Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's Easy To Guess What Angers GNOME Users

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

  • Originally posted by ludovic.silvestre View Post
    I'm familiar with 'group-by-application', it's used by default in Aero, Aqua and Gnome-shell. I presume we're talking about the same thing.


    You're wrong. Gnome 2 have a finite number of workspaces (those little window icons on the bottom bar, right side) and in Gnome 3 they evolved to an arbitrary number of workspaces. And workspaces aren't a solution to the lack of open-application-panel, since the open applications are in the dock and all windows are grouped by application (talking about Gnome-shell).
    You're clearly unfamiliar with the way that gnome-panel worked. The applications bar on the bottom of the screen only displays the applications open on that screen in that workspace.

    As far as the number of workspaces, I could care less if the number of them scaled to infinity. There is still a practical limit to the number of workspaces you can keep track of. I find FOUR to be excessive.


    My point was that you can't use a single bar for all the information, unless you have a big screen/multiple screen. You have 3 solutions for that problem:
    1) Discard some of the information;
    First off, it isn't a single bar. Its a single bar PER WORKSPACE PER DISPLAY.
    If you have multiple monitors, you get a new bar for the second one, it shows you the application open on THAT MONITOR.

    2) Use a second bar;
    You can, if you like. A single bar is still more practical to a second screen.

    3) Hide the less used information into a secondary screen <-- used in gnome 3.
    This is not a solution because you have to change to a second screen in order to see it. That is an extra redundant step, and does NOTHING to solve the problem to begin with. This wasn't done to improve usability, it was done to ADD BLING.

    Now the best solution in my opinion is the third, because 1) is not an option if you want to need all that information
    Microscopic overview actually implements option (1).....

    and 2) is not an option if you have a small screen.
    If you have that small of a screen, you aren't going to be running a billion applications simultaneously. Trust me, anyone with a netbook will confirm that this is NOT something to worry about.

    Now, to access the secondary screen (activities screen), gnome-shell allows you 3 ways to do that (slowest to quickest):
    1) Pressing the Activities button in the top bar (big movement + precision to press button);
    2) Moving the mouse into the top left corner (big movement, but no precision);
    3) Pressing the Window Key button (only one keystroke);
    ALL of which add an extra step, and DO NOT actually improve over the way it was done in gnome-panel.

    Honestly, the drawback of 3) (one more step) is much less important than the drawbacks of 1) and 2).
    Except that it STILL implements drawback (1), and drawback (2) doesn't actually apply.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ludovic.silvestre View Post
      Normal users have small screens (laptops?) with 125DPI mouse and probably no mouse pad, but that combination is enough for gnome-shell (using it on a macbook pro, with the trackpad). Now if you have a big screen (>21 inches), you should have a high performance mouse. Go check out the hardware reviews sites, you'll see that all of them agrees with me
      The resolution of your mouse makes no difference if it exceeds the RESOLUTION OF YOUR HAND, which it does. Those hardware review sites are biased since they are actually PAID BY THE VENDORS!!!!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
        All right, I am sensing a pattern here, if I may make an observation...

        An Anti-Gnome Shell person makes a complaint, and receives a rebuttal. The Anti-Gnome Shell guy ignores this and wonders why nobody is responding to his complaint.

        A Pro-Gnome Shell person makes a complaint, and receives a rebuttal. The Pro-Gnome Shell guy ignores this and wonders why nobody is responding to his complaint.
        Your observations are incorrect.
        The anti-gnome-shell persons make complaints, and receive rebuttals that indicate that the pro-gnome-shell person hasn't even read the complaint to understand it. They make up some nonsense and claim ignorance. The pro-gnome-shell person tries to explain in more detail in order to get past the "blinded by bling" state that the pro-gnome-shell person has been sucked into.

        The pro-gnome-shell person is still blinded, so they try to make up a whole bunch of excuses, trying to place the blame for getting poor utility out of gnome-shell on the actual user -- suggesting that a graphical interface should be operated by the keyboard.... HUH--SERIOUSLY???!?!? Or that the user's MOUSE is somehow to blame?


        None of the pro-gnome-shell person's arguments are explained any more rationally than "but its pretty".

