Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Web Applications Come To GNOME 3.2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Web Applications Come To GNOME 3.2

    Phoronix: Web Applications Come To GNOME 3.2

    Besides the already talked about features of GNOME 3.2, one of the features that hasn't received much attention (aside from at the Berlin Linux Desktop Summit) until now with the GNOME 3.2 Beta is the web applications support in this next major update to the GNOME desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTg2Ng

  • #2
    Fantastic. That would be extremely useful for work since more and more of my applications are web based.

    Comment


    • #3
      Are new features really the most important thing right now? How about getting some (a lot) configuration options back, or getting some basic stuff to work like seperate x screens in fallback mode.

      I was really amazed how unusable gnome 3 is for me. Didn't even get to trying seperate x screens in shell, as i had already seen enough. And i'm pretty used to bugged filled alpha's and this is the first time i actually reversed something, although i thought about doing it a lot more often. And this was actually the whole weekend last week, not when gnome 3 was still alpha.

      Almost no ability to customize + not working basic features + no real hope that will change in short time = time to move on. Now only if i knew to what...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dyna View Post
        How about getting some (a lot) configuration options back
        The options were removed by purpose, so why should they be put back? Also, configuration options are really evil from an interaction design perspective. (Power) users think they want them, but in reality options make software worse.

        Comment


        • #5
          Are new features really the most important thing right now?
          Hell yes, this one kicks ass.

          (Power) users think they want them, but in reality options make software worse.
          Users that complain they have to install a GUI to change some of the defaults are not 'Power Users'. There is nothing wrong with installing software to enhance your system. I will never understand why people have such a aversion to it on Linux when people on Windows or OS X obviously have no problem with it.

          The most important thing Gnome can do is have solid core functionality that can be depended on and expanded upon by users.

          This web app integration is one of those 'new' things that should of happened years ago. Relatively very few new applications are written for the desktop, any desktop, compared to what is happening in web applications.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 0xCAFE View Post
            The options were removed by purpose, so why should they be put back? Also, configuration options are really evil from an interaction design perspective. (Power) users think they want them, but in reality options make software worse.
            Although i can see your point i wonder if that is really the case. Was gnome 2 really doing that bad? I surely don't think so.
            It might be true in some cases, but i think developer laziness might also be an aspect.

            And to say that users only think they need them is simply not true. Maybe only a few people actually take the time to look at the options to find ways to make it more efficient in their usage case, but don't act like it's not useful at all. In fact i have seen many times that settings is changed from the defaults, later became the defaults.
            But since it's only a small amount of people doing so i can see why developers don't want them.

            Well thanks for pointing out that waiting is no use for me and i do need to move on. But since i am so used to my customized environment and apps it's not going to be easy, that is the down side to my way of working.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dyna View Post
              How about getting some (a lot) configuration options back
              Such as? I only ask because while I notice a lot fewer options in System Settings as well, I really can't think of any burning options I need. Stuff just-works which is great.

              Comment


              • #8
                And to say that users only think they need them is simply not true. Maybe only a few people actually take the time to look at the options to find ways to make it more efficient in their usage case, but don't act like it's not useful at all. In fact i have seen many times that settings is changed from the defaults, later became the defaults.
                But since it's only a small amount of people doing so i can see why developers don't want them.
                There is relatively very few things you can do in Gnome 2 that you cannot do in Gnome-shell.

                But there is a crapload of things that you can do in Gnome-shell that you will never be able to do in Gnome 2.

                One of the big complaints about moving from Gnome 1 to Gnome 2 is getting rid of Sawfish as the default WM.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawfish...dow_manager%29

                This is because Sawfish was fully scriptable. But this power came with huge usability issues and back then Window managers were specific to one environment... meaning if you tried to use KDE apps on Gnome (or visa versa) then things would get all wonky.

                Metacity was a vastly simpler window manager and people bitch and moaned about that for years. But it did one thing that Sawfish couldn't... behave sanely and predictably. As a result it was much more usable.

                Now we have not only a composited desktop, but a fully scriptable environment layered on top of a mature window manager engine. This can be a quantum leap forward in flexibility and configurability. We just have to see what people do with 3.2 and 3.4 releases!

                http://www.webupd8.org/search/label/...max-results=10

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well thanks for pointing out that waiting is no use for me and i do need to move on. But since i am so used to my customized environment and apps it's not going to be easy, that is the down side to my way of working.
                  I used to spend hours futzing around with this or that and getting everything to work exactly how I wanted it to.

