Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
Why I do not use Gnome anymore
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
@ pylkko
Really I don't get you... What you claim as "ridiculously easy to do" has any connection with UI/UX or tweaking them...
Really I don't get you... What you claim as "ridiculously easy to do" has any connection with UI/UX or tweaking them...
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
I think this discussion would benefit from separating the ideological/political and technical/functional aspects of this matter.
To find out whether Gnome devs are right or wrong in their ways, is in fact unrelated to finding out whether Gnome 3.x is a good or bad interface.
Don't get me wrong, how Gnome is and functions is a direct expression of how Gnome devs think, there's no denying that, however a finished interface should be evaluated on its usability, intuitiveness etc., rather than how its devs think and behave.
Not in absolute, because how it came to be can be as important, if not more, a reason to like or dislike it, but still Gnome should not be regarded as a good or bad interface just because having brand identity as a priority is a good or bad thing.
User interfaces can be "measured" in a fairly objective way in regard to their usability and intuitiveness and their general ease of use. I'm not aware of any comprehensive study about Gnome as a UI, however, regardless of that, I think it is important for us when we discuss Gnome merits or demerits as a UI, not as a project, to get it right and not try to bend it to something else.
For example imagine a hammer with a circular handle, regardless of whether it is better or worse for hammering, one should not say it doesn't work because he puts it around his arm and tries to hit a nail while twirling it like a hula hoop.
There's a way to handle it, it is different, it may or may not be better, but using it wrong is not a fair evaluation.
Similarly, trying to bend Gnome 3.x to look and behave like 2.x or trying to accomplish a task "the old way" and failing, is not a fair determination of it being bad.
I happen to be one of those who, as long time Gnome users, found the transition to the Shell an improvement over the 2.x desktop that I loved so much. I'll admit, at first I was instinctively trying to use 3.x the way I used 2.x, but then I figured that it wasn't meant to be used that way, and when I embraced instead of fighting it, was all better: my workflow was streamlined and now, years after that transition, I can honestly say that I like Gnome even more.
The interface that is.
Do I like the way Gnome devs are doing things? Mmh, that I don't.
I agree that they have been jerks (even though it was perfectly in their rights) to the community of users who've been left orphans of their DE of choice without appeal and I think that this whole idea of trying to uniform the Desktop identity is worrisome to say the least.
I also think that the fact I am liking the interface doesn't make it objectively good, and I do not think that if those who don't like it would try as I did they would like it too, because I know they are different and have different needs.
I'll tell you more, I would happily boycott Gnome, even though it would mean to give up something that works very well for me, if there was a serious and organized campaign, a concerted and meaningful effort to counteract this kind of mentality, provided that it was not lead or prominently made of "tentacle people".
All that said, you can like it or not for whatever reason, you can definitely voice your opinion and even frustration and anger at Gnome for the way they operate, but save yourself from getting convinced that the interface doesn't work just because you don't like the ideology or because you're trying to use it like someone trying to use a sedan as a tractor.
Last thing: all those who mentioned bloat, can you explain to me how do you mean that?
Because well, obviously Gnome is the DE that requires the most RAM and disk space (or maybe close with KDE with all the bells and whistles enabled) and also acceleration, but it seems to me that it is not that what most refer to when they speak of bloat.
I remember when having shadows around windows or cursors was looked down as vain eye candy and bloat, or when menu items had icons or when anything had a color and was not just a terminal, but today we're past that and if we speak about the interface, how is Gnome bloated is beyond me.
Bye
To find out whether Gnome devs are right or wrong in their ways, is in fact unrelated to finding out whether Gnome 3.x is a good or bad interface.
Don't get me wrong, how Gnome is and functions is a direct expression of how Gnome devs think, there's no denying that, however a finished interface should be evaluated on its usability, intuitiveness etc., rather than how its devs think and behave.
Not in absolute, because how it came to be can be as important, if not more, a reason to like or dislike it, but still Gnome should not be regarded as a good or bad interface just because having brand identity as a priority is a good or bad thing.
User interfaces can be "measured" in a fairly objective way in regard to their usability and intuitiveness and their general ease of use. I'm not aware of any comprehensive study about Gnome as a UI, however, regardless of that, I think it is important for us when we discuss Gnome merits or demerits as a UI, not as a project, to get it right and not try to bend it to something else.