        Well, its a barnyard pig, dressed to the 9's and with a full makeover by the most famous homosexual in existence. Thanks, but I'd rather the HUMAN NERDY GIRL with zero fashion sense. At least she is capable of intelligent conversation and knows how to make a sandwich.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
          I don't know about you, but my hand is simply not capable of controlling an object to 1/1600th of an inch.... It gets to a point where its just numbers with little or no association with actual function. What you experienced from your change from 800 to 1600 dpi mouse, was PLACEBO. The actual resolution didn't make any difference because the accuracy of your hand is still what it was before. Now its compensating by reducing the sensitivity -- effectively ignoring several intermediate steps.
          You know, I actually measured this. Mouse at the bottom of the screen and table, move it to the top of the screen. 800 dpi needs to move twice as far as 1600 dpi. And I can control it pixel-perfect, though that takes a bit of effort (and a non-sticky surface, and proper gliders under your mouse).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            I don't know about you, but my hand is simply not capable of controlling an object to 1/1600th of an inch.... It gets to a point where its just numbers with little or no association with actual function. What you experienced from your change from 800 to 1600 dpi mouse, was PLACEBO. The actual resolution didn't make any difference because the accuracy of your hand is still what it was before. Now its compensating by reducing the sensitivity -- effectively ignoring several intermediate steps.

            The resolution of your mouse makes no difference if it exceeds the RESOLUTION OF YOUR HAND, which it does. Those hardware review sites are biased since they are actually PAID BY THE VENDORS!!!!
            There's no placebo. I use a 1080p 23" display, with a high performance mouse that allows me to have two DPI settings (high an low). On the high setting I have 1600dpi and on the low I have 1000dpi. I see the difference in my movements, because I need to move my hand a little more to go from one side of the screen to the opposite side. I also play Counter-Strike: Source, and the difference is noticeable. Some of those reviews might be biased, but I bought the mouse and verified by myself that it was true, higher dpi is useful, if you can handle the mouse's precision. Obviously some people can't handle the high precision of the mouse. For now, I can handle it, but who knows when I get older.

            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            You're clearly unfamiliar with the way that gnome-panel worked. The applications bar on the bottom of the screen only displays the applications open on that screen in that workspace.
            You just spotted one possible improvement/alternative. Neither gnome-shell or Aqua (Aero doesn't support workspace) separates the window list per workspace. The window list is shared, it shows all windows from all workspaces. Now the question you must ask yourself is "how many different open applications I have at one time" (in all workspaces). If you have <10, then a shared window list is ok, but you must 'group-by-application' (all windows from the same application shared the same icon in the window list).
            But I spotted a problem with gnome-shell and Aqua (both have the same behaviour). Consider 2 workspaces, 1 with epiphany, the other with terminal. Now, if I'm in the workspace with epiphany and I launch a terminal window, instead of launching a new window in that workspace, it changes to the workspace with the terminal. That's not what I was expecting (it doesn't launch another window). To create two windows, from the same application, in different workspace, I must create both windows in the same workspace, and then move 1 to the other workspace. That's not acceptable.

            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            First off, it isn't a single bar. Its a single bar PER WORKSPACE PER DISPLAY.
            If you have multiple monitors, you get a new bar for the second one, it shows you the application open on THAT MONITOR.
            If you read carefully, I said that you can't use a single bar in Gnome 2 without discarding information, unless you have multiple screen or a big screen. And it seems you're confused, it's a single bar, but some of it's elements changes with different workspaces, like the window list. The taskbar doesn't change, the favorite list doesn't change and the workspace list doesn't change. I don't know how it works with multiple monitors, but I assume the bar is either extended (more space) or is only used in the main display (like Aqua). Does the Application/Places/System menu appears on all displays?

            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            This is not a solution because you have to change to a second screen in order to see it. That is an extra redundant step, and does NOTHING to solve the problem to begin with. This wasn't done to improve usability, it was done to ADD BLING.

            ALL of which add an extra step, and DO NOT actually improve over the way it was done in gnome-panel.
            It improves only if they decide to use a global-menu, like Aqua. Because they freed some space, by putting in background less important information (favorites, windows and workspaces), but it allows them to move to the bar more important information (application menu). What do you use more: the application menu or the several lists I mentioned?

            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            If you have that small of a screen, you aren't going to be running a billion applications simultaneously. Trust me, anyone with a netbook will confirm that this is NOT something to worry about.
            You're right, I use a Macbook Pro 13" and I don't use a lot of applications. But since it's a small screen, I don't have the dock visible in Aqua (the dock contains the favorites and window list), the workspaces are also not visible (they are in a secondary/background screen) and the top bar contains the application menu and the taskbar. As you see, only the most important/used information is directly visible. I agree with you that gnome-shell needs to be more flexible, especially for users with big/multiple screens, but they must start by considering small screens, and then extend the DE to support big/multiple screens.

            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            Except that it STILL implements drawback (1), and drawback (2) doesn't actually apply.
            Wrong. When you discard the favorite list in gnome-panel, it isn't shown anywhere else. But in gnome-shell, while you discard it visually (not visible in the desktop), it's still available on the activities screen, but with one extra step (the drawback I mentioned).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
              You know, I actually measured this. Mouse at the bottom of the screen and table, move it to the top of the screen. 800 dpi needs to move twice as far as 1600 dpi. And I can control it pixel-perfect, though that takes a bit of effort (and a non-sticky surface, and proper gliders under your mouse).
              And a 640x480 image looks bigger on a monitor running 640x480 vs one running 1024x768. That doesn't change the fact the image is 640x480.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                The pro-gnome-shell person is still blinded, so they try to make up a whole bunch of excuses, trying to place the blame for getting poor utility out of gnome-shell on the actual user -- suggesting that a graphical interface should be operated by the keyboard.... HUH--SERIOUSLY???!?!? Or that the user's MOUSE is somehow to blame?

