GNOME 3.0 May Not Come Until September 2010

[Joe Sixpack]

Go and search yourself, lazy. Gnome has evolved constantly in the last few years.

The problem I've always had with Gnome was they always told you something wasn't need - then added it later and tried to make a big deal about it when it should have been there from the beginning. Perfect example, alacarte menu editor.

No matter how much you love Gnome, you should have at least 2 undeniably major feature editions you can hang your hat on in a 7 year span. Try to be objective here.

See and I find Nautilus an absolute PITA with it's default settings. My personal workflow does not jive with Nautilus at all. Different folks, different strokes.

People mistake their favorite distro's Gnome with vanilla Gnome. That default theme and green leaf background is horrendous. And to add to what you said, Nautilus by default is a PITA. I forget the official term for it, but you click on a folder and another one keeps popping up - no side panel, no address bar, nothing. You have to manually go in and select "always use browser view". I mean seriously, in 2009 who the hell uses that interface anymore by default?

Just like they accused KDE users of being Gnome trolls, you can make a strong argument about a lot of Gnome users being borderline brainwashed. I mean seriously, you're actually going argue with a straight face that Gnome's come a long way in the past 2 years, or Nautilus is better by default than Dolphin?

[Joe Sixpack]

Well as far as the Gnome vs KDE war goes, I do believe the Gnome crew started that war long ago when QT was used and wasn't the "purists" definition of free.

It's great to hear from someone who was actually around long enough to remember Every other post was either KDE was ugly, or KDE was bloated - very few users actually just used Gnome and STFU. They just had to show people why the smaller desktop environment was better.

What he also fails to realize is a large percentage of those KDE users bashing gnome are disgruntled, ex-Gnome users.

[deanjo]

He isn't comparing with Gnome, so your point is baseless. What the blog post said was that the nicer parts of KDE are seriously pretty - but unfortunately many parts are lagging behind or are just plain ugly (like the Dolphin screenshot from the previous page), which makes the difference all the more jarring.

Sorry I was only responding to the items referred to in the quote.

The "gray, flat and ugly" comment is spot on. Many people consider KDE as the pinnacle of UI design in the OSS world, but great UI design must be consistent: you piece shiny Plasmoids and a flat gray Dolphin together and expect it to look pretty.

Actually funny you mentioned that. There are people in either boat. My company just did a minor cosmetic change to it's UI to make it look more modern with a gradient header. When that update hit about 1/2 our customer's loved it, the other half hated it, and some claimed they couldn't find where stuff was anymore even though the layout was identical.

Edit:
Personally, I consider Nautilus 2.28 to look much better than that Dolphin screenshot. I'll post a screenie when I get back home for comparison.

See and I find Nautilus an absolute PITA with it's default settings. My personal workflow does not jive with Nautilus at all. Different folks, different strokes.

[BlackStar]

As far as the blog comment "It is.. gray. There is no glass. There are no gradients. There is no depth. There is no elegance. There is just gray." I find it funny they bitch about something that is easily enough customizable with the settings options. No glass, heh, since when did compiz become part of Gnome?

He isn't comparing with Gnome, so your point is baseless. What the blog post said was that the nicer parts of KDE are seriously pretty - but unfortunately many parts are lagging behind or are just plain ugly (like the Dolphin screenshot from the previous page), which makes the difference all the more jarring.

The "gray, flat and ugly" comment is spot on. Many people consider KDE as the pinnacle of UI design in the OSS world, but great UI design must be consistent: you piece shiny Plasmoids and a flat gray Dolphin together and expect it to look pretty.

Edit:

Btw. what other file manager (or the stuff that is always going to be covering up desktop) looks better using defaults? Gnome not, xfce not, e17 not, so? :>

Personally, I consider Nautilus 2.28 to look much better than that Dolphin screenshot. I'll post a screenie when I get back home for comparison.

Maybe few year old child would have problems to realize what mentioned buttons do (or it would be just obvious and yes, they do...) - resize, rotate and preferences, so why someone is lying?

Consistency, man, the point is consistency. If I hover on a button, I expect it to shine. I expect a tooltip to unfold and explain its function. If neither happens, it's broken and should be fixed (at least in the Gnome world, but I doubt KDE views this differently).

[Apopas]

i cant believe i had to do this. I mean, seriously.

Oh come on that's unfair...
I mean Gnome3 look so much better than win7 and it doesn't need 16GB

[Apopas]

Nope it's because KDE is underminded by Gnome the same way Linux is by Microsoft and Windows. Using Linux changes people into trolls that bash Windows and using KDE makes them hate Gnome for various simliar reasons...

Well the biggest and most trolls I've seen, even in this specific forums, are the ones who are married with windows. Probably because they are much more in number than the Linux users.
In the desktop environments happens something similar. KDE users tend to be quite more, so there is big chance, the trolling to come mainly from them. Simple mathematics.

[deanjo]

Well as far as the Gnome vs KDE war goes, I do believe the Gnome crew started that war long ago when QT was used and wasn't the "purists" definition of free.

As far as the blog comment "It is.. gray. There is no glass. There are no gradients. There is no depth. There is no elegance. There is just gray." I find it funny they bitch about something that is easily enough customizable with the settings options. No glass, heh, since when did compiz become part of Gnome?

[L33F3R]

iight kde fanboys. show me a very sexy windows 98. come on.

[NeoBrain]

This blog post summarizes my thoughts pretty well:

I've been thinking about this as well - e.g. plain "complete window transparency" just doesn't cut it*, we'd need some API like Aero for Linux to improve the window decorations, which apart from round window corners really didn't see much innovation in the past few years.

* what I mean with this: it's not the whole window which should be transparent, but only it's menus and borders and stuff.

[kraftman]

It is.. gray. There is no glass. There are no gradients. There is no depth. There is no elegance. There is just gray. It says: "I am kicking Windows 95's ass! Barely!"

I just don't get it. How can half of your desktop (let's call it "Plasma") be so beautiful, while the other half (let's call it "the stuff that is always going to be covering up Plasma") be so ugly and uninspired?

In my opinion Dolphin is quite elegant. Who the hell wants gradients and glass in a simple file manager? :P Btw. what other file manager (or the stuff that is always going to be covering up desktop) looks better using defaults? Gnome not, xfce not, e17 not, so? :>

More from this blog:

Yes, there are some problems with it. The buttons do not highlight in any way on hover. There are no tooltips, so I don't even know what the top two buttons do. From what I can tell, they do absolutely nothing. But it really lives up to KDE's reputation of eye candy.

Maybe few year old child would have problems to realize what mentioned buttons do (or it would be just obvious and yes, they do...) - resize, rotate and preferences, so why someone is lying?