For example imagine a hammer with a circular handle, regardless of whether it is better or worse for hammering, one should not say it doesn't work because he puts it around his arm and tries to hit a nail while twirling it like a hula hoop.
There's a way to handle it, it is different, it may or may not be better, but using it wrong is not a fair evaluation.
Similarly, trying to bend Gnome 3.x to look and behave like 2.x or trying to accomplish a task "the old way" and failing, is not a fair determination of it being bad.
I happen to be one of those who, as long time Gnome users, found the transition to the Shell an improvement over the 2.x desktop that I loved so much. I'll admit, at first I was instinctively trying to use 3.x the way I used 2.x, but then I figured that it wasn't meant to be used that way, and when I embraced instead of fighting it, was all better: my workflow was streamlined and now, years after that transition, I can honestly say that I like Gnome even more.
The interface that is.
Do I like the way Gnome devs are doing things? Mmh, that I don't.
I agree that they have been jerks (even though it was perfectly in their rights) to the community of users who've been left orphans of their DE of choice without appeal and I think that this whole idea of trying to uniform the Desktop identity is worrisome to say the least.
I also think that the fact I am liking the interface doesn't make it objectively good, and I do not think that if those who don't like it would try as I did they would like it too, because I know they are different and have different needs.
I'll tell you more, I would happily boycott Gnome, even though it would mean to give up something that works very well for me, if there was a serious and organized campaign, a concerted and meaningful effort to counteract this kind of mentality, provided that it was not lead or prominently made of "tentacle people".
All that said, you can like it or not for whatever reason, you can definitely voice your opinion and even frustration and anger at Gnome for the way they operate, but save yourself from getting convinced that the interface doesn't work just because you don't like the ideology or because you're trying to use it like someone trying to use a sedan as a tractor.
Last thing: all those who mentioned bloat, can you explain to me how do you mean that?
Because well, obviously Gnome is the DE that requires the most RAM and disk space (or maybe close with KDE with all the bells and whistles enabled) and also acceleration, but it seems to me that it is not that what most refer to when they speak of bloat.
I remember when having shadows around windows or cursors was looked down as vain eye candy and bloat, or when menu items had icons or when anything had a color and was not just a terminal, but today we're past that and if we speak about the interface, how is Gnome bloated is beyond me.
Bye
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
Chacun a pour son gout.
The entire *purpose* for Linux from its inception was to give users freedom. In particular it was to give a Finn college student the freedom to use a Unix interface to do his homework, without being beholden to a particular developer or corporation.
Without that basic premise there is no reason whatsoever to veer from the Win platform, which is also chock full of freeware apps (though admittedly more hazardous).
One of the greatest of the Unix/Linux freedoms is the ability to choose ones own graphical shell, along with the ultimate confusion of which desktop environment/window manager combination is best suited to ones needs.
Personally, I prefer Linux because of its ability to run apps and languages for websites, test and file manipulation much easier. Virtually unlimited unnamed pipes, symlinks and numerous other features that redmond is still trying to catch up to. Perl, Ruby, Python - all can run in Win- but run *better* in Linux. In short, I regard Linux as a 'productive' environment, and with a few exceptions, regard the Win platform as a consumption OS. Great for videos, games, graphics.
The problem with the gnome project is that its developers were keenly attuned to the 'popular culture' - as it was veering away from production oriented desktops to consumption based mobile platforms. Think TILES. Think minimalist design.
Gnome appears to have been designed for Millenials who are being forced by work or school to use a production based OS, and for it to be as simple and feature free as possible.
This may not be a bad thing as it encourages people to move away from Redmond's clutches as it tries to steer everyone onto a rent-seeking cloud.
But its also a problem for the more traditional users among us, such as the OP. And myself.
Perhaps we should define what we want and expect of a desktop environment.
For myself, in particular:
1. A traditional desktop is essential. I am not about to go through 'lists' just to call up my normally used apps.
2. There must be icons and they must be easily configurable.
3. Ideally the icon configurations would be portable across DE's (but currently are not).
4. There should be a task bar that displays running applications, as well as the ability to have 'widgets' that display useful system info such as temp, date/time/calendar, network connection, system temps, and I/O.
5. The DE should never interfere with the throughput of the user. Notifications should be small in a corner and indiscreet, and lasting no longer than seconds.
