What People Are Saying About GNOME [Part 3]

[kaczu]

I was the one who pointed updates to 'well-known' apps (if you were talking about my nautilus post?). I do want to point out a few things, specifically to do with customization and productivity. depending on the type of applications you are using, and your workflow, gnome-shell DOES get in the way, regardless of extensions or what-have-you....there are some limitations based on GS's design (for some users).

Yeah that's what I was referencing. I agree Nautilus needs help.

1.Compiz: No wobbly windows, cube or any of that crap. (i don't use compiz for eye candy). I specifically use the more productive plugins. ie: scale, expo, put, window rules, desktop wall, place window, tile ..to name a few. Mutter/GS doesn't even handle or provide similar functionality to many of those plugins - and they most definitely speed up and optimize my workflow. As a tablet/stylus user - i can tell you, in no way, shape or form does GS even compete for tablet usability. not even close. I also find compiz is more efficient for managing large numbers of apps. (meaning both Activities overview and alt-tab - are both what i consider a slow method of navigating).

While Compiz != Gnome, I do agree compiz does add some nice features. However, it also adds quite a bit in the way of problems that consistently need work arounds. It's development is not in tandem with Gnome's dev team or KDE's. That is but one reason why KDE went with compositing Kwin and Gnome went with Shell. Neither of them saw fit to go out of their way to support it because of this. The Gnome team said nope, while KDE devs allow it but they aren't going out of their way to make sure it works. Personally I've experienced quite a bit of problems ranging from crashing metacity or beryl to problems with Z-ordering full screen apps. Most of them have work arounds, but with every release of Kwin and GS their own stability has increased and in many ways has surpassed compiz.

That being said, there's quite a bit that GS does in fact do. Scale functionality is in the overlay and it works exactly the same. They even use the same default key bind. How you overlooked that is questionable since they both work exactly the same. Expo is vertical instead of horizontal but that's hardly going to be enough to kill productivity. All of the rest more or less that you've listed are either in a plugin or exist in a config file. In terms of Desktop Wall, that's just a workspace switcher that can be replicated any number of ways.

2.Kupfer - much faster for keyboard shortcuts / launching than native GS tools. more advanced functions also. (so gnome-shell provides a similar tool that is slower, and less functional. great).

This same functionality exists in GS and it's anything but slow. That aside this program works in GS. So I don't get your rub here.

3. DockbarX - much better for managing groups/tabs, also added benefit of adding OSX-like 'expose-grouping' features to compiz' scale plugin, which is very useful for me. As a prime use-case, often i will have 16-20 VST instruments/fx open at a time. - these are all individual apps, but are grouped in scale... i can quickly navigate between them, much faster with dockX's hooks to scale in compiz than with GS' features . (gnome-shell can't handle in 'organized fashion' my average 35+ applications open at any given time...compiz? - no problem)

I have the same exact workload and I can handle that pretty darn easily. I use AWN dock on the bottom and it observes the workspaces, meaning just because I click on an app it doesn't misplace the app in it's workspace. So this is usually my setup.

Ex:

15 RDP windows: Workspace 1
5 Terms: Workspace 2
4 browser windows: Workspace 3
Virtualbox: Workspace 4

That is pretty much my norm, more or less of the web browsers. Awn keeps track of where each app is. I click on that icon and it takes me to the workspace. Hit the windows key and I select the particular version of the app I need. It's a two step process. 1 mouse click and 1 keyboard key. Or I can right click on the app stack and go right to the particular app in that workspace. Sorry but it's anything but slow. If you need a video I'll make one but I promise you, finding an app you need after opening 20 or 30 is one thing GS is particularly good at.

I installed Dockbar though and the AWN plug in. It seems to work fine. It observes workspaces just as the regular AWN launcher does. However, if there's something I'm missing here then please let me know.

4. Gnome-pie - circular menu. great for tablet users, less obstrusive than using 'activities'. quick as well. (replacement for main-menu). As a sidenote: i also use easystroke (gesture recognition software, very useful for stylus/tablet users).

Gnome-Pie works in GS.

Now, yes - some of these do work with GS, but guess what - some work better with compiz and provide faster, more sensible ways of doing things.

