It's Easy To Guess What Angers GNOME Users

[ludovic.silvestre]

Sounds like you're using it on a television. Try a monitor.

I'm using a Dell U2311H, hence a monitor.

And holy s**t, 7 key strokes? That not seem excessive to you? You are literally spelling it out to get it.... personally, I'd be happier just slamming the command out in a terminal window.... "firefox&<enter>", then you don't have to deal with the mess. Sure, 2 mouse clicks and 2 movements, but did you notice how **FAR** you have to move your mouse?

Gnome-panel *isn't meant* to launch applications with your keyboard, and if your description of HOW you launch applications with a keyboard is any indication, it is inadequate to the task to begin with -- better off with a terminal window.

As far as the categories..... yes, RIGHT side. The menu is activated from the LEFT side. That means that you need to go to the far left, activate the menu, then switch modes, then go all the way over to the RIGHT side, then move back to somewhere in the middle to actually select the application.

7 key strokes is the longest I have to type, because of Firewall vs Firefox (I'm using Fedora 16). For example, Epiphany only needs 4. Besides, keystrokes are much faster than mouse movement, especially if you type quickly. And your comparison of Gnome-Shell vs Terminal is just silly, not everyone uses a Terminal, especially new users. It's true that you have to move the mouse a lot (that's why I gave a possible improvement, by moving the category list to the left side), but if you have a high DPI mouse (I'm using a Steelseries Ikari Laser with custom DPI settings) you don't move the mouse a lot.
And Gnome-panel *should* be able to launch applications with the keyboard, since it's must quicker than moving the damn mouse.

Alt-tab is fine if you have 2 or 3 windows open. Not fine if you have 20 or 30.

True there, but Gnome 2 didn't have a good solution for this either. You end up with a big window list, without seeing properly the application's names.

I actually use TWO 24" monitors. Gnome-shell also completely ignores the multiple-monitor use-case, but I'll let that one slide due to still being in development. I do use a LOT of software concurrently, and do sometimes use multiple workspaces, but they bring in additional inconveniences. Switching between workspaces -- remembering which workspace to switch to....

Gnome 2 also had this problem. The only solution I can think of is naming your workspace, that way you know what's in there.

gnome-panel didn't REQUIRE 2 bars!!!!!
You could put your application's list on the same bar as your main menu!

What gnome-panel did is it provided the FLEXIBILITY to lay out your panel[s] in the manner that you wanted. If you don't like having 2 panels, THEN PUT EVERYTHING ON ONE!!!!

Try to put the favorite list, the window list, the workspace list and the taskbar into the same bar. You probably don't have any problem, because you use multiple monitors and the bar probably extends to all monitors. But try on a laptop for example, and you'll see that's impossible to use Gnome 2 with only 1 bar, unless you discard some of the lists.

[droidhacker]

I never said gnome 2 gets in the way, I said a major design goal of gnome 3 is to not get in the way. its always been a design goal of gnome. Gnome 3 is just an evolution of the concept, and I think it works well. I absolutely love stuff like the messaging integration.

If that is the case, they've failed miserably.

[ludovic.silvestre]

Which makes me wonder why they're pushing a tablet interface as the default, rather than something that actually looks like what desktop users are used to.

I like this sentence, especially the "what desktop users are used to". It only shows that you're not able to adapt or even consider a different design from the one you are using. One thing I learned at university, with my UI usability teacher, is that you must be able to ditch your current prototype and try a new one, so you learn and evolve. Basically, trying alternatives. That's what Gnome 3 is about. Who knows if they won't go back to the typical Gnome 2 design for Gnome 4/5/6?

[droidhacker]

Now you are equating gnome with Linux. That isn't right as there are plenty of other desktop environments to choose from. Linux is not gnome!!!

Technicallv, vs effectively.
Red Hat uses gnome, Red Hat is Linux, etc. It may not be valid technically, but if gnome-2 was the only option that made gnome meet your needs, then without that, Linux becomes useless *to you*, and has to be replaced.

