Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Playing Around With New Middle-Click Action

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

  • GNOME Playing Around With New Middle-Click Action

    Phoronix: GNOME Playing Around With New Middle-Click Action

    While traditionally the middle-click mouse button has been a convenient way to paste rather than Ctrl + V on Unix-like systems, GNOME designers are looking to change it up for their desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0NjA

  • #2
    WTF do I need to open a context menu with the middle click button when I already have a context menu on the right button?

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't get the rationale behind that change, the wiki just shows some mobile OS images. Why would anyone want to disable middle click paste for desktop? GTK is getting worse and worse...

      Comment


      • #4
        The worst thing about this change is that the GNOME developers seem once again generally antipathetic to choice. There will be no (graphical) option, if you are very lucky you can change it back with a terminal line.
        In my understanding, this is just wrong. Changes and evolution of the desktop are necessary, but GNOME is a dictatorship, in some cases even worse than Apple.

        Comment


        • #5
          Gnome 3.0 showed the Gnome Dev's real attitude to be just the same as Apple: they have a dream, a vision, and you are just along for the ride.

          If that vision happens to be acceptable for you, great, happy to have you. But if its not... They're not really looking to cater to you. You're not their target audience anymore.

          Come join us the KDE/Qt/EFL camps We just want to write interesting, fun,code using new technology; if we get some awesome marketshare along the way: good for us, If not... eh, we're having fun anyway.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sn3ipen View Post
            WTF do I need to open a context menu with the middle click button when I already have a context menu on the right button?
            Exactly my thoughts. Before too long, I will find it very hard to convince myself to want to try Gnome again. Hopefully Ubuntu can revert whatever changes they try to make to this functionality.

            Comment


            • #7
              The Fail Boat is why we have the MATE Desktop

              Comment


              • #8
                Shark. Jumped.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Holy cow!

                  This was probably one of the features that made me switch to linux.

                  I can't live without it now, I don't want to go back to the boring windows way...

                  If they have a way to revert it in the mouse options, if I don't like their new way, I'll be fine, but if not !!....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by holunder View Post
                    The worst thing about this change is that the GNOME developers seem once again generally antipathetic to choice. There will be no (graphical) option, if you are very lucky you can change it back with a terminal line.
                    In my understanding, this is just wrong. Changes and evolution of the desktop are necessary, but GNOME is a dictatorship, in some cases even worse than Apple.
                    They're harmless. They live in a bubble. Gnome Shell is probably below XFCE or LXDE usage these days. Way way below KDE, Unity, Cinammon or Mate, for sure.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      And more generally, what about clipboard management in wayland ?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Getting kind of sick how every time gnome makes any kind of change its just 'ZOMG GNOME IS WORSE THAN HITLER EVERY CHANGE THEY MAKE IS WRONG AND THE DEVELOPERS DONT CARE ABOUT ANYONE'

                        so much hyperbole I don't see this change as a big deal at all, it could potentially be interesting, I'd have to wait and see how they'd implement it before forming a proper opinion.

                        Personally I really like gnome-shell and don't think it deserves all the hate. If you don't like it then you aren't forced to use gnome. Gnome 2 was also a very simple and clean desktop with limited options, which is what many people liked about it compared to the comparatively convoluted kde, I don't get how some people seem to think this is a new thing with gnome 3...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                          Getting kind of sick how every time gnome makes any kind of change its just 'ZOMG GNOME IS WORSE THAN HITLER EVERY CHANGE THEY MAKE IS WRONG AND THE DEVELOPERS DONT CARE ABOUT ANYONE'

                          so much hyperbole I don't see this change as a big deal at all, it could potentially be interesting, I'd have to wait and see how they'd implement it before forming a proper opinion.

                          Personally I really like gnome-shell and don't think it deserves all the hate. If you don't like it then you aren't forced to use gnome. Gnome 2 was also a very simple and clean desktop with limited options, which is what many people liked about it compared to the comparatively convoluted kde, I don't get how some people seem to think this is a new thing with gnome 3...
                          The problem is while gnome 2 was relatively simple and straight-forward, it had more options than windows but less options than KDE. It was easy to drastically change it's appearance and functionality and up until the last half year of it's life, most things you'd care about changing were accessible in an easy-to-use GUI. GNOME now is incredibly locked down with very little customization of any kind, with many standard features being completely missing, it's considerably more bloated than before, and less productive to use. I personally think it's a nice interface but it's not ideal for experienced linux users.

