GNOME 40 Released With Many Improvements

[Mario Junior]

5 - i've never seen this happens to me, for me is basically instantaneous even for folder with thousands of videos with previews(NVME and HDD drives with XFS/ZFS), or am i missing something here

You call it instantly? Open the same folder with Dolphin and see the absurd difference.

Another test? See RAM consumption on nautilus and on dolphin on a folder without thousand and thousands png, jpg, gif, webm generating thumbnails... It's like a fucking memory leak on nautilus and this is not new.

Another problem is that nautilus seems to generate all thumbnails from scratch when you close it and open the folder again, except that it is slow as hell!

And no, this is not a muuuhhh kde is better than Gnome and vice-versa discussion, It's just a realization that nautilus is fucking garbage since Gnome 3.0 release.

Even Windows Explorer does a better job on this cenario.

And yes, I did the tests myself and saw the difference with my own eyes, using a nvme driver with a 3700x and 16GB 3733MHz RAM using Fedora 33 and XFS.

[markus40]

Do you seriously think anyone who criticizes Gnome is a troll/hater?
Can't it be that they are valid criticisms?

Yes, there are valid reasons to criticize Gnome. Like all desktops there are flaws and things that seriously needs improvement.
Things like slowdowns, which improved a lot in 3.38. Mouse pointers that are not fluid and yes, the file picker too, could be improved (thumbnails).
Consistency is great but could be even better, for example functional consistency like between Nautilus and the File picker. As I use this a lot it is annoying I can't do it in one go. In short, I really think Nautilus and the file picker should be essentially the same code.
Also, extensions, try to find a way to keep the API consistent between releases. Although I think with Gnome 40 I can remove most of the extensions I use. But that is my workflow, others feeling probably different. It is great it is possible to change things in Gnome-shell with extensions. But the breakage and waste of code lost in the change. And the functionality lost forever for somebody relying on a not maintained extension.
And there are a lot more areas which I think need work.

But do you see what I did above? What the KDE developer did in his video? I pointed out what I find Gnome could do better, without calling it a piece of crap that should be abolished from the earth. A thing that, predictable, will be mentioned in many, after time not so creative, words. In threads about Gnome, about KDE, about desktops and, often., even unrelated topics. Like a clockwork, as long as Gnome exists. I know because I use it from the beginning.

Of course there are flaws, bugs and annoyances in Gnome. But of the many, many desktops I have used professionally and at home, it is also the desktop I keep using in preference of all the others. On which I could make a list of which the many, many flaws I find in them. So yes, many critics I would call trolls and haters. I feel sorry for the people whose valid criticism gets lost in the avalanche of drivel they write.

[JackLilhammers]

But do you see what I did above? What the KDE developer did in his video? I pointed out what I find Gnome could do better, without calling it a piece of crap that should be abolished from the earth. A thing that, predictable, will be mentioned in many, after time not so creative, words. In threads about Gnome, about KDE, about desktops and, often., even unrelated topics. Like a clockwork, as long as Gnome exists. I know because I use it from the beginning.

It's not Gnome that should be abolished from Earth, it's (opinionated) people.
Among them there's a fair handful of Gnome people, but they're in good company :'D

By the way I'm all for comparisons between desktops and projects in general.
If someone does something better, let's shamelessly copy that!

[markus40]

It's not Gnome that should be abolished from Earth, it's (opinionated) people.
Among them there's a fair handful of Gnome people, but they're in good company :'D

By the way, I'm all for comparisons between desktops and projects in general.
If someone does something better, let's shamelessly copy that!

There is nothing wrong with opinionated people. It is expressing an opinion which needs more tweaking. Criticism is fine, even needed. But the way it is now it is not working. Discussion is being stifled. When your needs are not met it is better to look elsewhere for a better fit. That doesn't mean you have to keep your criticism for yourself, but it is obvious then you and, for example, Gnome have different goals. Accept this and move on.

For now, I like the goals of Gnome. Flawed as the current implementation might be (mind you I find it still great). But I also think listening too much to what the user want would make Gnome just another variant of the same desktop paradigm which others already have and even do better. I don't want to go back to the Gnome 2.x, XFCE, Windows way of things. I want to see where this is going and meanwhile enjoy the ride.