That being said I did switch to a Mac for my laptop needs. This has been a very positive development for me. I get a laptop that works without issue with a very good UNIX variant, without the Linux laptop struggles. Outside of the OS there is a good mix of commercial and open source software available for the platform. In some ways the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, but honestly no platform is perfect. Look hard enough and you will find issues with the Macs GUI too. In the end you need to be able to turn the platform into something usable for you, if gnome makes that difficult then you are on the wrong platform.

One of the big problems with gnome nowadays, is that they're coming up with this really weird mix of "I'm trying to be apple" and "I'm trying not to be apple". I can't stand apple -- they have good strong underpinnings, but their UI destroys it. Now gnome is destroying something that I liked about Linux. There are other DE's out there that do a better job than gnome-shell, but none of them are on par with gnome-panel except gnome-panel itself.

***I DO USE GNOME 3***, but with a customized version of gnome-panel rather than gnome-shell. In this configuration, it works quite well, but I am concerned that I will eventually have to give it up. At this point, there is no practical alternative.

[droidhacker]

So, I am going to be constructive here and tell you all that there ARE Gnome 3 extensions that will make you want to forget about Gnome 2 and LOVE Gnome 3. It is a shame they aren't by default, or at least included in Gnome 3.

Step 1. Install the extensions from here.

Step 2. Download Gnome-tweak

Step 3. Enable all the extensions in Gnome-tweak

Step 4. Fix the maximum, minimize, and close buttons. Set to all for maximum Gnome 2 ness.

Step 5. Enjoy staring at your actually usable desktop for a while.

Step 6. GET SHIT DONE!

Step 7. Profit?

That looks VERY nice.
How does that bottom panel extend to multiple displays?

[droidhacker]

Actually, you bring up a couple very valid points. First, the half bakedness has to do a bit with how everything lines up in the menus for example. Yes, the themeing is a bit on the offside. The lack of a system drop down menu, just small things. Second, I prefer my solution because it really does take the best from both worlds. Honestly, my solution is what I always dreamed gnome would be someday. It feels like the evolutionary step where Gnome should have gone, rather than the revolutionary Gnome 3 misstep.

Your option doesn't have a System drop-down menu either, nor does it have a Places menu....
What I've actually done for my own use, is I've hacked the System menu back into gnome-panel. I posted the modified RPM somewhere on FedoraForum if you're interested in it.

Another thing that your solution doesn't accomplish is the elimination of mutter. Cute, but needless slow/bloat.

[movieman]

I like this sentence, especially the "what desktop users are used to". It only shows that you're not able to adapt or even consider a different design from the one you are using.

No, it shows that we're not willing to dump something that works for something that's a huge step backwards in usability merely becuase it's The Shiny.

The old Ubuntu netbook interface, for example, was clearly better than Gnome for a netbook's small screen; but it was a crappy interface for a desktop system. Unity is a step back from the old netbook interface and it's being pushed onto desktop systems.

Basically, trying alternatives. That's what Gnome 3 is about.

How can you 'try alternatives' in Gnome 3 when Gnome 3 is all about removing configuration because it 'confuses users'? If there was a Gnome 3 for desktops and a Gnome 3 for tablets, we wouldn't care because picking one or the other would be simple. Instead there's a Gnome 3 for... Christ knows what because it's both a crappy desktop interface and a crappy tablet interface ('yes, I know the UI is lousy for starting apps, but you can just use the virtual keyboard to type the name of the app').

[droidhacker]

I don't really think that Gnome Shell was a misstep. What I see here is people that are used to the old design and just can't adapt to the new one. I've used a lot of DE (Windows 3.11, 98, XP, 7, OSX (10.5, 10.6, 10.7), *box, KDE, Gnome 2, Gnome 3) and Gnome 3 is one of my favorites, but I admit it has some flaws.

