multiple rendering passes for things like 'server side decorations' if you want to have a composited desktop... for each time the display needs to be rendered, which is usually each screen refresh. You can't fix this without breaking X.
With the current drivers they have different sorts of video memory management schemes, which are not optimal from a security and performance perspective. Live and learn.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 28, 2013 12:24 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Ignoring some bits and the sarcasm:
There are some big problems in the memory usage of GNOME shell (3.6). That is partly fixed in 3.8, but can only be really addressed in 3.10. Reason behind it was: 1) bug in bindings (clutter references weren't freed), 2) mozilla/gjs/something making it impossible to regularly run auto garbage collection (which was done in earlier versions) 3) mozilla/gjs/something causing #1, which had is now worked around (in 3.8).
Also in 3.6 some stuff was done in process which should've been done out of process (was not enough time).
I'm sort of surprised that not more people picked up on this though. The huge memory usage in 3.6 is quite noticeable. Though maybe some distributions added custom patches to deal with it.
Note that I'm not a dev and might have gotten some details above wrong.
GNOME 3.8 released Posted Mar 29, 2013 4:46 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
What is regarded as huge memory usage? Is something like 300 MB gnome-shell process normal, or broken?
|
|||||||||||||