Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Intel 4K + GNOME Optimization Yields 5% Faster Render Times, 10% Lower Power Use

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Mez' View Post
    I only managed to get the workflow I wanted after installing 18 extensions.
    And there is nothing wrong with that, when the concept of Gnome 3 was planned the developer knew that it will not fit everyone due to its new and experimental UI/UX so they created the infrastructure we now know as Extensions. Make the shell and the compositor script-able, patch-able, extendable, customizable. Let the user decide what he needs and what is to change.
    Who doesn't like something this powerful?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
      when the concept of Gnome 3 was planned the developer knew that it will not fit everyone due to its new and experimental UI/UX
      That's a very generous interpretation. gnome-shell seems to have be designed with an assumption that "mobile convergence" would actually be a real thing. We now know that to be utterly false.

      So what you're left with in gnome-shell is an interface designed for tablets that 99% of people just use on PC hardware. What a sorry state of affairs.

      Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
      Who doesn't like something this powerful?
      It's a bad design targeted at a non-existent use case and requires 20 brittle and terrible performing extension to even be somewhat usable. You're delusional if you think that's in any way "powerful".

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post

        And there is nothing wrong with that, when the concept of Gnome 3 was planned the developer knew that it will not fit everyone due to its new and experimental UI/UX so they created the infrastructure we now know as Extensions. Make the shell and the compositor script-able, patch-able, extendable, customizable. Let the user decide what he needs and what is to change.
        Who doesn't like something this powerful?
        Yes, there is. Basic stuff should be part of the desktop.
        From a functionality standpoint it would reduce the risk of breaking stuff with updates.
        Also speaking of UI/UX this design effectively splits the settings, because you have your system settings and your extensions settings. (and other stuff in other sections of Gnome Tweaks)
        It makes sense for "real" tweaks and extensions, but not for things that are expected, like desktop icons, the system tray, window buttons, the visibility and placement of the dock and so on

        Edit: I said "almost expected" because I'm a Linux user and I'm familiar with the Gnome so-called-design, but then I deleted "almost" because for the other ≈95% of the desktop users all those things are absolutely taken for granted.

        PS: I think it's more than 95% because even within Linux almost any other desktop provides them, by default.
        Last edited by JackLilhammers; 06-28-2020, 07:38 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
          but not for things that are expected, like desktop icons,
          Desktop Icons are not a part of any modern desktop, Microsoft tries to get rid of them too.
          If you really want to minimize all your open windows to launch something, there is this extension.
          This is not something anyone should expect in 2020.

          Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
          the system tray, window buttons,
          Were do other OS's place them? Not in the normal settings. Not even windows does that anymore.
          Gnome, like many other modern systems split system settings and customization settings.

          Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
          the visibility and placement of the dock and so on
          Canonical, the guys maintaining the dock have a extra menu option in the usual gnome-settings for the dock and their yaru theme.


          Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
          PS: I think it's more than 95% because even within Linux almost any other desktop provides them, by default.
          If you cant deal with change, Gnome is not for you.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
            If you cant deal with change, Gnome is not for you.
            t. Cringe "power user" who thinks pointless change is "innovation".

            Comment


            • #66
              Alexmitter, you must be kidding me. Either that or you're delusional.
              If you truly believe everything you just said, you're detached from the world.

              Desktop icons are here to stay for the foreseeable future. One Linux desktop environment is not going to change that.
              And not only they're expected, they're present in every other major platform.

              Maybe I want my desktop choke-full with files. Why should Gnome devs care?
              The nice thing about supporting desktop icons is that you don't have to use them, if you don't want to.

              System tray and window buttons settings are not in the normal settings because they work as everybody expects them to work and almost nobody thinks of changing their behaviour.

              Canonical got that right, but Ubuntu is not Gnome. In fact I can't expect Ubuntu settings in Fedora or Manjaro (btw Manjaro even uses the vanilla Gnome terminal which can't have a transparent background)

              Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
              If you cant deal with change, Gnome is not for you.
              Just to make you understand, this means being hostile to the user.
              The exact opposite of user-friendly UI/UX

              I'm going to quote you every time I'll have to explain why Linux is still failing the desktop :'D

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
                Alexmitter, you must be kidding me. Either that or you're delusional.
                If you truly believe everything you just said, you're detached from the world.

                Desktop icons are here to stay for the foreseeable future. One Linux desktop environment is not going to change that.
                And not only they're expected, they're present in every other major platform.

                Maybe I want my desktop choke-full with files. Why should Gnome devs care?
                The nice thing about supporting desktop icons is that you don't have to use them, if you don't want to.

                System tray and window buttons settings are not in the normal settings because they work as everybody expects them to work and almost nobody thinks of changing their behaviour.

                Canonical got that right, but Ubuntu is not Gnome. In fact I can't expect Ubuntu settings in Fedora or Manjaro (btw Manjaro even uses the vanilla Gnome terminal which can't have a transparent background)



                Just to make you understand, this means being hostile to the user.
                The exact opposite of user-friendly UI/UX

                I'm going to quote you every time I'll have to explain why Linux is still failing the desktop :'D
                I don't think he's kidding. Like most Vanilla Gnome (or close) / Fedora / wayland users, he has his head buried in the sand. They're in denial of the broadness of users and workflows. If it works for them, they believe it works for everyone. That's also why Fedora wayland users believe wayland's ready before it actually is.

                I said it several times, but I tend to believe Gnome is written by a bunch of nerds in a bunker somewhere. They don't use the mouse much, as Gnome is only usable through the keyboard (which is fine for nerds). They don't go out, they don't talk to users, they don't gather feedback. They are unaware of what their user base expects. They just do their thing on their own and force it down their users' throat. The lack of configurability/customization demonstrates they don't acknowledge their users have all different use cases or workflows. They just don't give a f... The rest can just "go manage itself" if they want a different workflow.

                Not. their. problem. They want as little responsibility as possible regarding what they do. Then they can blame extension developers if it breaks, as basic as the extension is (Frippery move clock, User themes, Desktop icons, System tray, ...). They're throwing a bone at us, and that's all they're willing to do.

                Canonical is far from perfect, they've also made decisions that were not in everyone's best interest, but say what you want about them, they understand their users pretty well and try to accomodate their different workflows. That's why they've succeeded (straight away) where Fedora have always failed.

                Fedora (here I make it a synonym of the Gnome dev team) is speaking to the few nerds. They designed Gnome for and between themselves. While Canonical (through Ubuntu) is encompassing everyone and aware users are not just devs using their keyboard. They are trying to make their DE user-centric (with Unity and now with Gnome). They focus on end users. But there is no solid base to do this due to Vanilla Gnome not delivering.
                I understand even better 9 years later why they went for Unity. It becomes blatant with time (since Gnome 3 is the default Ubuntu DE). The Gnome dev team behavior proves time and again why Canonical had no other decent choice but to go for Unity.

                Last edited by Mez'; 06-30-2020, 10:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Wtf. I haven't used desktop icons in like 10 years. Even on Windows.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by fuzz View Post
                    Wtf. I haven't used desktop icons in like 10 years. Even on Windows.
                    The fact that you don't use them doesn't mean that others don't, or don't want to.
                    I don't usually use them, but I really like to be able to drop something there if I want to.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Mez' The only logical explanation for their behaviour I could come up with is that Red Hat does not care in the slightest for the desktop.
                      To me this is further proven by the fact that the recent improvements come all from Canonical, specifically from the mighty Daniel van Vugt.
                      This makes me very sad, because I'd really like to enjoy Gnome.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X