Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 40 Approaches Its UI Freeze, Easy Means To Start Testing It

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by verude View Post

    Change for the sake of change isn't useful. I still don't know the why of the move from menu bar to hamburger menu, why hide away options and require an extra click every time you want to use them? and this isn't me hating it "because it's new" (that's, at least, what I took from the w95 jab) as hamburger menus precede windows 95 by over a decade.
    It's form over function versus function over form. While the GNOME desktop is beautiful, has clean lines, and flows nicely with what they're trying to achieve, all that comes at the expense of hiding elements behind hamburgers and extra clicks.

    Plugins are able to remedy that, but most plugins aren't designed with how other plugins work so once enough are added little inconsistencies start popping up. The plugins included with Ubuntu 20.04 were enough to show the inconsistencies and was my last GNOME experience. IMHO, that's why the PopOS shell is better - it brings back some much needed utilitarian in a consistent manner.
    Last edited by skeevy420; 02 February 2021, 03:42 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

      It's form over function versions function over form. While the GNOME desktop is beautiful, has clean lines, and flows nicely with what they're trying to achieve, all that comes at the expense of hiding elements behind hamburgers and extra clicks.
      And to me that is the key - utilize what is best for your own workflow. What works best for you may not work best for others. I still would rather study books than study a computer screen. And I would much rather read books than read a computer screen (which may explain why my library has over 2000 titles). Books are cool, even if they are not updated with a few commands. But some things do not need to be updated - nor do they need menus or clicks. A late 19th century publication of Hound of the Baskervilles with a forward written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or a middle 19th century volume on Analytical Geometry does not need to be updated because in the first case nothing changed (and it is a cool hardback) while in the latter case the principles are still true (Full disclosure: I hated Analytical Geometry when I was in college and graduate school).

      Everything is dependent on what works best for the individual. Like it or not, we are all different (and that is a very good thing) which means we all work differently. Could you imagine a world where all of us were a combination of Skeevy420, 144MHz, and me?!?!? Shit, it would be a terrible place - there would be no discourse. We would sit around, flail others, make bad jokes, talk about the past, and post memes from Google searches all while we think about how great and smart we are.

      Even worse, there would be no Phoronix where we could post to flail each other, make bad jokes, talk about the past, and post memes from Google searches all while we post about how great and smart we are. Imagine a life with no discussion of compositors, QT versus GTK, KDE vs Gnome, Wayland vs Xorg, or Windows vs linux. What a boring world.
      GOD is REAL unless declared as an INTEGER.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
        Mez' i think this is the classic two parties "fight". I would consider myself one oft this guys thinking KDE is like Win95 ..but why ? Because I hear a lot of KDE users moaning GNOME is unusable. Due to its progressive nature. But I don't see any deep, bitter issues between both user bases. Of course the idea is ...what ever floats your boat.
        If you like KDE go ahead.
        Some of us are reacting this way because once gnome is mentioned in the headline KDE affines are coming over and deadlooping in essence " I hope they will not change too much...its already shitty"

        ..."KDE is like a microwaved Win95" is exactly the complementary counterargument and in my opinion a good funny way of answering the initial "toxic" argues.
        I'm not talking specifically about you, but that's exactly the problem, many here are extrapolating a link between unusable and progressive for people who dislike Gnome.

        It might just be unusable for some and to some extent because of how that progressive nature was implemented, not because of the progressive nature itself.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post

          It boils down to "the people who actually step up and do the work decide" and that at core is a meritocracy
          Well, it seems that only white guys show up. What a coincidence!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by verude View Post

            Change for the sake of change isn't useful. I still don't know the why of the move from menu bar to hamburger menu, why hide away options and require an extra click every time you want to use them? and this isn't me hating it "because it's new" (that's, at least, what I took from the w95 jab) as hamburger menus precede windows 95 by over a decade.
            IMHO using hamburger menus over a global menu bar is the single worst design choice in Gnome 3.
            I'm not even a fan of the global menu, but the topbar is already there. It's just mostly empty all the time...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post

              IMHO using hamburger menus over a global menu bar is the single worst design choice in Gnome 3.
              I'm not even a fan of the global menu, but the topbar is already there. It's just mostly empty all the time...
              Well, technically, you don't necessarily need the menu bar to get global menu, elisa has a hamburger button but it still works with global menu. But in practice I think very few gtk3 programs that use hamburger menu expose a menu for global menu. On the other hand all the gtk and qt programs I've seen with a menu bar worked with global menu so I'm guessing that's just something you get for "free". Aditionally, everything that works with global menu also worked with plasma hud for me, very handy for programs like gimp which has a ton of options or when you simply don't want to unstick your hands from keyboard.

              Comment


              • #37
                Tried it out and found the dock was only available from the activities screen... so I don’t see the point of it

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
                  Tried it out and found the dock was only available from the activities screen... so I don’t see the point of it
                  Similar method done on both iOS, Android and majority of mobile devices. Even some users on MacOs prefer to hide the dock when they work on their applications.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    https://www.reddit.com/r/gnome/comme...hould_we_wait/

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mez' View Post
                      Everything that is not Gnome is a Windows 95 rehash, right?
                      True. Both Gnome and Windows can dream about a fully functional customizable DE, let alone the apps like Kdenlive and Krita. After they release Gnome 3.0 they lost a large portion of their user base on desktop and yet they try so hard to bring Gnome on the market that dominate by Google and Apple.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X