                None of the pro-gnome-shell person's arguments are explained any more rationally than "but its pretty".
                I try not to take it personal but......seriously??? Where the hell I or any other gnome-shell user justified some choice with "but its pretty"? Where the hell did we said that a DE should be used with a keyboard? We only said that you can use the keyboard, not that you should use the keyboard. Obviously the mouse is needed, especially for new users.

                And please, go check my answers and tell me which one are not explained rationally??? What I see here is anti-gnome-shell users with complaints, some valid and others not, that won't accept any valid explanation but theirs, while the pro-gnome-shell users accept some of your complaints and even elaborate possible solutions. It's seems that we, pro-gnome-shell users, are more reasonable at arguing than you, anti-gnome-shell users, are.

                Comment


                • @Michael: Why didn't you post my positive comment? I like gnome-shell. I'm currently using Ubuntu 11.10 with Unity due to technical problems with F15 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712533) and think that GS has the better concept from what my gut feeling tells me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mudig View Post
                    @Michael: Why didn't you post my positive comment? I like gnome-shell. I'm currently using Ubuntu 11.10 with Unity due to technical problems with F15 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712533) and think that GS has the better concept from what my gut feeling tells me.
                    Because this article is a biased piece of garbage. He cherry picked some hate comments and didn't even post a single comment with an opposing view. Just pathetic, michael you should be holding youself to a higher standard than this.
                    Last edited by bwat47; 10-20-2011, 07:10 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                      Your observations are incorrect.
                      The anti-gnome-shell persons make complaints, and receive rebuttals that indicate that the pro-gnome-shell person hasn't even read the complaint to understand it. They make up some nonsense and claim ignorance. The pro-gnome-shell person tries to explain in more detail in order to get past the "blinded by bling" state that the pro-gnome-shell person has been sucked into.

                      The pro-gnome-shell person is still blinded, so they try to make up a whole bunch of excuses, trying to place the blame for getting poor utility out of gnome-shell on the actual user -- suggesting that a graphical interface should be operated by the keyboard.... HUH--SERIOUSLY???!?!? Or that the user's MOUSE is somehow to blame?


                      None of the pro-gnome-shell person's arguments are explained any more rationally than "but its pretty".

                      Well, its a barnyard pig, dressed to the 9's and with a full makeover by the most famous homosexual in existence. Thanks, but I'd rather the HUMAN NERDY GIRL with zero fashion sense. At least she is capable of intelligent conversation and knows how to make a sandwich.
                      Get over youself, plenty of people in this thread have posted rebuttels with much more substance than "its pretty". Stop putting words in people's mouths. You don't like gnome-shell, fine. I respect your opinion, just don't use it, but don't go around posting stupiud drivel like this.

                      People have opposing views that are every bit as valid as your opinion. Your opinion is not the only one, and it is not fact. This article and this thread are really showcasing everything the open source community strives not to be.

                      Believe it or not its possible to have an intelligent debate without ad-hominem and straw man attacks.
                      Last edited by bwat47; 10-20-2011, 07:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                        Believe it or not its possible to have an intelligent debate without ad-hominem and straw man attacks.
                        Yes but is it also possible for DROIDHACKER to ENGAGE in a DEBATE without putting WORDS in ALL CAPS?

                        Comment


                        • Hi,
                          i really dont like gnome 3. I can see the point but it doesnt make any sense. majority of linux users, are power users. This isnt to say there aren't home users, but most linux users are power users. Of those, a significant portion use gnome. Majority of gnome users are power users. Gnome 3 was a great chance to fix things for the sake of simplicity. Why should you go to Places > Documents to find a document, to realise its not there. The average user should care where files are, they just want the file. Same goes for applications and settings. Most users dont want to see complex network settings next to the wallpaper settings. However in altering the desktop to make these things easier (and to get ahead of the touch revolution) the gnome dev's seemed to have forgotten that people who know how to manage a desktop, and know where things are loose control. This is a significant portion of the userbase. A big part of the gnome 3 debacle is the gnome dev's pitching the desktop for 'mums' and i dont mean that every decision was to appease mothers and no-one else was thought about. I mean that decisions were made to simplify the experience for consumers when it shouldnt have. Yes in an ideal world computers should never be shutdown. However we dont live in a perfect world, and suspend doesnt work on every machine, and even if it does, it doesnt make sense. Computers boot quick enough as it is, especially with systemd.

