Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clear Linux Switches From Xfce To GNOME, Benchmarks

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by ldo17 View Post
    I think we can agree that all GUIs suck.
    Please find a source that isn't obviously contradicting your statements as this way you only make a fool out of yourself. That blog writer said in the first paragraph:

    Seems like the CLI has become unfashionable to many, while the GUI is the preferred way of doing things.
    Really, the optimum way to use a computer nowadays is with a combination of both (CLI and GUI).

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by grege View Post
      https://extensions.gnome.org/

      Currently 81 pages of extensions and Gnome is labelled as not configurable. You can bend it and shape it and theme it anyway your imagination can manage.
      As long as the extension does not break because they break API again.

      Other desktops offer knobs and settings to do so, not third party "patches". That way on average your customizations survive updates better.

      And note that also Cinnamon has the same issue.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by sirblackheart View Post

        wasn't he banned some months ago for taking his own trolling a little bit to seriously?

        THAT'S a thing?!!!

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
          Please find a source that isn't obviously contradicting your statements as this way you only make a fool out of yourself. That blog writer said in the first paragraph:

          Seems like the CLI has become unfashionable to many, while the GUI is the preferred way of doing things.
          Really, the optimum way to use a computer nowadays is with a combination of both (CLI and GUI).
          CLI has always had inferior discoverability since guis came into their own. This could change, but if won't until we abandon terminal emulation of $pickYourStandard

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by liam View Post

            CLI has always had inferior discoverability ...
            What do you mean?

            [email protected]:~> man -k discoverability
            discoverability: nothing appropriate.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
              MS's win8 market penetration, for starters. Main reason Windows 8 failed hard was the weird interface not suited for desktop pcs. GNOME3 has way too much resemblance to that.
              That is nothing but assumptions on your side. Till you bring hard evidence trough relevant user studies showing that GNOMES HIG and GUI causing troubles to several different people (including those not having trouble adapting to new and efficient mental models) in comparison to the ones you mentioned you are doing no better then Griffing here.
              Not everyone wants to be stuck on the win95 and pre methaphers. But I understand that there are people having trouble to adapt their long trained mental models so I think it is great there are several open source DE out their tailored to their needs.
              Last edited by sirblackheart; 26 May 2017, 06:20 AM.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by dragon321 View Post
                GTK complicate configuration of environment? It's only toolkit. Configuration options depends on application/DE developers. And what "break API" You meant? GTK 3 has stable API now. It won't be changed until GTK4.
                Yes, it makes harder to write feature rich applications. Wow, it has stable API after so many years of broken themes compatibility?

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by leipero View Post

                  How you managed to miss what i wrote is beyond me..., I gave an argument that KDE is NOT as customizable as you KDE fans claim it to be, i gave simple example of privacy settings, you didn't even bother to cover that section, why? If having ability to change the theme and layout out of the box (mind you GNOME can do that perfectly fine with tweak tool, in fact I don't use standard theme or layout - slightly different layout) is priority over privacy settings for you, hey, that's fine with me, but not addressing my argument is very dishonest, and I am not going into GTK+ and it's pros and cons, it's a toolkit, and it is constantly evolving, it's mostly not object oriented, and that is a good thing in my view, less confusing..., but that's beside the point.
                  So, we have one option in Gnome which is missing in KDE vs. dozens of options in KDE not available in Gnome. Take a look at panel customization, Dolphin features and so on. KDE is far more customizable and I don't mean themes.

                  From multiple studies, it is known fact that most people do not cunstomize theming etc., you would be suprized how meny people do not chage their desktop background even.
                  We need such study for Gnome which is far from standard desktop principles.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by sirblackheart View Post

                    That is nothing but assumptions on your side. Till you bring hard evidence trough relevant user studies showing that GNOMES HIG and GUI causing troubles to several different people (including those not having trouble adapting to new and efficient mental models) in comparison to the ones you mentioned you are doing no better then Griffing here.
                    Not everyone wants to be stuck on the win95 and pre methaphers. But I understand that there are people having trouble to adapt their long trained mental models so I think it is great there are several open source DE out their tailored to their needs.
                    I don't know what you need studies for. As someone used to customize my desktop, I can tell you I can't get to grips with Gnome. Yes, it's customizable. No, it's not customizable to the level I need. In that regard, it can be compared to Win8.
                    At the same time, I can see the above not being an issue for people that don't require as much customization.

                    Adapting to new models is not the issue here. Whenever you change the model, some people will not adapt. And it's not always because they have trouble adapting, it can be because they simply don't have the time or can't afford a drop in productivity for a month or two till they adapt or they simply don't see the point.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by sirblackheart View Post

                      That is nothing but assumptions on your side. Till you bring hard evidence trough relevant user studies showing that GNOMES HIG and GUI causing troubles to several different people (including those not having trouble adapting to new and efficient mental models) in comparison to the ones you mentioned you are doing no better then Griffing here.
                      Not everyone wants to be stuck on the win95 and pre methaphers. But I understand that there are people having trouble to adapt their long trained mental models so I think it is great there are several open source DE out their tailored to their needs.
                      The usability concepts of the Desktop metaphor, windows etc is backed by decades of research and usability studies e.g.:

                      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/...2/?reload=true
                      http://www.jstor.org/stable/248990?s...n_tab_contents
                      http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=286577
                      http://www.sigchi.org/chi96/proceedi...an/kds_txt.htm

                      That is not to say that things should stay static, indeed with more powerful machines, mobile devices and touch screens, it's natural that things will continue to evolve. However with GNOME 3, it appears that their HIG was changed to induce new paradigms absent in the established desktop metaphor, such as moving from a document centric interface to a mare task oriented interface (kind of like Windows before 95) with an emphasis on what is assumed to be importance to the user.

                      That is all well and good, however it has never been validated by any sort of formal, large scale user testing like what has been done with the traditional desktop metaphor. The last formal usability studies down with GNOME was done in 2001 by Sun. Given the Linux desktop is pretty much a tertiary interest to the likes of Red Hat and SUSE etc. I don't see them funding any similar usability studies any time soon.

                      Anyway regardless of the rights or wrongs about the developers user assumptions, IMO the GNOME developers approach of stripping out a whole bunch of functionality, and usurers having to reply on extensions that depend on a undocumented, and usable API to regain some of the functionality enjoyed in GNOME 2 is not the right approach, hence the many forks there have been.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X