Contributors: GNOME equal to KDE

[danielnez1]

I'm sorry but you seem to have entirely missed the point. Perhaps you could probe your point by trying to move the upper left hand menus in Gnome Classic to the bottom panel. I would be very curious to know if you are successful or not.

[kigurai]

GNOME 2 was a great product due to its flexibility.

How is that? Considering that Gnome-Shell extensions can basically change *anything* in the Shell, I fail to see how Gnome 2 was more customizable.

[danielnez1]

How is that? Considering that Gnome-Shell extensions can basically change *anything* in the Shell, I fail to see how Gnome 2 was more customizable.

Given that you can change the layout of your default GNOME desktop by right clicking on the panels and changing them and/or removing them. That is what I meant by flexibility. I agree that Gnome-Shell is extendible by using extensions, but I don't see why it is necessary to have to resort to use them in the first place to do something as simple as re-arranging the desktop panels.

[Chaz]

the problem is that it's essentially designed by hobbyist amateurs, who are not professional UI designers like the ones in Gnome or KDE projects.

You're appealing to authority--they're professionals so they know better. Professional just means you get paid for it, it doesn't mean you're good at it. In any case, Clem pays himself through Linux Mint sponsorship revenue, and he works on UIs, so he is a professional UI designer as well.

But really there's no need to try to infer the UI quality from the number of professional UI devs working on it. It's both easier and more accurate to just try them and judge for yourself which is best. To me that's Cinnamon*. And naturally I also like the Windows Vista UI which Cinnamon resembles closely. KDE might be able to match Cinnamon if you changed the theme, replaced the start menu, and disabled the cashew, activities, 90% of the widgets/applets--basically every feature they've been working on since KDE3. But that's way too much customization to have to do, and KDE themes I like are hard to find.

*Only in Ubuntu-based Linux Mint though, with the theme changed to Clearlooks, and hot corners disabled. In LMDE I can't change the GTK+ theme, so it's fugly!

[danielnez1]

Being flexible is also a matter of maturing. Gnome 3 is maturing and getting more flexible. Mature and flexible enough for RHEL. Now it is disclosed. http://worldofgnome.org/rhel-7-is-sh...-classic-mode/

Be happy at least one free desktop is good enough make it.

You completely lost me "Being flexible is also a matter of maturing" bit. Perhaps you could elaborate in a way that makes sense.

I guess one way to take the decision to ship with the Classic Mode by default is it is an admission that the standard GNOME shell is not up to the job.

I think you will find there are plenty of desktops good enough to make it, especially if Red Hat sets the bar so low

[finalzone]

I guess one way to take the decision to ship with the Classic Mode by default is it is an admission that the standard GNOME shell is not up to the job.

Enterprise environment =/= consumer environment.
Classic Mode still contains standard Gnome shell.

[danielnez1]

Enterprise environment =/= consumer environment.
Classic Mode still contains standard Gnome shell.

While they are two distinct markets, in the case of the Windows 95 UI there was quite a short transition from the Win 3.x UI of NT 3.5 to NT 4 with a short intermediate step with Windows NT 3.51. While the 95 UI had some shortcomings it was a significant move forward in UI design for the Windows platform that it was quickly accepted by both enterprise and consumer sectors. If GNOME 3 was less jarring then I strongly believe that the Classic Mode would not have been needed or be offered as default for RHEL 7.

Coding is easy(and fun), maintaining and supporting is not easy(but costly). Saying no to having a too large and complex codebase is like knowing your limits. Adding flexibility usually means adding complexity and code. It can not be done over night.

As a programmer I find that 80% of coding is fun as you make advances but the last 20% is a pain as you correct the minor niggles after the worst bugs are fixed. However having movable panels etc. Is not exactly ground braking and I would not imagine that the GNOME developers would have found it hard to implement for GNOME 3.0. Instead the reason for not including the functionality seems to be more about imposing their way of doing things rather than code complexity.

Gnome is both Modern and classic. Gnome gives you the choice to pick a shell and the flexibility to modify it by the use of extensions.

But for something as basic as adjusting the panels why do you need extensions in the first place? I would agree that extensions would be appropriate if I was wanting to extensively change the UI but not for something basic.

Bad jokes aside, Im looking forward to other desktops joining the club of be supported by billion $ companies. Lets revisit this by 2020.

So am I, there are some interesting ones out there and KDE has come on a long way since the early 4.x days.

[movieman]

Extensions ARE a part of Gnome. Thus making Gnome 3 more flexible than Gnome 2 ever was. Be happy.

Extensions are a piss-poor alternative to having the features in the first place. They stop being supported or they get broken by new updates, so no-one can rely on them in the long term.

[finalzone]

While they are two distinct markets, in the case of the Windows 95 UI there was quite a short transition from the Win 3.x UI of NT 3.5 to NT 4 with a short intermediate step with Windows NT 3.51. While the 95 UI had some shortcomings it was a significant move forward in UI design for the Windows platform that it was quickly accepted by both enterprise and consumer sectors.

At that time, there were very few alternative UI excluding OS/2 (Mac OS does not count because Apple ran on different architectures).
Today, consumers are exposed to several different UI flavours than before, you cannot compare to what happened two decades ago.

If GNOME 3 was less jarring then I strongly believe that the Classic Mode would not have been needed or be offered as default for RHEL 7.

Gnome Shell isnt that jarring, it sounds like you are very conservative in UI appearence much like enterprise audiences (Microsoft Windows NT series for enterprise still retains the old Win2000 UI interface at the request).
RHEL7 is doing the same thing while still gradually incorporating the new Gnome 3 features.

[danielnez1]

At that time, there were very few alternative UI excluding OS/2 (Mac OS does not count because Apple ran on different architectures).
Today, consumers are exposed to several different UI flavours than before, you cannot compare to what happened two decades ago.

While I agree that consumers are exposed to UIs these days, I don't believe that is relevant to my point since if the GNOME Shell was truly an advancement in usability etc. it wouldn't received as much criticism as it has.

Gnome Shell isnt that jarring, it sounds like you are very conservative in UI appearance much like enterprise audiences (Microsoft Windows NT series for enterprise still retains the old Win2000 UI interface at the request).
RHEL7 is doing the same thing while still gradually incorporating the new Gnome 3 features.

I demonstrate on a System Administration module at the University I'm at and the Linux machines have had the GNOME Shell for the past 2 years. Every year the students complain about how difficult and frustrating it is to use and by the end of the module a large proportion of them either ssh into the Virtual Machines the use from their own Laptops or use the Fallback mode. It is pretty embarrassing. This year KDE has been installed alongside GNOME so at least students will have a choice.

I wouldn't consider my self a traditionalist, by all means the GNOME developers have every right to try out new things but their execution has been extremely poor with their "all or nothing" approach.