It's not some. Everything that you listed except Compiz does work.

it's not a lack of being able to adjust, or not knowing what is available/GS tricks.

I think that's exactly what it is. Otherwise you wouldn't have listed so many apps that do in fact work and work quite well. I installed 2 -4 all installed and all worked and none of them were slow. To me it seems that you tried GS in the beginning when it was slow and buggy and that viewpoint you have chosen to accept as being the baseline for all things Gnome-Shell as if nothing would change. GS in the beginning was wretched, horrible, and slow. Now? It's quite usable, pretty darn fast and the stability is actually amazing considering how young it is.

It just doesn't work for my needs, it's designed to work a certain way, where as i require a more modular desktop - which GS (and gnome, more and more) is arguably NOT.

....and i know there are many people who feel the same way.

If you just don't like it then I have no problem with that. However, too many people are bringing up old issues (EX: minimize button) or saying it doesn't do something when it does. When someone says "it get's in my way" I picture consistently mapping a network drive in Windows, or running up against the client limit in Professional versions of it, or switching out my hardware and it bugs me I need to reactivate. That to me is getting in my way and that really does prevent me from working. GS on the other hand is pretty minimal. So much so that people are clamouring to add features that I'm sure will "get in someone's way". Every app I've used in G2 I use in GS and so far nothing has crashed (except Oil Rush) or prevented me from working and I am the king of many windows being open (that I forgot to close).

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[drag]

Gnome 3.2 is nice to use IMO.

As long as the Gnome folks don't screw up their extension support for GS then it's going to blow Gnome 2 away in terms of customizability.

[ninez]

The Gnome team said nope, while KDE devs allow it but they aren't going out of their way to make sure it works. Personally I've experienced quite a bit of problems ranging from crashing metacity or beryl to problems with Z-ordering full screen apps. Most of them have work arounds, but with every release of Kwin and GS their own stability has increased and in many ways has surpassed compiz.

Mutter/GS hasn't surpassed compiz, not even close. It lacks way too many features to make that claim. Furthermore, in GS you can't change any of the settings during runtime, as at least the last time i checked, they are all stored in javascript. Then any changes you make will disappear on an update. As far as beryl is concerned ~ that project died years ago, and is pointless in this conversation. I haven't had gtk-window-decorator / metacity give me any grief in a 'very long long time'. Nor do i have any problems with full-screen apps. KDE support Compiz in part because kwin and compiz share some code, and are very similar. i should also note: try disabling compositing in GS and watch what happens to your desktop - now do the same with compiz or kwin/KDE... and Mutter didn't even support disabling compositing on fullscreen, until 3.2 (but the patch had existed for what, a year before).

That being said, there's quite a bit that GS does in fact do. Scale functionality is in the overlay and it works exactly the same. They even use the same default key bind. How you overlooked that is questionable since they both work exactly the same. Expo is vertical instead of horizontal but that's hardly going to be enough to kill productivity. All of the rest more or less that you've listed are either in a plugin or exist in a config file. In terms of Desktop Wall, that's just a workspace switcher that can be replicated any number of ways.

erm, scale in GS does NOT work like compiz. Next are you going to tell me that scale in GS is exactly the same as OSX (pre-lion, obviously Lion added a bunch of new scale features)... not even close, in either case. for one, scale in compiz has a 'natural view' (spacial coordinates to each workspace, in combination with dockx, other features become available. GS's scale doesn't work the same at all. You also don't have the granular control of it's settings (nor any of mutter's settings, and worse yet - GS' FX speeds are hardcoded in js.) Scale in GS is also distracting, as it resides in the overlay. (which i find convoluted, and unnecessary). in compiz (or OSX) i just hit the hot-edge/or dockx and it's right in front of me, no darkening of screen, no slow animation, no overlay... I really don't see how you can think that is the same, dude. really?

This same functionality exists in GS and it's anything but slow. That aside this program works in GS. So I don't get your rub here.

i can set the speed in compiz to zero - for no distractions, GS/mutter the same effect is slower, and resembles playing slot machines. Saying that it is the same functionality, is simply not true, because it's not. scale in GS is like the very 1st implementation of expose in erely versions OSX and/or compiz.

