GNOME Shell UX Continues Improving For GNOME 40

[JackLilhammers]

No, they can't.
Otherwise, I don't see any single reason why they would impose the same grid size. It looks like playskool icons for anything bigger than HD-ready screens. It doesn't make any sense to have it look that ridiculous if you were technically able to.

If you can do it, dynamic and configurable is the obvious way forward.

Of course they can, they just don't want to.
Dynamic and configurable may be obvious for you (and for many other people), but that's clearly not the "Gnome way"...

[Mez']

Dude, it is 2020 now. Some of early Internet users already have grandchildren. Nobody believes in "I haven't read your post".

They couldn't implement freesize grid for almost 10 years? Like just do integer divide of space by icon's size? And they can't resize icons, despite they perform this automatically within their dash? OK.
Well, this will be lesson for me not to discuss anything with an arrogant fool.

No, they can't.
Otherwise, I don't see any single reason why they would impose the same grid size. It looks like playskool icons for anything bigger than HD-ready screens. It doesn't make any sense to have it look that ridiculous if you were technically able to.

If you can do it, dynamic and configurable is the obvious way forward.

Nova launcher can do that on Android, with a huge amount of configuration, and they're probably financially mini teeny compared to Gnome/RedHat.

Oh, and I really didn't read the rest of your post. Zero credibility and all, you know.

[JackLilhammers]

One thing just came to my mind about copying others. Gnome was released in 2011.
They shipped their dock on the left from the very beginning, while everybody was already using a taskbar or a dock at the bottom of the screen.
Vanilla Gnome never allowed to move that dock.
With Gnome 40, they'll move it to the bottom and I can't wait to see their new marketing video presenting this cool UI/UX improvement.

10 years to get back where everybody already was.
Better late than never, I guess...

With this change Gnome will have finished cloning Mission Control from MacOS.
And that's super fine. Copying is good. Copying and improving others' ideas is how everything is done.
I'm just saying that it could have taken a little less than 17 years.
I mean Mission Control was released in 2003 and Gnome 2 in 2002. They would have had plenty of time to copy it right!

[Khrundel]

It made me laugh so hard that I stopped reading there.

Dude, it is 2020 now. Some of early Internet users already have grandchildren. Nobody believes in "I haven't read your post".

The only reason is that they couldn't technically. Same as why they couldn't group or adapt the grid size properly to screens or let you change the size of the icons. They just forced you to get maximum 4x6 of huge childish and unprofessional icons (or whatever grid X * Y size it is) because they can't handle the maintenance and probably also the technicality. They spend a lot of time doing crap and reinventing the wheel for 5 users in their app circle (Gnome Maps, Boxes, and the likes), while they can't handle a bit of adaptability because of a supposed "burden maintenance". Just reuse those devs to improve the flexibility of Gnome, which is close to nothing. They don't look very consistent and end up having little credibility even within their own users. I believe they are one of the few projects I know of in which its own users are so distraught and critical of it.
If Red Hat ever opens up on other companies for Gnome design (not for development tasks only), this would probably have been there 5 years ago already. Others are usually more efficient and open.

Nothing to do with the metaphor. Zero, nought, nada, rien, nichts, nieks.

They couldn't implement freesize grid for almost 10 years? Like just do integer divide of space by icon's size? And they can't resize icons, despite they perform this automatically within their dash? OK.
Well, this will be lesson for me not to discuss anything with an arrogant fool.

[calc]

Has Gnome 3 actually become usable at all yet? At least for more than just cursory light new computer user's use?

I've used Linux since before Gnome or KDE even existed.

Admittedly the last time I tried Gnome 3 for real work was in mid 2018, but at that time gnome-shell leaked so badly (5GB+) in less than a day that I had to logout since the entire system, which had 32GB ram, had also slowed to a crawl. After several days of this repeating I just switched back to Cinnamon again. Cinnamon, or for that matter any other DE, also handles multiple screens much better than Gnome 3.

Also I keep seeing news reports every few months about Gnome having some critical / brown-paper-bag bug finally being fixed, eg not being able to handle decent frame rate on 4K displays, problems with mouse cursor, etc. Things probably no other DE has ever had issues with. It seems Gnome 3, particularly gnome-shell, is heavily flawed at a design level. They really should just throw gnome-shell away and start over with what they learned from how bad it has been.

People frequently note that gnome-shell seems to be based on a tablet design for touchscreens, and that is actually true despite multiple claims it isn't, the original mockups were based on WebOS, though Gnome may have scrubbed references to it from their wiki by now. While Microsoft ditched their tablet interface and convergence initiative after the huge Windows 8 debacle, and Canonical also ditched their convergence initiative, Gnome has just double downed on it. However gnome-shell is also heavily influenced by macOS with the app menu just being a clone of macOS Launchpad. Its not like Gnome adopted a new paradigm when they ditched the Windows-like start menu, they just switched to the useless Apple equivalent. That shouldn't be particularly surprising if you have seen a Gnome developer though, most of them use Apple MacBooks.

