GNOME 3.23.2 Released With More Work Towards GNOME 3.24

[hrkristian]

Since I use GNOME (3.6) I liked every iteration. The only change I disliked was removing user name from panel. They should left the option to set it on in settings.

https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/1108/add-username-to-top-panel/

Go nuts.

[Passso]

Since I use GNOME (3.6) I liked every iteration.

Gnome 3 comes from so low so everyone have to agree
I find that many default options are strange for newbies and the extension system is not a good way to manage a desktop for classical users so... basically I still do not understand the choice they made after such a good Gnome2.
Anyway I admit that for people searching stability and for servers needing a screen it is very good.

[Mystro256]

I'd be okay with the defaults as well, but the only two extensions that would make it usable is "No Topleft Hot Corner" and "TopIcons Plus." I also have "Alternatetab" turned on for thumbnails of applications when using Alt+Tab.

I absolutely agree, my personal buff list is:
Alternative Tab
Arch linux updates indicator
Bottompanel
Clipboard Indicator
Dash to dock
Frippery move clock
Panther Launcher
Places
Recent(item)s
Topicons plus
Trash
Volume mixer
Gtile

I'm actually considering forking and combining all the extensions I use into a single extension to transform the UX

+1 to "Dash to Dock", "Topicons Plus" and "No Topleft Hot Corner"

[k1e0x]

To me GNOME is a no bullshit solution to getting actual work done in a low-distraction environment.

It always was.. The trouble with KDE is you right click something and you have 200 options. It overwhelms people.

[k1e0x]

My extensions:

Just simply Top Panel Workspace Scroll & Top Icons Plus

[k1e0x]

Gnome 3 comes from so low so everyone have to agree
I find that many default options are strange for newbies and the extension system is not a good way to manage a desktop for classical users so... basically I still do not understand the choice they made after such a good Gnome2.
Anyway I admit that for people searching stability and for servers needing a screen it is very good.

Well here is why. (I'm going from memory here)

Sometime during the Gnome 2 lifespan Sun Microsystems funded a scientific user interface study on the Gnome Desktop for it's addition into Solaris as the "Java Desktop Environment" and a replacement for CDE. So they would take users of all types and ask them to look at Gnome and what they expected to happen when they did various actions. A lot of the findings for that got put into Gnome 2 (such as cleaning up the icons and making their functions more obvious to the user.) but some of it was more involved. At that point Gnome 3 design went in and Gnome took a very forward facing direction on OS Desktop design.

So some of the gripes currently can be traced back to that. For instance..

Q: Why does Gnome have a persistent top panel? What are they trying to be Mac OS?
A: No, the reason why is because the top area of the screen is the most easy part of the screen to access with a mouse. It takes the least amount of fine motion to hit that area, you can basically fall on your mouse and hit the top panel.

Q: Why did Gnome throw off "normal desktop" operation and remove the bottom panel containing a list of open windows?
A: Because it's easier to select applications in a expose' style, by zooming them out than it is to pick the app you want from a list.

In the end.. it's just true that sometimes you have to change things to make them better.

[Passso]

Q: Why does Gnome have a persistent top panel? What are they trying to be Mac OS?
A: No, the reason why is because the top area of the screen is the most easy part of the screen to access with a mouse. It takes the least amount of fine motion to hit that area, you can basically fall on your mouse and hit the top panel.

Q: Why did Gnome throw off "normal desktop" operation and remove the bottom panel containing a list of open windows?
A: Because it's easier to select applications in a expose' style, by zooming them out than it is to pick the app you want from a list.

In the end.. it's just true that sometimes you have to change things to make them better.

I fully understand that gravity helps a top menu to load faster

My main point is the extension system, this is such a mess IMO :

- the default desktop lack of A LOT of important stuff, people already listed it thousand times, I wont paste
- a simple config menu to activate / configure them would be much more efficient than surfing the web to find them, really

Concerning the app picker... I am not convinced. People see a list and instinctilvly find what they want.

Anyway the idea is overall acceptable and I would like to say that statistics tend to prove Gnome folks were right but the simple fact that Cinnamon and MATE were created and became a much more used DE tends to prove that Gnome team was wrong or they communicated badly/people were not ready.

PS : I was an order of magnitude disappointed by Win8 interface, at least Gnome3 is usable.

[k1e0x]

I fully understand that gravity helps a top menu to load faster

My main point is the extension system, this is such a mess IMO :

- the default desktop lack of A LOT of important stuff, people already listed it thousand times, I wont paste
- a simple config menu to activate / configure them would be much more efficient than surfing the web to find them, really

Concerning the app picker... I am not convinced. People see a list and instinctilvly find what they want.

Anyway the idea is overall acceptable and I would like to say that statistics tend to prove Gnome folks were right but the simple fact that Cinnamon and MATE were created and became a much more used DE tends to prove that Gnome team was wrong or they communicated badly/people were not ready.

PS : I was an order of magnitude disappointed by Win8 interface, at least Gnome3 is usable.

Well.. if you want to know if Gnome was right you can look at what others are doing. Apple's UI studies reached a lot of the same general conclusions that Gnome's did. (It's not a copy it's two independent scientific teams reaching the same conclusions). Android has a similar system though designed for smaller screens. Microsoft seems to know this is right because they now generate thumbnails on the apps in the Taskbar but they still have use the classic list interface. Probably a compromise at Microsoft since they had been doing it wrong for so many years.

I find it very odd to me that so many people like and use MATE when XFCE exists. It seems like it would be more efficient to make XFCE better than to continue to try to support Gnome 2. Though maybe this is some of the "WindowMaker" effect.. WindowMaker is essentially a finished product as far as implementing a NEXT Step style desktop. XFCE may feel the same way.

Anyhow to answer the general often asked question MATE users asks "Why Gnome did it..?" Because science.