For example, I liked Gentoo for seven years, used it everywhere. With new hardware, I copied the installation from another machine and kept using and upgrading it. For 6 and half years, the perfect solution for me. Then came the problems. Almost every emerge. I got frustrated because I wasn't with Gentoo for street creds, tinkering or the fastest of everything. I was with Gentoo for the rolling release. Furthermore, I reach out for help and I did everything wrong according to the community. With lots of personal attacks as if I was attacking Gentoo with my questions and criticism. Six years no problems I couldn't manage and the problems now were always fixable for me. But the work wasn't what I wanted to invest in my daily driver. But now it was my fault for raising questions because something obviously changed. I should reinstall, etc. But then the difference, FOR ME, between Gentoo and Fedora were NULL. Except with Fedora I would have a working desktop for a year, with Gentoo maybe till the next emerge. So I switched. 2 Years Fedora with the reinstallations. Then I found Arch, which I use now for more than six years as rolling release. We fit with the things I find important and when it diverts too much, which I hope not, I will switch again. Same with Gnome.

[JackLilhammers]

There is nothing wrong with opinionated people.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it

When your needs are not met it is better to look elsewhere for a better fit. That doesn't mean you have to keep your criticism for yourself, but it is obvious then you and, for example, Gnome have different goals. Accept this and move on.

I'd say that depends on the mission of a project.
If said project aims to be widely adopted I think that it should strive to fit more than one workflow

For now, I like the goals of Gnome. Flawed as the current implementation might be (mind you I find it still great). But I also think listening too much to what the user want would make Gnome just another variant of the same desktop paradigm which others already have and even do better. I don't want to go back to the Gnome 2.x, XFCE, Windows way of things. I want to see where this is going and meanwhile enjoy the ride.

I like their goals, but I can't stand their ways.
Also, imho user feedback should be the primary driver of every project.

By the way Gnome already has an amazing tool to gather user feedback without even asking: extesions.
The most used extensions should become part of the desktop.
That way when the internal api changes, who changes is responsible to guarantee that the extensions using that api continue to work

[Nocifer]

I didn't recall to have requested a lecture over the least interest of my life: Gnome 3 and upper. Gnome 3 was so good that the community created 3 brand new desktop environment and resumed Gnome 2 into mate. Despite all the workforce that RH is able to tuck into Gnome, smaller teams with almost zero resources did more, and better, with less. Elementary, Budgie, Zorin even POP-Shell try to fix Gnome, have better usability and better ergonomic and do not blame people when thing are simply counter-intuitive.

Someone wanted shift Gnome from a project into a product and things can just go worst. And what it is the point to have a DE that every six months break the ABI/API? Where is the stability? I am happy and productive with another solution that allows me to tailor my environment the way I need because it is designed to empower me not to restrict me.

To finish, once Compiz was a reason to use Linux today Gnome 3(4,5,6 etc...) is a reason to not use it at all...

I don't recall asking you if you wanted that lecture or not, it's just a matter of you saying something silly and me calling you out for it, and that's the end of it. The change in Gnome's versioning scheme not only makes sense but is actually consistent with the previous versioning scheme, and whoever doesn't see that is either not looking hard enough or is trolling/flaming for the giggles. And I'm saying that as somebody who doesn't even especially like Gnome, and who can wholeheartedly agree with "Despite all the workforce that RH is able to tuck into Gnome, smaller teams with almost zero resources did more, and better, with less". But that doesn't mean we should be slandering Gnome for every little thing they do (and they do many little things right, it's the end product as a whole that's severely lacking).

[Mez']

But do you see what I did above? What the KDE developer did in his video? I pointed out what I find Gnome could do better, without calling it a piece of crap that should be abolished from the earth.

You mean what many here (me included) are doing?
Why do you think many here are asking for options? Or for them to integrate some of the most popular extensions within Gnome? Could it be because we have valid arguments on where and how Gnome could do better? And not just for the ones convinced by its UI but also by others who are not as convinced because they have different workflows and lack the most common and trivial stuff any other DE has to fulfill said workflows?
Like needing an extension to set the clock on the damn right so that it's not in the way (instead of being a simple option)? Be able to pick where notifications appear (at least between the four corners) so that it doesn't come on top of where you might want to click? Or desktop icons? (I don't use them but millions do, just look in an office, so let's give them some respect)
Personally, I want them to take responsibility for the basic stuff they've suddenly decided to get rid of without listening to user feedback. It wouldn't even impact the default experience for 9 out of 10.