I don't understand some of your complaints, if you all haters can explain to me, that would be nice:

1) Why do you need the bottom bar, with the window list and workspace list? By just pressing the Window key in Gnome Shell, you have the same information, with a bigger size and without that permanent bottom bar. But there's one improvements that can be made. Allowing the user to activade/deactivate the auto-hide of the workspace list when in the activities screen.

You're missing the point.
a) you HAVE TO PRESS A BUTTON TO SEE IT -- that is an unnecessary step.
b) its too damned big. Much better if its SMALL, then it doesn't get in your way and/or crash.
c) if you don't like it on your bottom bar, YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO PUT IT ON THE TOP ONE -- and even delete the bottom bar altogether.

2) Why do you need the drop-down menu? In Gnome 3.2, you just have to press Window key and you get the same information.

Too damned big. The gnome-panel main menu widget was much more practical since it didn't bloat out so far. Being smaller, you didn't have to move your mouse as far. It also took ONE LESS CLICK because you don't have to switch modes between "whats open" and "what can you open".

One improvement would be to move the category list from the right side of the screen, to the left side, between the favorite list and the application grid.

Yes, but they've stated that rather than doing that, they're going to be deleting the categories ALTOGETHER, leaving JUST the "holy shit" category.

And for those complaining about "you have to move the mouse a lot", I think you should buy a mouse with a higher DPI. If you have the cash to buy a big ass screen, then you have the cash to buy a decent mouse.

The mouse resolution has nothing to do with it. If you have the mouse set to such a high speed that you can slam the thing all over the screen with little more than a thought, then you lose the ability to control it precisely when you're dealing with precision. Sorry, but resolution doesn't help this.

An even better solution would be to use the keyboard to launch an application. Just press Window key, then type the name of the application (or part of it) and press Enter. Easy.

Ok, so you press the idiot button and then start typing out the name of the application....
[idiotkey]-L-i-b-r-e-O-f-f-i-c-e- -I-m-p-r-e-s-s-[enter]
That's... 21 key strokes where I could otherwise launch the same thing with a flick of the wrist and 2 mouse clicks. Brilliant -- that's really going to improve my productivity.

3) Why do you need the favorite list in the top bar? Just press Window key and you have that information on the right side of the activities screen, with bigger icons.a

Because having it on the top bar SAVES AN UNNECESSARY KEY STROKE!!!!
Here's the thing... gnome-shell ADDS IN, in about a THOUSAND different places, an EXTRA KEY STROKE that you need to do to accomplish the same thing compared to gnome-panel. All these extra key strokes take time and effort and add up to a very frustrating experience.

[droidhacker]

If you think we (developers) do not know there are a bunch of old angry linux users floating around then you must think we do not read ddl or the g-s mailing list.

That is quite a different matter to choosing to minimise the weight of those users feedback. I do not consider them highly because those who complain the loudest are the most capable of using XFCE or switching to a new DE.

But we *LIKED* GNOME!!!!

I want to build a desktop for the rest.

And you should!!!! But not at the expense of USABILITY. There are some very nice things about gnome-shell, but they're thrown together in a haphazard manner that takes a lot more focus, time, and energy to use. There are things that you can actually do -- simple things -- that will make it better for EVERYONE.

Yes, some of the complaints are loud, angry, even RUDE, but it is only because they/we are expressing the frustration caused NOT by change, but change in a manner that isn't properly thought through.

Simultainously I use G3 for a variety of technical tasks and find myself more productive that G2.

Perhaps, but that is given those specific tasks. There are *definitely* others that become FAR LESS productive as a result of G3 compared to G2, my own use included in that. What made G2 great was that it could be adapted to different processes/preferences/users. I DO LIKE how the newer gnome-panel requires you to know what you're doing to mess with it. This makes sense since the non-technical users won't be screwing things up, like deleting the Applications menu accidentally. I fully support these moves!!!

Not to mention the obvious contradiction of most of the complaints.

Perhaps... or perhaps you're just not understanding fully.