I have the same exact workload and I can handle that pretty darn easily. I use AWN dock on the bottom and it observes the workspaces, meaning just because I click on an app it doesn't misplace the app in it's workspace. So this is usually my setup.

Ex:

15 RDP windows: Workspace 1
5 Terms: Workspace 2
4 browser windows: Workspace 3
Virtualbox: Workspace 4

That is pretty much my norm, more or less of the web browsers. Awn keeps track of where each app is. I click on that icon and it takes me to the workspace. Hit the windows key and I select the particular version of the app I need. It's a two step process. 1 mouse click and 1 keyboard key. Or I can right click on the app stack and go right to the particular app in that workspace. Sorry but it's anything but slow. If you need a video I'll make one but I promise you, finding an app you need after opening 20 or 30 is one thing GS is particularly good at.

(sidenote: my process is a one-step process, draw a gesture -> app is now open.)

So AWN solves some of your issues, not GS itself, correct? (so you now have both AWN and dash/activities in GS, 2 tools for the same job, essentially - but you've obviously installed AWN because it is better). I have found that by not using GS, i am having much nicer results. (no need for a bunch of extra bling, or 2-3 tools to do the same job). I don't really want to get into a lengthy explanation but, when i load up my 30+ apps (audio ones launch with Ladish), they are already organized on each workspace, just by using compiz, with a few customized settings. I haven't been able to get GS to do this correctly, even using something like devilspie didn't work very well. GS/mutter just lack some of those tools. Also, i really don't see how our setup is the same i am using 3x3 workspaces, that have my applications open with correct placement. My DAW alone takes up 3 workspaces, while the rest of my apps spread the others

I installed Dockbar though and the AWN plug in. It seems to work fine. It observes workspaces just as the regular AWN launcher does. However, if there's something I'm missing here then please let me know.

AWN and dockX being similar have nothing to do with what was said. but yes, they are similar tools. I already pointed out the compiz scale integration, and how it is almost essential to my workflow. it doesn't work that way with GS (ie: scale in GS, doesn't work like compiz').

Gnome-Pie works in GS.

I never said it didn't. I mainly use it as a main-menu replacement, but also pointed out that for accessing applications, it is far less obtrusive than 'Activities'. ~ meaning i do not require (or want) a 'main-menu' that takes up my whole screen to access, that is major overkill. i would rather do a simple gesture and click on what i want to use, short of that a normal menu in my books is better than huge ass overlay, to do the same thing.

Everything that you listed except Compiz does work.

with slightly different results, some which are very important to me. Again, i never said they don't work in GS - the main point i 'actually' made, was that most of these tools are better/faster/more customizable than the 'integrated' solutions in GS. I generally like 1 tool per job. So if i use gnome-shell i end up with 2 keyboard launchers, 2 docks, 2 main-menus, etc, etc.... the only other option is to just use what GS provides ~ which at this point isn't good enough for me, given the other options available.

I think that's exactly what it is. Otherwise you wouldn't have listed so many apps that do in fact work and work quite well. I installed 2 -4 all installed and all worked and none of them were slow. To me it seems that you tried GS in the beginning when it was slow and buggy and that viewpoint you have chosen to accept as being the baseline for all things Gnome-Shell as if nothing would change. GS in the beginning was wretched, horrible, and slow. Now? It's quite usable, pretty darn fast and the stability is actually amazing considering how young it is.

So using GS yesterday doesn't count?!?! I'm basing my opinions on the current GS/Gnome 3.2 - not my opinion from April/2011 (or even before that). This to me sounds like you convincing yourself, that my personal tastes are invalid, and i just don't understand GS or something. But that is ridiculous... If i used my first impressions of GS - i would be saying that i get nasty GFX artifacts everywhere, and that i have to use a 2nd class video driver (nouveau) over using Nvidia. Yes, things change (i'm not daft, you know!) As i have said before - I listed those apps, because they provide similar tools that GS provided but typically are better. I also don't see the point in GS - when i want to substitute almost every native tool it comes with, with better ones ~ that was the point. Not that these tools couldn't run in GS. (but that should've been somewhat obvious, i think).

