The GNOME Foundation Is Running Short On Money

[Vim_User]

It is a win because extensions display the flexibility of Gnome Shell.

It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.

[grndzro]

It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.

Exactly. If the majority of Gnome 3 users are using a hacked up version then what is the adoption of a default Gnome 3 Desktop?

[daedaluz]

It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.

You are only quoting what Torvalds said. He is not people. He's one person.

Exactly. If the majority of Gnome 3 users are using a hacked up version then what is the adoption of a default Gnome 3 Desktop?

Extensions are officially supported. They have their own portal right at extensions.gnome.org. Saying that people who use those use a "hacked up version" of GNOME is just plain stupid.

[Vim_User]

You are only quoting what Torvalds said. He is not people. He's one person.

For sure. Torvalds is the only person on the planet that uses the Gnome 2 interface on Gnome Shell. That must be the reason the Gnome 2 interface for Gnome Shell will be the default in RHEL 7. Just for Torvalds. Get real.

[finalzone]

It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.

GNOME 2 interface (Gnome Classic session) was recreated for more conservative users especially in enterprise market while keeping the shell technology, nothing to do with the failure of design as insinuated. Implying flexibility is somehow an issue of usability issue shows dishonestly in the argument as if it means to permanently stall the project in maintenance mode rather than adapting to the modern market.

[oleid]

Exactly. If the majority of Gnome 3 users are using a hacked up version then what is the adoption of a default Gnome 3 Desktop?

The people I know use and like the default Gnome3 desktop. Personally, I don't care much if there's a panel I can click on or not, as I mostly use the keyboard anyway.

[swbf2lord]

I, for one, despise Gnome 3.x. It seems to be a regression in features and usability. Kind of like Windows 8's start menu, except that you can hide the Start Menu and never look at it, unlike Gnome 3, which puts the entire desktop in a touch-based layout (at least, that's what it seems to me).

Right now, I'm flipping between Enlightenment, Cinnamon, and XFCE.

[finalzone]

I, for one, despise Gnome 3.x. It seems to be a regression in features and usability. Kind of like Windows 8's start menu, except that you can hide the Start Menu and never look at it, unlike Gnome 3, which puts the entire desktop in a touch-based layout (at least, that's what it seems to me).

It seems features and usability is defined as having the 90's layout as your preference suggests. Start Menu can be add via extension on Gnome Shell while Windows 8 version lacked without major hacking.

As read on the previous post

The GNOME Shell design also started to grapple with the challenges presented by modern computer hardware. Producing a desktop which would be well suited to netbook screens was a key concern. Touch input was another target, and the GNOME 3 design evolved so that it would be as ready to make the leap to touch screen devices. The GNOME 3 desktop was designed so that it would be usable and recognisable across a whole range of computing devices.

[swbf2lord]

It seems features and usability is defined as having the 90's layout as your preference suggests. Start Menu can be add via extension on Gnome Shell while Windows 8 version lacked without major hacking.

As read on the previous post

Nah, you misunderstand. It's not about the Start Menu, or lack thereof. I don't like to use a desktop that is intended for touch devices with a mouse and keyboard. I've used Gnome 3, and when I did, I used the extensions heavily to get it to where I wanted. There were some things that were good about it, but not enough to keep me there. It feels very constricting compared to other interfaces. It's not "modern", it's just touch screen oriented.

[strcat]

Nah, you misunderstand. It's not about the Start Menu, or lack thereof. I don't like to use a desktop that is intended for touch devices with a mouse and keyboard. I've used Gnome 3, and when I did, I used the extensions heavily to get it to where I wanted. There were some things that were good about it, but not enough to keep me there. It feels very constricting compared to other interfaces. It's not "modern", it's just touch screen oriented.

It's not touch-screen oriented, in fact it doesn't work well there yet. It was only designed with the possibility of supporting touch screens in the future. It's far more keyboard-oriented than the old GNOME2 interface, although it's less keyboard friendly than a tiling window manager. It's arguably less mouse-friendly on a large screen than GNOME2 due to the global menu, but 3.12 made using it optional. It allows replacing the global menu with an icon in the header bars. There was never pain when you're using the keyboard, because you're not moving the mouse up to the menu anyway.