                          As it stands, i also dont think gnome shell is good for consumers either. I couldnt give gnome shell to my mum, the whole managing windows just seems crazy to me. Give anyone mac os, and i think they will have a good chance of working with it. Nice big icons for the most important thing - programs. The rest really doesnt matter. Same goes for windows 7. If you make the most important feature front and center the rest doesnt matter. But as it stands switching between apps is a joke in gnome shell. Its impossible to tell just from a quick glance whats currently running or even how to switch to them. Instead its hidden behind alt+tab/alt+` (stupidest thing ever btw) or in the activity menu. Which means everytime someone needs to switch they need to wrestle with the keyboard or go into a menu system to get an expose type feature. And if theres multiple desktops running multiple apps this is a mess. A dock or taskbar is simple to use and it works.

                          Now thats not to say completely get rid of gnome shell. I dont think thats going to happen. But it would make sense to offer a dual desktop, or even offer a power user extension pack which gives a dual desktop mode. The default could be shell as it stands, and a power extension pack to revert to a gnome 2-esque metaphor. This also allows gnome to keep consistency. At the moment power users are running a wide-array of extensions which makes it hard to update and add features without breaking things. With two clear desktops in mind this should be easier for everyone. I dont think forking gnome 2 is a good idea, as gnome 2 is old tech. I am a big fan of the gnome 3 system, it looks gorgeous, its fluid, consistent, has nice animations. I just dont like the layout.

                          [EDIT]
                          btw of those 'home' users running linux and gnome, i bet 90% of those are running it because a power user has given it to them, and a power user could easily configure gnome to be 'easy', not to say that gnome 2.32 isnt easy, i gave it to a photoshop user (breaks every windows and mac machine i give her), and she hasnt had any problems with gnome 2.32
                          Last edited by Jedipottsy; 10-20-2011, 07:52 PM.

                          Comment


                          • GNOME started going to hell around the time they started using GConf. The latest incarnation of GNOME is, yet again, a bad product developed by talented people with good intentions. Misguided but with good intentions.

                            I switched to XFCE in 2003 and have not looked back. I was still using GDM until GDM3 (insert intemperate language here). Fortunately LightDM works nicely as a replacement and is much snappier.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jedipottsy View Post
                              Now thats not to say completely get rid of gnome shell. I dont think thats going to happen. But it would make sense to offer a dual desktop, or even offer a power user extension pack which gives a dual desktop mode. The default could be shell as it stands, and a power extension pack to revert to a gnome 2-esque metaphor. This also allows gnome to keep consistency. At the moment power users are running a wide-array of extensions which makes it hard to update and add features without breaking things. With two clear desktops in mind this should be easier for everyone. I dont think forking gnome 2 is a good idea, as gnome 2 is old tech. I am a big fan of the gnome 3 system, it looks gorgeous, its fluid, consistent, has nice animations. I just dont like the layout.
                              You see, this common misconception was the main reason I started posting in this thread, THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!

                              You do not need the Shell to run Gnome 3. The classic Gnome Panel is still there, it has been updated and the theme has been changed (and can be changed by the user) but with the latest releases is just as functional as the old panel. In terms of functionality, I wager that it is in fact better than the old panel, as the applet placement is a lot more solid. You can use Metacity with it. You can use Mutter with it. You can even use Compiz with it. It is still there and it is called Fallback mode. You can access it through your distro repositories, or a simple dialogue through System Settings.

                              This is why I do not understand all the hate. Gnome has not locked you into its new system, despite all the claims. The old way is still there, still receiving updates. There are legitimate reasons to use and like the Shell. There are legitimate reasons to hate it. But the choice is there, and despite some claims to the contrary, it is not going away. So, pack up and stop arguing, and use your desktop as you will.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                                You see, this common misconception was the main reason I started posting in this thread, THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!

                                You do not need the Shell to run Gnome 3. The classic Gnome Panel is still there, it has been updated and the theme has been changed (and can be changed by the user) but with the latest releases is just as functional as the old panel. In terms of functionality, I wager that it is in fact better than the old panel, as the applet placement is a lot more solid. You can use Metacity with it. You can use Mutter with it. You can even use Compiz with it. It is still there and it is called Fallback mode. You can access it through your distro repositories, or a simple dialogue through System Settings.

                                This is why I do not understand all the hate. Gnome has not locked you into its new system, despite all the claims. The old way is still there, still receiving updates. There are legitimate reasons to use and like the Shell. There are legitimate reasons to hate it. But the choice is there, and despite some claims to the contrary, it is not going away. So, pack up and stop arguing, and use your desktop as you will.
                                Problem is that they crippled the Gnome-Panel. A lot of the configurability of it is gone. I can't even slide my applets anymore, it is ridiculous.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X