GNOME Usability Issues Analyzed As Part Of GNOME OPW

[MoonMoon]

I am assuming you stick with DE defaults the way you are railing on about how gnome isn't catering to you. Try modifying your linux installation. Gnome 3 was designed with extensions in mind.

How hard is "sudo pacman -S thunar", Or sudo apt-get install thunar, or zypper in thunar.....Complaining about features that are easily changeable is retarded. There are great extensions for just about every use scenario you could come up with in Gnome. Not using them is the same as not configuring KDE and then complaining about the interface.

You still don't get it, don't you? The point is not how hard it is to install a different filemanager. The point is that it is utterly moronic to remove features that are used by their userbase and when someone complains he/she is told that he can install a different filemanager if they want to use that feature, all while claiming to be a solution for everyone. Their actions indicate clearly that Gnome is not the solution for everyone, but only for those that share the same mindset as they do. You simply can't remove features that are still in use and then tell people to fuck off, while claiming that they catert to everyone.
As I said, I am fine when they want to eat their cake, or if they want to keep it, but it is simply moronic to claim to have the cake while eating it. Or, in other words: Gnome's cake is a lie.

[MoonMoon]

Further discussion is futile. Your come from an erroneous stance that there is no such thing as 'objectively more efficient UI actions' don't exist or that it's not worth it to put them before user's habits and here it ends.

Please show me the peer reviewed article that supports your claims that Gnome has "effectively more efficient UI actions". Yes, here it ends, until you can back up your claims.

[MoonMoon]

in the risk of playing Captain Obvious and Devil's Advocate at the same time.

gnome/gtk was fairly obvious with initial presentations. 3.0 is development version, where 4.0 will be stable. and as much as i hate acknowledging this, they are right. you can't have stable and fast development in same sentence. one would expect that extensions will be much more reliable when that happens, sigh... curse my self

on the other side, i can't name how many times i cursed the same thing i defended in previous paragraph because of extremely long unstable turn. at least gtk should go stable asap. as far as gnome goes, no matter how much i hate my self for saying this. i want them to wait for full wayland support and sandboxing. last thing i would ever want to see is those 2 breaking stability due to not resolved issues because of rushing and those 2 are kind off, biggest thing that is bound to happen

If they would announce it in that way, fine. But they don't instead their very website claims that Gnome 3 is "a smooth and polished product that is satisfying to use and beautiful to behold.". You are telling us now that their developement version is smooth an polished? Truth is, nowhere on their website is a statement that tells users to wait for Gnome 4 if they want to have a stable product and that Gnome 3 is a development version.

[MoonMoon]

in the risk of playing Captain Obvious and Devil's Advocate at the same time.

gnome/gtk was fairly obvious with initial presentations. 3.0 is development version, where 4.0 will be stable. and as much as i hate acknowledging this, they are right. you can't have stable and fast development in same sentence. one would expect that extensions will be much more reliable when that happens, sigh... curse my self

If they would announce it in that way, fine. But they don't instead their very website claims that Gnome 3 is "a smooth and polished product that is satisfying to use and beautiful to behold.". You are telling us now that their developement version is smooth an polished? Truth is, nowhere on their website is a statement that tells users to wait for Gnome 4 if they want to have a stable product and that Gnome 3 is a development version.

[justmy2cents]

If they would announce it in that way, fine. But they don't instead their very website claims that Gnome 3 is "a smooth and polished product that is satisfying to use and beautiful to behold.". You are telling us now that their developement version is smooth an polished? Truth is, nowhere on their website is a statement that tells users to wait for Gnome 4 if they want to have a stable product and that Gnome 3 is a development version.

actually, they did announce it that way, as far as I remember both gtk and gnome already referred to 4.0 in their initial plans for 3 (which at that time seemed very strange to me, why already advertise next release if you're in process of starting the new one). there was also plan in 2014 for 4.0, but i'd say that one was put on delay due to wayland and sandboxing where neither was part of 4.0 plans at that time.

3.14 and 3.16 are exactly how site claims. note, that if we talk about stable API/ABI, site never promises that... unless your representation of "a smooth and polished product that is satisfying to use and beautiful to behold." somehow includes that too

also, i never said development is "smooth and polished". i said stable and fast development can't go together. how in the world do you understand it like this?

[justmy2cents]

You still don't get it, don't you? The point is not how hard it is to install a different filemanager. The point is that it is utterly moronic to remove features that are used by their userbase and when someone complains he/she is told that he can install a different filemanager if they want to use that feature, all while claiming to be a solution for everyone. Their actions indicate clearly that Gnome is not the solution for everyone, but only for those that share the same mindset as they do. You simply can't remove features that are still in use and then tell people to fuck off, while claiming that they catert to everyone.
As I said, I am fine when they want to eat their cake, or if they want to keep it, but it is simply moronic to claim to have the cake while eating it. Or, in other words: Gnome's cake is a lie.

and which would be solution for everyone? the one that has all the features? sorry, too cluttered for me.

there is also one more reasoning. the people who don't use/need advanced features will be satisfied, while people who need them are definitely capable on installing some other software that meets their needs.

unless you think gnome should do it other way around. fit base desktop around most advanced users to fit their need and then impose "you can install..." on people who have no clue if they feel like they are overwhelmed with feature clusterfuck.

either way, you're not making any sense. on one side you want zillion configurations and on another you hate installing different file manager