6. It should include a comprehensive system manager. Setting associations and turning off capslock, and setting power defaults and screensaver should be in one spot.
7. Aside from associations and widgets , the DE should have as little as possible to do with apps/software. Ideally, it should run everything.
8. The DE itself should be maximally configurable, with full compatibility with the classic Unix UI of workspaces, terminals, etc.
9. It should be able to run as root when needed. This can be important for troubleshooting - as not all apps are WAN oriented.
10. Developers should spend more time on ergonomics than eye candy. Much more effort should be spent on intuitive use and features,
11. There should be a simple switch for users to rapidly switch from Bare Bones/Intermediate/Full 3D Desktop effects.
I know of no DE that meets all these requirements. I normally use KDE (stripped down), but also will on occasion boot to XFCE and Mate (which seem to have better I/O widgets when I need them). I want no part of a DE that requires 3D drivers since this should only be an option for those that actually spend time at a desktop. i dont. I rarely see it. And there are plenty of times when i want every last CPU cycle, and memory bit. The only thing I really use is the taskbar. I call most of my apps with shell scripts from a terminal.
Now I fully understand that my perspective here is 180 dgrees apart from what might be considered a 'typical user' - especially those newer to the Linux platform. And some like mor who are well seasoned have seen the advantage in milling their square pegs to fit the round gnome hole.
But fortunately for Luddites like myself there have been alternates like Mate so we have the freedom to use a traditional gnome interface when we so desire.
Its all about choice, but we cannot help but join the chorus of the weeping and gnashing of teeth when it appears that elements of that choice are slowly, ever so slowly, disappearing. Thinking long term here.
The entire *purpose* for Linux from its inception was to give users freedom. In particular it was to give a Finn college student the freedom to use a Unix interface to do his homework, without being beholden to a particular developer or corporation.
Without that basic premise there is no reason whatsoever to veer from the Win platform, which is also chock full of freeware apps (though admittedly more hazardous).
One of the greatest of the Unix/Linux freedoms is the ability to choose ones own graphical shell, along with the ultimate confusion of which desktop environment/window manager combination is best suited to ones needs.
Personally, I prefer Linux because of its ability to run apps and languages for websites, test and file manipulation much easier. Virtually unlimited unnamed pipes, symlinks and numerous other features that redmond is still trying to catch up to. Perl, Ruby, Python - all can run in Win- but run *better* in Linux. In short, I regard Linux as a 'productive' environment, and with a few exceptions, regard the Win platform as a consumption OS. Great for videos, games, graphics.
The problem with the gnome project is that its developers were keenly attuned to the 'popular culture' - as it was veering away from production oriented desktops to consumption based mobile platforms. Think TILES. Think minimalist design.
Gnome appears to have been designed for Millenials who are being forced by work or school to use a production based OS, and for it to be as simple and feature free as possible.
This may not be a bad thing as it encourages people to move away from Redmond's clutches as it tries to steer everyone onto a rent-seeking cloud.
But its also a problem for the more traditional users among us, such as the OP. And myself.
Perhaps we should define what we want and expect of a desktop environment.
For myself, in particular:
1. A traditional desktop is essential. I am not about to go through 'lists' just to call up my normally used apps.
2. There must be icons and they must be easily configurable.
3. Ideally the icon configurations would be portable across DE's (but currently are not).
4. There should be a task bar that displays running applications, as well as the ability to have 'widgets' that display useful system info such as temp, date/time/calendar, network connection, system temps, and I/O.
5. The DE should never interfere with the throughput of the user. Notifications should be small in a corner and indiscreet, and lasting no longer than seconds.
6. It should include a comprehensive system manager. Setting associations and turning off capslock, and setting power defaults and screensaver should be in one spot.
7. Aside from associations and widgets , the DE should have as little as possible to do with apps/software. Ideally, it should run everything.
8. The DE itself should be maximally configurable, with full compatibility with the classic Unix UI of workspaces, terminals, etc.
9. It should be able to run as root when needed. This can be important for troubleshooting - as not all apps are WAN oriented.