                  I've learned since then it is mostly a waste of time. It just means that I wasted hours doing something other then getting stuff done and it causes headaches later on. There are a few big things that I modify every time I do a fresh install or setup a new machine, but by and large I stick to the defaults and just learn those instead of trying to force things.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 0xCAFE View Post
                    (Power) users think they want them, but in reality options make software worse.
                    Power Users want a UI that gets in their way as little as possible without having to spend a ton of time configuring it that way.

                    That's why we're abandoning Gnome en masse as it becomes a dumbed-down tablet interface which doesn't even give you the option of configuring it to be efficient and useful.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ha. Power users my butt. :P

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 0xCAFE View Post
                        The options were removed by purpose, so why should they be put back? Also, configuration options are really evil from an interaction design perspective. (Power) users think they want them, but in reality options make software worse.
                        You're assuming one work flow works for all. Simply looking at the disabled proves that to be a false assumption.
                        Some of the ideas, and even some of the implementations, of GS are very good and need to be tried to improve the experience for most but for now removing options (like deciding how the computer reacts when you press the power button) when the paradigm hasn't been proven and there are technical problems with the chosen defaults seems pretty obviously like bad decisions (yes, I've read the discussions that are available, mostly bug reports and mailing lists, irc is still not being logged).
                        Frankly, one of the biggest annoyances is the seeming lack of interest in doing the very hard work of finding novel solutions to the problems (which is the obvious direction to go in since they've abandoned the old interface). The problems all too often are simply taking the solutions used in OS X and iOS (used interchangeably thus mixing user paradigms, i.e. an inherently WIMP system and one that is a bit of a hybrid). Seriously, read the bug reports where some of these problems are discussed (h-online listed some of these recently for the 3.1.5 release).
                        Sorry for the small rant. The desktop-devel mailing list has been getting under my skin lately with even some guy named Alan Cox mentioning that some of the developers seem to be concerned as to what the results of a possible poll might be (he seemed to think they were being worried, uneccessarily).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by movieman View Post
                          Power Users want a UI that gets in their way as little as possible without having to spend a ton of time configuring it that way.
                          Heh... yeah well that is pretty much why I like Gnome 3. The interface is minimalistic, smooth and very functional. Can it improve? Certainly! Will it improve? Most likely.

                          I would very much like Fluxbox/Kwin-style window grouping in the Shell, a quick file filter bar, terminal and tree-style views a la Dolphin in Nautilus, an extensive Pidgin-like plugin library with encryption options in Empathy and a way to hide a couple of windows such as Gkrellm from dashes and such, a more configurable Gedit etc but actually, for the most part, Gnome 3 works just fine over here and I can certainly recommend it to most "power users".

                          I think this project looks very interesting and look forward to trying it out:
                          http://gfxmonk.net/shellshape/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by drag View Post
                            Users that complain they have to install a GUI to change some of the defaults are not 'Power Users'. There is nothing wrong with installing software to enhance your system. I will never understand why people have such a aversion to it on Linux when people on Windows or OS X obviously have no problem with it.
                            Great points. The first, especially, is one I've used in the past. If someone can't make changes to d/gconf without a gui then they aren't power users. OTOH, the gui makes things ALOT easier.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by korpenkraxar View Post
                              Heh... yeah well that is pretty much why I like Gnome 3. The interface is minimalistic, smooth and very functional. Can it improve? Certainly! Will it improve? Most likely.

                              I would very much like Fluxbox/Kwin-style window grouping in the Shell, a quick file filter bar, terminal and tree-style views a la Dolphin in Nautilus, an extensive Pidgin-like plugin library with encryption options in Empathy and a way to hide a couple of windows such as Gkrellm from dashes and such, a more configurable Gedit etc but actually, for the most part, Gnome 3 works just fine over here and I can certainly recommend it to most "power users".

                              I think this project looks very interesting and look forward to trying it out:
                              http://gfxmonk.net/shellshape/
                              I'm not sure if this is what you are asking but you can pin windows (gkrellm) to specific desktops.
                              As for Gedit, have you looked at its plugin list online? It has lots of plugins. That's kinda the point of it. A nice simple text editor but with a very powerful but clean plugin system (in fact their plugin library, libpeas, has become the official gnome plugin library).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X