It's Easy To Guess What Angers GNOME Users

[ludovic.silvestre]

The pro-gnome-shell person is still blinded, so they try to make up a whole bunch of excuses, trying to place the blame for getting poor utility out of gnome-shell on the actual user -- suggesting that a graphical interface should be operated by the keyboard.... HUH--SERIOUSLY???!?!? Or that the user's MOUSE is somehow to blame?

None of the pro-gnome-shell person's arguments are explained any more rationally than "but its pretty".

I try not to take it personal but......seriously??? Where the hell I or any other gnome-shell user justified some choice with "but its pretty"? Where the hell did we said that a DE should be used with a keyboard? We only said that you can use the keyboard, not that you should use the keyboard. Obviously the mouse is needed, especially for new users.

And please, go check my answers and tell me which one are not explained rationally??? What I see here is anti-gnome-shell users with complaints, some valid and others not, that won't accept any valid explanation but theirs, while the pro-gnome-shell users accept some of your complaints and even elaborate possible solutions. It's seems that we, pro-gnome-shell users, are more reasonable at arguing than you, anti-gnome-shell users, are.

[mudig]

@Michael: Why didn't you post my positive comment? I like gnome-shell. I'm currently using Ubuntu 11.10 with Unity due to technical problems with F15 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712533) and think that GS has the better concept from what my gut feeling tells me.

[bwat47]

@Michael: Why didn't you post my positive comment? I like gnome-shell. I'm currently using Ubuntu 11.10 with Unity due to technical problems with F15 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712533) and think that GS has the better concept from what my gut feeling tells me.

Because this article is a biased piece of garbage. He cherry picked some hate comments and didn't even post a single comment with an opposing view. Just pathetic, michael you should be holding youself to a higher standard than this.

[bwat47]

Your observations are incorrect.
The anti-gnome-shell persons make complaints, and receive rebuttals that indicate that the pro-gnome-shell person hasn't even read the complaint to understand it. They make up some nonsense and claim ignorance. The pro-gnome-shell person tries to explain in more detail in order to get past the "blinded by bling" state that the pro-gnome-shell person has been sucked into.

The pro-gnome-shell person is still blinded, so they try to make up a whole bunch of excuses, trying to place the blame for getting poor utility out of gnome-shell on the actual user -- suggesting that a graphical interface should be operated by the keyboard.... HUH--SERIOUSLY???!?!? Or that the user's MOUSE is somehow to blame?


None of the pro-gnome-shell person's arguments are explained any more rationally than "but its pretty".

Well, its a barnyard pig, dressed to the 9's and with a full makeover by the most famous homosexual in existence. Thanks, but I'd rather the HUMAN NERDY GIRL with zero fashion sense. At least she is capable of intelligent conversation and knows how to make a sandwich.

Get over youself, plenty of people in this thread have posted rebuttels with much more substance than "its pretty". Stop putting words in people's mouths. You don't like gnome-shell, fine. I respect your opinion, just don't use it, but don't go around posting stupiud drivel like this.

People have opposing views that are every bit as valid as your opinion. Your opinion is not the only one, and it is not fact. This article and this thread are really showcasing everything the open source community strives not to be.

Believe it or not its possible to have an intelligent debate without ad-hominem and straw man attacks.

[AnonymousCoward]

Believe it or not its possible to have an intelligent debate without ad-hominem and straw man attacks.

Yes but is it also possible for DROIDHACKER to ENGAGE in a DEBATE without putting WORDS in ALL CAPS?

[Jedipottsy]

Hi,
i really dont like gnome 3. I can see the point but it doesnt make any sense. majority of linux users, are power users. This isnt to say there aren't home users, but most linux users are power users. Of those, a significant portion use gnome. Majority of gnome users are power users. Gnome 3 was a great chance to fix things for the sake of simplicity. Why should you go to Places > Documents to find a document, to realise its not there. The average user should care where files are, they just want the file. Same goes for applications and settings. Most users dont want to see complex network settings next to the wallpaper settings. However in altering the desktop to make these things easier (and to get ahead of the touch revolution) the gnome dev's seemed to have forgotten that people who know how to manage a desktop, and know where things are loose control. This is a significant portion of the userbase. A big part of the gnome 3 debacle is the gnome dev's pitching the desktop for 'mums' and i dont mean that every decision was to appease mothers and no-one else was thought about. I mean that decisions were made to simplify the experience for consumers when it shouldnt have. Yes in an ideal world computers should never be shutdown. However we dont live in a perfect world, and suspend doesnt work on every machine, and even if it does, it doesnt make sense. Computers boot quick enough as it is, especially with systemd.