If you just don't like it then I have no problem with that. However, too many people are bringing up old issues (EX: minimize button) or saying it doesn't do something when it does. When someone says "it get's in my way" I picture consistently mapping a network drive in Windows, or running up against the client limit in Professional versions of it, or switching out my hardware and it bugs me I need to reactivate. That to me is getting in my way and that really does prevent me from working. GS on the other hand is pretty minimal. So much so that people are clamouring to add features that I'm sure will "get in someone's way". Every app I've used in G2 I use in GS and so far nothing has crashed (except Oil Rush) or prevented me from working and I am the king of many windows being open (that I forgot to close).

I agree too many people who haven't really put GS to the test, do keep complaining about old issues. Well, as far as what you realize when people say 'it gets in the way'. I think you need to look a little broader. For example, there are instances (and i pointed this out above) where someone might like to disable compositing (3d intensive applications, that sort of thing), GS certainly in a case like this 'does get in the way'. There is no easy way in GS to deal with this issue, without your desktop experience going down the drain... For me personally, anytime that i have to go into a 'fullscreen' pile of bling overlay to access an app, etc - i find it distracting, and yes - that gets in my way! same goes with having to organize my workspaces in GS, i much prefer to have that semi-automated. that is another example of GS getting in my way. I prefer simplicity, visually unobtrusive ways of accessing tools that are fast, customizable (to suit my needs)... even with all of GS' extensions, i am finding the experience doesn't equal or surpass what i would get not using GS.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I didn't realize we were in an actual disagreement. My workflow isn't universal, neither is yours. Personally, i think it's bad for anyone at this point to assume that GS solves all problems for everyone. For some people, sure - that may be entirely true. While for others, that certainly isn't the case...

interesting incites, regardless..

cheerz

[kaczu]

Mutter/GS hasn't surpassed compiz, not even close. It lacks way too many features to make that claim. Furthermore, in GS you can't change any of the settings during runtime, as at least the last time i checked, they are all stored in javascript. Then any changes you make will disappear on an update. As far as beryl is concerned ~ that project died years ago, and is pointless in this conversation. I haven't had gtk-window-decorator / metacity give me any grief in a 'very long long time'. Nor do i have any problems with full-screen apps. KDE support Compiz in part because kwin and compiz share some code, and are very similar. i should also note: try disabling compositing in GS and watch what happens to your desktop - now do the same with compiz or kwin/KDE... and Mutter didn't even support disabling compositing on fullscreen, until 3.2 (but the patch had existed for what, a year before).

Now being able to change settings is far cry from saying something it isn't there. Those are two totally different issues. Now we are on to disabling compositing?? I thought we were talking about productivity and how it gets in your way. Not trying to highlight that compiz and GS don't work the same. Are you complaining to just complain here?

erm, scale in GS does NOT work like compiz. Next are you going to tell me that scale in GS is exactly the same as OSX (pre-lion, obviously Lion added a bunch of new scale features)... not even close, in either case. for one, scale in compiz has a 'natural view' (spacial coordinates to each workspace, in combination with dockx, other features become available. GS's scale doesn't work the same at all. You also don't have the granular control of it's settings (nor any of mutter's settings, and worse yet - GS' FX speeds are hardcoded in js.) Scale in GS is also distracting, as it resides in the overlay. (which i find convoluted, and unnecessary). in compiz (or OSX) i just hit the hot-edge/or dockx and it's right in front of me, no darkening of screen, no slow animation, no overlay... I really don't see how you can think that is the same, dude. really?

Actually it does. Again not being able to change settings is one thing, but saying that scale on compiz and the overlay in GS are completely different is hogwash when it comes to their basic functionality and intended use. That's customisability not productivity. You want GS to be compiz. How exactly is that supposed to be possible?

i can set the speed in compiz to zero - for no distractions, GS/mutter the same effect is slower, and resembles playing slot machines. Saying that it is the same functionality, is simply not true, because it's not. scale in GS is like the very 1st implementation of expose in erely versions OSX and/or compiz.

So setting the speed is increasing your productivity?? Hmmm

(sidenote: my process is a one-step process, draw a gesture -> app is now open.)