Gnome 2 was actually pretty decent but at least since Red Hat took over the project sometime in the mid/late 2000s it has been exactly as @extremesquared noted:

It's similar to the google product model:
1. Buy / adopt working product.
2. Identify feature that <100% of the userbase demands, and has no workaround if removed.
3. Remove feature.
4. Bask in anger of people suddenly stuck looking for alternatives.

This wasn't just with Gnome 3 though, it actually started during the Gnome 2 cycle.

From the recent analysis of Gnome commits you can easily see when the problem really started, around 2007-2008, when Red Hat commits became more than all others combined. And when Gnome 3 was released outside commits tapered off by a huge amount:



It will be nice when Canonical/Red Hat finally give up on the desktop and ditches Gnome like CentOS, then corporate money won't be negatively affecting the Linux desktop nearly as much.

[Mez']

There are many positive opinions about GNOME as well but for some unknown reason you assumed that these are fanboys opinions and negative opinions are real. Why not assume that positive opinions are real and negative opinion are haters opinions? Or maybe assume that people preferences are different than yours and not every different opinion is fanboy opinion? Also as I said many times - just because something is different doesn't mean it's bad. Of course you don't have to accept it but saying it's bad because it's behaving differently is simply nonsense.

You're not reading correctly. Do it again while actually trying to understand it this time around.
I never said it's bad because it's different. I'm actually supportive of that difference. Yet again I like the paradigm behind Unity/Gnome 3.
When you introduce nuances, people are so narrow-minded sometimes they tend to interpret them at the far end of the spectrum because it doesn't fit in their views. And forget about where you actually stand (somewhere in between both ends).

I'm just disappointed like many others by the direction they take. And how they are restraining the paradigm instead of freeing it. How they decide for you what's best for you, when we are the only ones entitled to do that. They have every right to give an orientation to their project, but it would be so much better if they were to acknowledge that their implementation is not for everyone. Like other DEs devs do. Not because computer users don't want to change, but because they found or want to find a better workflow for themselves. It would be alright if they weren't completely opposed to user recurrent feedback, and would let you tweak the solid base they created to some extent, give some flexibility to the users. I've said that a hundred times, but they feel like some nerds in a bunker, blindering themselves and refusing to see what's it like outside. Their mindset is wrong.

Well, I could think otherwise. Look at my previous answer - despite the fact I said what I don't like about GNOME (and I can add more to this list) I was called fanboy with closed eyes that don't believe "truth". So despite I'm offering arguments I can face "total void" like "GNOME sucks you fanboy". Reading such answers and your assumption that "negative opinions are more real" is really hilarious.

i can't assume positive opinions are real when they have little nuances (except for a few of which you seem to be a part of). It's like Apple fans, agreeing to whatever is imposed to/thrown at them and asking for more without ever questioning it. Yes men, or béni-oui-oui in french. Soldiers. Like they never ask themselves "Is this actually good for me?". It's nearing a sect when you read hardcore vanilla Gnome advocates. Like they've been brainwashed and lost any kind of critical mind or ability to think for themselves. It's really frightening. And before you extrapolate, I'm talking about the ones without nuances here, I didn't write that every vanilla Gnome user is like that (and if I did it was a spur of the moment think I don't believe in).

I mean, you can't be 100% satisfied of what someone else thought would be better for you without telling yourself "Oh, here, I would prefer if it wouldn't do that but that instead" or "It would ease my workflow if it was able to do that". Or you're just hiding it to make it sound like it's perfect (the "you" is a general you). Which would confirm even more some sort of blind faith.

PS: Looking at your other answer to another user: "It's crazy how Gnome hardcore (vanilla) users have some serious closemindedness issues, a lot of them (fortunately not all) refuse to acknowledge that everyone has different preferences."

You are not that good with accepting different preferences as well. You don't accept vanilla GNOME users preferences (calling somebody "fanboy" or "hardcore" doesn't look like acceptance) and talking about accepting different preferences. Well.

On the contrary. I am fine with people using vanilla Gnome (as long as they're not venerating it blindly and imposing their single version of the truth to others "you should try and adapt to it"), and I've always acknowledged stuff I don't even like (e.g. desktop icons) out of respect for those who need that stuff (or even just think they need it, it doesn't matter). I'm all for choice, options and configurability so that everyone finds his/her own most efficient workflow for his/her own use cases. I'm never going to say "X is the best..." or try to convince them it is (I'll just say "it's the best for me") because I'm aware different people prefer different things. I would just want me and anyone else to be able to make Gnome their own (to some extent), which is complicated to nearly impossible with their frustrating mindset.

[Mez']

"Categories" isn't a new invention, KDE, GNOME, even FVWM95 had used them somewhere in 90s. Removing of categories in gnome 3 was a "new metaphor".

It made me laugh so hard that I stopped reading there.