And if you need resources to maintain these options:
1. drop the NIH syndrome apps (Web, Boxes, Maps, Weather, etc...) that have a tenth of the external solutions features, hence only a few negligible users. These are wasted efforts and resources that could be used to enrich Gnome so as to cover more use cases and workflows, and get better acceptance from users.
2. Let Canonical and other ideas IN without doctrinally rejecting them.

It's not because I don't like the specifics that I don't like the foundations. Actually, it's because I see a lot unfulfilled potential (through weird design decisions) that I criticize, and certainly not because I want Gnome abolished from the earth, and I don't remember calling it a piece of crap either (maybe others did, don't know).
I just think it could satisfy way more users without questioning the overall experience if only they had a more open mindset, with just a few adjustments and options. Better specifics.
At some point, when they keep on removing features without maintaining the most debated ones as optional or when they disregard user feedback entirely and to a point of arrogance that is frightening, it makes me want to use something else, anything else. So yeah, criticism can be very valid (even if they don't owe us anything, if we use it for free and yadda yadda...).

[Volta]

And if you need resources to maintain these options:
1. drop the NIH syndrome apps (Web, Boxes, Maps, Weather, etc...) that have a tenth of the external solutions features, hence only a few negligible users. These are wasted efforts and resources that could be used to enrich Gnome so as to cover more use cases and workflows, and get better acceptance from users.

Boxes are great, because they're very easy to set up and everything works out of the box with Fedora guest. Weather and Maps are quite simple and development is rather complete, so I doubt there's much of 'waste of efforts' involved.

2. Let Canonical and other ideas IN without doctrinally rejecting them.

Canonical ideas are usually quite bad. For example they provide windows buttons, but without bottom panel they're mostly useless (you still have to use activities view). snaps, upstart are another bad examples.

[Mez']

Boxes are great, because they're very easy to set up and everything works out of the box with Fedora guest. Weather and Maps are quite simple and development is rather complete, so I doubt there's much of 'waste of efforts' involved.

99% of users probably use more featured and popular external apps. Especially on the most popular distros that are not so Gnome dependant.

Canonical ideas are usually quite bad. For example they provide windows buttons, but without bottom panel they're mostly useless (you still have to use activities view). snaps, upstart are another bad examples.

Ubuntu comes with a dock (forked from Dash-to-dock) so yeah, window controls are 100% useful and can spare us a visit to the overview for faster switch and less clutter (in my opinion and apparently theirs).
Canonical ideas are usually pretty good with some misses as well (snaps, but flatpacks are just as much of a miss), but I really liked some (Unity and Ubuntu One on top). They have a clear and pragmatic vision, pulled from the users, contrary to Gnome. And they care about those. They are taking everything UX-related more professionally and pragmatically than Gnome devs (which is also why Ubuntu is 10x more popular than Fedora), and with more respect for each and everyone's workflow. It's a perfect counterweight to Red Hat, so that we have an alternative with the balls to say no when Gnome devs are going nonsense.

[JackLilhammers]

Boxes are great, because they're very easy to set up and everything works out of the box with Fedora guest. Weather and Maps are quite simple and development is rather complete, so I doubt there's much of 'waste of efforts' involved.

I'd like to know the market share of those products compared to the existing alternatives.
Like Boxes vs VMware and VirtualBox, Maps vs Google Maps, etc.
Using platform specific software is bad even if it's free software.

Canonical ideas are usually quite bad. For example they provide windows buttons, but without bottom panel they're mostly useless (you still have to use activities view). snaps, upstart are another bad examples.

Window buttons are used by:

• Windows
• Mac os
• Ubuntu and derivatives
• Kde
• Cinnamon
• Xfce
• Mate
• Budgie
• DDE
• Lxqt
• Lxde
• Pixel
• TDE

I'd say that people consider them useful.
Apparently users can also understand that if the taskbar is on the side the minimize button will minimize to the side instead of the bottom...