As it stands, i also dont think gnome shell is good for consumers either. I couldnt give gnome shell to my mum, the whole managing windows just seems crazy to me. Give anyone mac os, and i think they will have a good chance of working with it. Nice big icons for the most important thing - programs. The rest really doesnt matter. Same goes for windows 7. If you make the most important feature front and center the rest doesnt matter. But as it stands switching between apps is a joke in gnome shell. Its impossible to tell just from a quick glance whats currently running or even how to switch to them. Instead its hidden behind alt+tab/alt+` (stupidest thing ever btw) or in the activity menu. Which means everytime someone needs to switch they need to wrestle with the keyboard or go into a menu system to get an expose type feature. And if theres multiple desktops running multiple apps this is a mess. A dock or taskbar is simple to use and it works.

Now thats not to say completely get rid of gnome shell. I dont think thats going to happen. But it would make sense to offer a dual desktop, or even offer a power user extension pack which gives a dual desktop mode. The default could be shell as it stands, and a power extension pack to revert to a gnome 2-esque metaphor. This also allows gnome to keep consistency. At the moment power users are running a wide-array of extensions which makes it hard to update and add features without breaking things. With two clear desktops in mind this should be easier for everyone. I dont think forking gnome 2 is a good idea, as gnome 2 is old tech. I am a big fan of the gnome 3 system, it looks gorgeous, its fluid, consistent, has nice animations. I just dont like the layout.

[EDIT]
btw of those 'home' users running linux and gnome, i bet 90% of those are running it because a power user has given it to them, and a power user could easily configure gnome to be 'easy', not to say that gnome 2.32 isnt easy, i gave it to a photoshop user (breaks every windows and mac machine i give her), and she hasnt had any problems with gnome 2.32

[amphigory]

GNOME started going to hell around the time they started using GConf. The latest incarnation of GNOME is, yet again, a bad product developed by talented people with good intentions. Misguided but with good intentions.

I switched to XFCE in 2003 and have not looked back. I was still using GDM until GDM3 (insert intemperate language here). Fortunately LightDM works nicely as a replacement and is much snappier.

[Hamish Wilson]

Now thats not to say completely get rid of gnome shell. I dont think thats going to happen. But it would make sense to offer a dual desktop, or even offer a power user extension pack which gives a dual desktop mode. The default could be shell as it stands, and a power extension pack to revert to a gnome 2-esque metaphor. This also allows gnome to keep consistency. At the moment power users are running a wide-array of extensions which makes it hard to update and add features without breaking things. With two clear desktops in mind this should be easier for everyone. I dont think forking gnome 2 is a good idea, as gnome 2 is old tech. I am a big fan of the gnome 3 system, it looks gorgeous, its fluid, consistent, has nice animations. I just dont like the layout.

You see, this common misconception was the main reason I started posting in this thread, THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!

You do not need the Shell to run Gnome 3. The classic Gnome Panel is still there, it has been updated and the theme has been changed (and can be changed by the user) but with the latest releases is just as functional as the old panel. In terms of functionality, I wager that it is in fact better than the old panel, as the applet placement is a lot more solid. You can use Metacity with it. You can use Mutter with it. You can even use Compiz with it. It is still there and it is called Fallback mode. You can access it through your distro repositories, or a simple dialogue through System Settings.

This is why I do not understand all the hate. Gnome has not locked you into its new system, despite all the claims. The old way is still there, still receiving updates. There are legitimate reasons to use and like the Shell. There are legitimate reasons to hate it. But the choice is there, and despite some claims to the contrary, it is not going away. So, pack up and stop arguing, and use your desktop as you will.

[LinuxID10T]

You see, this common misconception was the main reason I started posting in this thread, THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!

You do not need the Shell to run Gnome 3. The classic Gnome Panel is still there, it has been updated and the theme has been changed (and can be changed by the user) but with the latest releases is just as functional as the old panel. In terms of functionality, I wager that it is in fact better than the old panel, as the applet placement is a lot more solid. You can use Metacity with it. You can use Mutter with it. You can even use Compiz with it. It is still there and it is called Fallback mode. You can access it through your distro repositories, or a simple dialogue through System Settings.

This is why I do not understand all the hate. Gnome has not locked you into its new system, despite all the claims. The old way is still there, still receiving updates. There are legitimate reasons to use and like the Shell. There are legitimate reasons to hate it. But the choice is there, and despite some claims to the contrary, it is not going away. So, pack up and stop arguing, and use your desktop as you will.

Problem is that they crippled the Gnome-Panel. A lot of the configurability of it is gone. I can't even slide my applets anymore, it is ridiculous.

[BlackStar]

Ok, this is officially the best troll thread here in Phoronix. Great going, Michael, 10/10!

Gnome Shell is lovely, I'm a power user and I love it. Haters gonna hate! Go back to windows, we don't need you anway.