The only reason is that they couldn't technically. Same as why they couldn't group or adapt the grid size properly to screens or let you change the size of the icons. They just forced you to get maximum 4x6 of huge childish and unprofessional icons (or whatever grid X * Y size it is) because they can't handle the maintenance and probably also the technicality. They spend a lot of time doing crap and reinventing the wheel for 5 users in their app circle (Gnome Maps, Boxes, and the likes), while they can't handle a bit of adaptability because of a supposed "burden maintenance". Just reuse those devs to improve the flexibility of Gnome, which is close to nothing. They don't look very consistent and end up having little credibility even within their own users. I believe they are one of the few projects I know of in which its own users are so distraught and critical of it.
If Red Hat ever opens up on other companies for Gnome design (not for development tasks only), this would probably have been there 5 years ago already. Others are usually more efficient and open.

Nothing to do with the metaphor. Zero, nought, nada, rien, nichts, nieks.

[dragon321]

You can fanboy all you want bro, I don't have to prove shit to you. It's common knowledge, has been for years. Google, Duckduckgo, Yahoo, MSN... Choose one....

You can choose to be ignorant all you want...

EDIT: The sky is blue, Water is wet, Gnome sucks ass.... All facts... I don't have to prove shit to you... You wouldn't believe the truth even if your eyes were forced open and it was dumped on you...

Hate something without any reason and call others fanboys and ignorant. Hilarious.

Just because you don't like something doesn't matter in real world, because your opinion is still only your opinion, not a fact. Trying to change opinion to a non-debatable fact is fanboy way I'm afraid. But as you said, you can fanboy all you want bro.

I'm never extrapolating my own little case to everyone. If I indulge myself in generalizing my criticism to some extent, it comes from a huge deal of concurring opinions I've read about everywhere.
Also, I always offer so many arguments that I feel like it's too much compared to the little or total void I face in the other direction. So, your assumption is just laughable.

There are many positive opinions about GNOME as well but for some unknown reason you assumed that these are fanboys opinions and negative opinions are real. Why not assume that positive opinions are real and negative opinion are haters opinions? Or maybe assume that people preferences are different than yours and not every different opinion is fanboy opinion? Also as I said many times - just because something is different doesn't mean it's bad. Of course you don't have to accept it but saying it's bad because it's behaving differently is simply nonsense.

Well, I could think otherwise. Look at my previous answer - despite the fact I said what I don't like about GNOME (and I can add more to this list) I was called fanboy with closed eyes that don't believe "truth". So despite I'm offering arguments I can face "total void" like "GNOME sucks you fanboy". Reading such answers and your assumption that "negative opinions are more real" is really hilarious.

PS: Looking at your other answer to another user: "It's crazy how Gnome hardcore (vanilla) users have some serious closemindedness issues, a lot of them (fortunately not all) refuse to acknowledge that everyone has different preferences."

You are not that good with accepting different preferences as well. You don't accept vanilla GNOME users preferences (calling somebody "fanboy" or "hardcore" doesn't look like acceptance) and talking about accepting different preferences. Well.

[Khrundel]

categories 9 years ahead of Gnome - 2012 Vs 2021,

"Categories" isn't a new invention, KDE, GNOME, even FVWM95 had used them somewhere in 90s. Removing of categories in gnome 3 was a "new metaphor".
I mean, I'm not against categories per se, but placing icons into some tree-like structure was again just mimicking ugly windows95 UX, Windows had a tree-like menu with app groups containing multiple items like app itself, uninstallation, eula, help, link to website, they had to have such grouping. Linux DE didn't have such many icons, but because they were using tiny start menus and because they tried to be like windows, they added these categories. Most time user launches some app which he familiar with so he already knew where in all apps list to look, he need no categories. When user starts some new application, categories tree doesn't help him, he must guess, what is it, utility, service app, or network app. Categories may exist as some kind of filter for tags, like "what messengers do i have installed", but in most case flat list of apps is better, because eyes are faster than fingers.
Implementing ability to create groups within Gnome was actually a step back.

It's crazy how Gnome hardcore (vanilla) users have some serious closemindedness issues, a lot of them (fortunately not all) refuse to acknowledge that everyone has different preferences. "They should just adapt their workflow, they refuse to change", blah blah. What a bunch of intolerant people.

GNOME isn't something mandatory, you can use another DE. And even if you have to, they offering windows95-like "GNOME classic" session. May they have one little place where they can implement a desktop of their vision without having to support an ability to revert everything?
And I really think giving users choice in features that matter is a bad decision. Did you ever heard a phrase "I've hired X not to do this work myself"? Same is true for DE. You selecting DE and later using it as was intended. Good specialist doesn't allow customer to mess with his project, he asks about wallpapers color, but not about size of foundation.
Usually UX architect looks how users work with his program, then he searches for problems, then thinks how to fix them, then does some kind of prototyping, tests how people work with it, returns to blueprints. User just goes to extension shop and randomly selects anything looking pleasant. Look at yourself, for example, you've installed extensions to move a clock closer to corner!

[Klassic Six]

The only "legacy" thing I may find on Linux is the DejaVu fonts, but otherwise both GNOME and KDE feel fresh when compared to Windows...

Say that to someone who recently start to use computers. I get what you're saying but GNOME/KDE can be both fresh and usable.