I want to upgrade my distro so I get new things but I do not want new things, I only want new things that I like and that are free1!!!11!!! freee!!!! linux is about choice!!!! choose my opinion or I will not use your DE and then you will be sorry!!!!

Well... your perceptions of the contradictions are indicative of a perception that is NOT grounded in reality. Especially given the examples you have cited.

First off, a distro upgrade changes more than just gnome. You need to get it into your head that GNOME is NOT AND OPERATING SYSTEM. The distro upgrade comes with a whole bunch of changes -- not just GNOME. In general, people anticipate an upgrade to make POSITIVE changes, and by and large, this is what is received. In fact, even gnome-3 is, by and large, a whole lot of positive change! The problem is that some parts of it are somewhat regressed!

Your second example is just crazy. Yes, Linux is about choice... to some extent at least. If you want to use Linux, you're going to be using the Linux kernel, obviously. Though there are several available DE's, GNOME has in the past been far and above ALL of the other options. I really don't care much for KDE, but there are a few gnome-like DE's available, unfortunately, of all the gnome-like ones available, gnome was FAR AND ABOVE more rich and well developed than all the kinda-likes. Yes, I could change, but I will end up with something INFERIOR to gnome-2. It would be very nice if the gnome-devs would accept that there ARE different types of users, who have different needs, and at least make the thing more flexible in supporting those users.

And what is with this mutter thing? Compositing sure looks cool, but why has it become a dependency? Wouldn't it be nice if there was some super-technical way to get rid of it for people who need a fast, light, productive, and feature-rich experience?

[ludovic.silvestre]

You're missing the point.
a) you HAVE TO PRESS A BUTTON TO SEE IT -- that is an unnecessary step.
b) its too damned big. Much better if its SMALL, then it doesn't get in your way and/or crash.
c) if you don't like it on your bottom bar, YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO PUT IT ON THE TOP ONE -- and even delete the bottom bar altogether.

Too damned big. The gnome-panel main menu widget was much more practical since it didn't bloat out so far. Being smaller, you didn't have to move your mouse as far. It also took ONE LESS CLICK because you don't have to switch modes between "whats open" and "what can you open".

a) I partially agree. For some things it's an unnecessary step (like seeing the favorites or workspace list), but for other things it's an alternative step, because pressing the Window Key == clicking Activities button (Gnome3) or Application button (Gnome2)
b) Size doesn't have anything to do with crashes. My question is how does it get in your way (besides moving the mouse a lot), give us an example.

The mouse resolution has nothing to do with it. If you have the mouse set to such a high speed that you can slam the thing all over the screen with little more than a thought, then you lose the ability to control it precisely when you're dealing with precision. Sorry, but resolution doesn't help this.

That's why they use big icons, they traded mouse precision with mouse speed.

Ok, so you press the idiot button and then start typing out the name of the application....
[idiotkey]-L-i-b-r-e-O-f-f-i-c-e- -I-m-p-r-e-s-s-[enter]
That's... 21 key strokes where I could otherwise launch the same thing with a flick of the wrist and 2 mouse clicks. Brilliant -- that's really going to improve my productivity.

That's a stupid example, because you don't need to type all characters, even if you have different versions of the same application. For that last case, you just need to type some letters (to discard most applications) and then select the proper application with the arrow keys.

Because having it on the top bar SAVES AN UNNECESSARY KEY STROKE!!!!
Here's the thing... gnome-shell ADDS IN, in about a THOUSAND different places, an EXTRA KEY STROKE that you need to do to accomplish the same thing compared to gnome-panel. All these extra key strokes take time and effort and add up to a very frustrating experience.

The keystroke is only unnecessary if the top bar have a lot of space, which is the case, so I understand your complaint. But don't say that keystrokes take time and effort, that's just ridiculous.....unless you're not used to type, which doesn't seem to be the case. Another thing, I recommend you have one hand on the keyboard and another on the mouse, it might help you with pressing that key.