10. Developers should spend more time on ergonomics than eye candy. Much more effort should be spent on intuitive use and features,
11. There should be a simple switch for users to rapidly switch from Bare Bones/Intermediate/Full 3D Desktop effects.
I know of no DE that meets all these requirements. I normally use KDE (stripped down), but also will on occasion boot to XFCE and Mate (which seem to have better I/O widgets when I need them). I want no part of a DE that requires 3D drivers since this should only be an option for those that actually spend time at a desktop. i dont. I rarely see it. And there are plenty of times when i want every last CPU cycle, and memory bit. The only thing I really use is the taskbar. I call most of my apps with shell scripts from a terminal.
Now I fully understand that my perspective here is 180 dgrees apart from what might be considered a 'typical user' - especially those newer to the Linux platform. And some like mor who are well seasoned have seen the advantage in milling their square pegs to fit the round gnome hole.
But fortunately for Luddites like myself there have been alternates like Mate so we have the freedom to use a traditional gnome interface when we so desire.
Its all about choice, but we cannot help but join the chorus of the weeping and gnashing of teeth when it appears that elements of that choice are slowly, ever so slowly, disappearing. Thinking long term here.
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
Just install gnome-core?Ardouos wrote: It is great to have a full feature-rich fledged desktop with applications pre-installed for those users who just want to start using their machine. Some people love features and bloat with more tools than they need with pretty neon lights, others thrive on simplicity and elegance away from all of the distractions.
The truth is Gnome 3 is best DE out there, you can configure it how you want, it works flawlessly, no screen tearing, works amazing with multiple displays without configuring anything etc.
If you use your computer for anything more than calculator, then Gnome 3 is best.
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
well said.Danielsan wrote:They (gnome devs presumably) acted as a corporation but they aren't so they were able to failed many goals.
i can vividly imagine overzealous FLOSS coders thinking that they finally reached nerd heaven with mark shuttleworth as arc angel ...
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
I disagreemillpond wrote:Its all about choice
Also:
mhat wrote:The only places for icons is in a church, a burning church at that.
deadbang
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
By Jove, that was hilarious!dasein wrote:Obligatory link to DistroWatch's "preview" of GNOME 4 (from 2012): https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issu ... 402#humour
you really have to read most of it yourself, but here are some highlights:
etc.I was soon greeted by the cheerful GNOME 4 default screen which, I can confidentially say, has the cleanest interface I've ever seen on my monitor except when it's turned off.
GNOME developers have really outdone themselves this time. It's obvious that they've given the whole "desktop" metaphor a complete rethink. Gone are menus, icons, task bars, minimize and maximize buttons, the archaic Start button, wallpapers or even a command prompt. Rather, we are presented with a pleasant default blue screen (note that the color is non-configurable). It is the bold simplicity of this approach that makes GNOME 4 so powerful.
Advocates for disability rights are particularly enthused by GNOME 4, believing that it could be the first GUI system that puts seeing and totally blind users on an equal footing.
As yet, there is no icon, menu or keystroke combination to turn off the machine. However, this does not mean that shutting down is difficult. Indeed, on a desktop computer, all you need to shut down is pull out the power cord from the wall socket. Sadly, the on/off button is disabled in GNOME 4, but the good news is that the developers have promised to add this feature to GNOME 5.
One of the first and most surprising issues to pop up soon after the first preview of the GNOME 4 desktop came in the form of a Cease and Desist letter from Microsoft's lawyers: "The design of the GNOME 4 default screen bears an uncanny resemblance to a patented design that Microsoft has used since at least 1995."
yay!
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
What goes around, comes around?
Nobody would ever ask questions If everyone possessed encyclopedic knowledge of the man pages.
-
- Posts: 1939
- Joined: 2006-04-21 11:19
- Location: Sol Sector
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
I don't know what "client side decorations" are, but I absolutely hate the new, spartan, dumbed-down, mobile phone UI -- the one in which menus and buttons with descriptive text are replaced with buttons that contain only symbols. And often when I hover the mouse cursor over a button, nothing happens. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing the guess-what-this-button-does game.dust hill resident wrote: The client side decorations. All the Gnome apps have been redesigned to use them, and I think they're absolutely awful. Since I updated to debian jessie, I replaced the few Gnome apps I was still using with alternatives.
In the past I used gedit, and liked it. Because I am now using Xfce, I haven't used gedit in several years. Recently I installed it, and when I saw the new UI, I immediately uninstalled it. I'd rather use Geany.
Phil
Freespoke is a new search engine that respects user privacy and does not engage in censorship.