                          The problem with gnome 3 is the same problem as Windows RT - they're not bad platforms but the developers stuck with an old name that people trust. Windows RT doesn't run programs designed for Windows, and gnome 3 doesn't look or act like it's predecessors at all. Also, both Windows RT and gnome 3 are clearly touch-screen oriented. If they just didn't call it gnome, it wouldn't receive so much hate. Linux is all about change and alternative solutions, but it doesn't FEEL like an alternative when the software collection you used to like has an identity so different you feel uncomfortable - kinda like Michael Jackson.
                          Last edited by schmidtbag; 08-26-2013, 11:19 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                            The problem is while gnome 2 was relatively simple and straight-forward, it had more options than windows but less options than KDE. It was easy to drastically change it's appearance and functionality and up until the last half year of it's life, most things you'd care about changing were accessible in an easy-to-use GUI. GNOME now is incredibly locked down with very little customization of any kind, with many standard features being completely missing, it's considerably more bloated than before, and less productive to use. I personally think it's a nice interface but it's not ideal for experienced linux users.

                            The problem with gnome 3 is the same problem as Windows RT - they're not bad platforms but the developers stuck with an old name that people trust. Windows RT doesn't run programs designed for Windows, and gnome 3 doesn't look or act like it's predecessors at all. Also, both Windows RT and gnome 3 are clearly touch-screen oriented. If they just didn't call it gnome, it wouldn't receive so much hate. Linux is all about change and alternative solutions, but it doesn't FEEL like an alternative when the software collection you used to like has an identity so different you feel uncomfortable - kinda like Michael Jackson.
                            Gnome 3 is not "less customizable" than gnome 2. It does have less built in preferences, but it is designed in a way that actually makes it far more customizable than gnome 2 due to its support for extensions. People tend to greatly exaggerate gnome 3's "lack of customization".

                            The most important "missing options" are available in gnome-tweak-tool (such as font settings). I agree font settings should be available somewhere in the normal preferences, but its silly how some people totally disregard the tweak tool because its not the "regular preferences" or such similar silly arguments. The tweak tool is available in the repos for every distro that offers gnome 3 and is very easy to use (and I hear its got a nice redesign for gnome 3.10). I didn't find it any harder to change themes and font settings in gnome 3 than I did in gnome 2, and it actually takes me longer to change font settings in KDE because it has *too many* font settings (I have to change the font for general, fixed width, small, toolbar, menu, window title, taskbar, desktop) and I have to change them all if I want a consistent font, and then I have to go in and change the clock widgets font because for some reason it doesn't follow the kcm's font settings. In gnome-tweak-tool there's just 4 font settings (general, document, mono, window) that I have to change, much quicker for me to change my font .
                            Last edited by bwat47; 08-26-2013, 11:35 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                              The problem is while gnome 2 was relatively simple and straight-forward, it had more options than windows but less options than KDE. It was easy to drastically change it's appearance and functionality and up until the last half year of it's life, most things you'd care about changing were accessible in an easy-to-use GUI. GNOME now is incredibly locked down with very little customization of any kind, with many standard features being completely missing, it's considerably more bloated than before, and less productive to use. I personally think it's a nice interface but it's not ideal for experienced linux users.

                              The problem with gnome 3 is the same problem as Windows RT - they're not bad platforms but the developers stuck with an old name that people trust. Windows RT doesn't run programs designed for Windows, and gnome 3 doesn't look or act like it's predecessors at all. Also, both Windows RT and gnome 3 are clearly touch-screen oriented. If they just didn't call it gnome, it wouldn't receive so much hate. Linux is all about change and alternative solutions, but it doesn't FEEL like an alternative when the software collection you used to like has an identity so different you feel uncomfortable - kinda like Michael Jackson.
                              That's funny as hell If it makes you feel as uncomfortable as MJ makes me feel, then there are some serious problems.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X