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
oops, it seems you missed the juicier parts of the gnome-bashing thenpcalvert wrote:I don't know what "client side decorations" are
the default "Press OK to continue" has been replaced by "Hit the screeen with your fist to continue".I absolutely hate the new, spartan, dumbed-down, mobile phone UI -- the one in which menus and buttons with descriptive text are replaced with buttons that contain only symbols. And often when I hover the mouse cursor over a button, nothing happens. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing the guess-what-this-button-does game.
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
Linux is of course, merely a kernel. Written and controlle by a beer-bellied Finn.Head_on_a_Stick wrote:I disagreemillpond wrote:Its all about choice
Also:mhat wrote:The only places for icons is in a church, a burning church at that.
Whats meant of course is GNU/Linux mostly controlled by a whale-bellied Messiah.
Who does indeed have a whole religion based on choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACS1188H9w
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
Yeah, I'm also sick of themacewiza wrote:I think it's funny how people on forums like this are always trying to explore new material for their confirmation bias. They find something they don't like for whatever reason, and make a poo-poo posts about it to see if they can get people to either agree with them, or flame the ones who don't. Hilarious.
- whether pick like gnome going to get offend from gnome haters.
- whether pick hate game going to get offend from those like gnome instead.
Any side to pick none of them better only going to get offend from the opposite sides.
It's no different from systemd haters ppl vs non-particular hate systemd ppl debate.
I've enough with these Intel vs AMD-like debates these kind of debate would never end.
I'd rather stay silent & eat popcorn and watch the show.
- dust hill resident
- Posts: 240
- Joined: 2007-05-18 13:31
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
On linux, normally, the window manager draws the window decorations (title bar and maximise/minimise/close/etc buttons) for graphical programs. With 'client side decorations', GUI programs draw their own window controls. This is what the latest versions of the Gnome programs do.pcalvert wrote:I don't know what "client side decorations" are
So if you use a custom window manager and you use some Gnome programs, they won't fit in as well as other programs would, because they draw their own window controls which behave differently. For example, if you want to change what happens when you double click a window titlebar, before you could easily do that by configuring your window manager. But if you want to do that and you use any Gnome programs like gedit, it will be more difficult.
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
For stretch and onwards, Client Side Decorations can be disabled globally to allow users of simple window managers to employ GTK3 applications without a theme clash:dust hill resident wrote:So if you use a custom window manager and you use some Gnome programs, they won't fit in as well as other programs would, because they draw their own window controls which behave differently. For example, if you want to change what happens when you double click a window titlebar, before you could easily do that by configuring your window manager. But if you want to do that and you use any Gnome programs like gedit, it will be more difficult.
https://packages.debian.org/stretch/gtk3-nocsd
Problem solved
deadbang
- dust hill resident
- Posts: 240
- Joined: 2007-05-18 13:31
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
@Head_on_a_stick
I was aware of that, it's good and I use it.
But as I understand it, it's a bit of a trick/hack. It's unacceptable to me that a hack is required to disable the CSD, it should be an option in the gtk settings.ini or something like that. And since it's a hack, I worry that there's a chance it will stop working in the future (though maybe this is impossible, I don't really know how gtk-nocsd works)
I was aware of that, it's good and I use it.
But as I understand it, it's a bit of a trick/hack. It's unacceptable to me that a hack is required to disable the CSD, it should be an option in the gtk settings.ini or something like that. And since it's a hack, I worry that there's a chance it will stop working in the future (though maybe this is impossible, I don't really know how gtk-nocsd works)
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
Ah, right, sorry for breaking your FUDdust hill resident wrote:@Head_on_a_stick
I was aware of that, it's good and I use it.
Anyway, I like client side decorations
deadbang
- Ardouos
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: 2013-11-03 00:30
- Location: Elicoor II
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
Because not everyone is you.dust hill resident wrote:Why?
There is only one Debian | Do not break Debian | Stability and Debian | Backports
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀
- dust hill resident
- Posts: 240
- Joined: 2007-05-18 13:31
Re: Why I do not use Gnome anymore
I was asking Head_on_a_stick because I was actually genuinely curious about what he likes about csd, I'm not trying to argue with him.Ardouos wrote:Because not everyone is you.dust hill resident wrote:Why?
Edit: Sorry for misunderstanding/aggressive response
Last edited by dust hill resident on 2017-03-27 21:12, edited 1 time in total.