There's gesture apps that can easily do that. BTW how are you using the dock and the gesture and gnome pie? That would look pretty cluttered.

So AWN solves some of your issues, not GS itself, correct? (so you now have both AWN and dash/activities in GS, 2 tools for the same job, essentially - but you've obviously installed AWN because it is better). I have found that by not using GS, i am having much nicer results. (no need for a bunch of extra bling, or 2-3 tools to do the same job). I don't really want to get into a lengthy explanation but, when i load up my 30+ apps (audio ones launch with Ladish), they are already organized on each workspace, just by using compiz, with a few customized settings. I haven't been able to get GS to do this correctly, even using something like devilspie didn't work very well. GS/mutter just lack some of those tools. Also, i really don't see how our setup is the same i am using 3x3 workspaces, that have my applications open with correct placement. My DAW alone takes up 3 workspaces, while the rest of my apps spread the others

I install AWN even in G2. It wouldn't matter what the DE was. That is my preference. So far it seems you just want compiz.

AWN and dockX being similar have nothing to do with what was said. but yes, they are similar tools. I already pointed out the compiz scale integration, and how it is almost essential to my workflow. it doesn't work that way with GS (ie: scale in GS, doesn't work like compiz').

Sorry it does. Not having settings available to change is one thing, but I've used Scale in compiz and for the life of me while things look different their basic functionality is quite similar.

I never said it didn't. I mainly use it as a main-menu replacement, but also pointed out that for accessing applications, it is far less obtrusive than 'Activities'. ~ meaning i do not require (or want) a 'main-menu' that takes up my whole screen to access, that is major overkill. i would rather do a simple gesture and click on what i want to use, short of that a normal menu in my books is better than huge ass overlay, to do the same thing.

with slightly different results, some which are very important to me. Again, i never said they don't work in GS - the main point i 'actually' made, was that most of these tools are better/faster/more customizable than the 'integrated' solutions in GS. I generally like 1 tool per job. So if i use gnome-shell i end up with 2 keyboard launchers, 2 docks, 2 main-menus, etc, etc.... the only other option is to just use what GS provides ~ which at this point isn't good enough for me, given the other options available.

Of course it's not going to be, Gnome != compiz. They aren't developed by the same people. You would end up with 2 docks in G2 you would have to delete one of them. You don't even see the second dock unless you hit overlay. So you are mad because it's loading something you can't see?

So using GS yesterday doesn't count?!?! I'm basing my opinions on the current GS/Gnome 3.2 - not my opinion from April/2011 (or even before that). This to me sounds like you convincing yourself, that my personal tastes are invalid, and i just don't understand GS or something. But that is ridiculous... If i used my first impressions of GS - i would be saying that i get nasty GFX artifacts everywhere, and that i have to use a 2nd class video driver (nouveau) over using Nvidia. Yes, things change (i'm not daft, you know!) As i have said before - I listed those apps, because they provide similar tools that GS provided but typically are better. I also don't see the point in GS - when i want to substitute almost every native tool it comes with, with better ones ~ that was the point. Not that these tools couldn't run in GS. (but that should've been somewhat obvious, i think).

First off you listed applications as if they didn't install and performed badly. They install and perform pretty well. So it gave me the impression that you really hadn't used it. Unfortunately anyone who looked at your 2 -4 is probably going to say the same thing or do the same thing as I did. Install all of them and see how they work. They all installed. I had no issues. Compiz doesn't (which I agree with you on that it doesn't) but the rest do.

Your logic here isn't making any sense. If you are installing all of those apps in G2 it's because G2 doesn't provide them natively, no? So what's the deal? On one side of your mouth your saying GS doesn't do what all the apps you install do. Well that's not a surprise. Then install them. It's as simple as that. So far the only thing I agree with you on is the lack of customisability which is to be expected considering we are at what 3.2? However, just about all of your points are centered around compiz, something Gnome Devs don't support and KDE has trouble supporting as well. How much sense does it make to take an application that the Gnome Developers don't develop, and then say GS is getting in your way when Gnome doesn't develop that software? That's ridiculous. It's not G2 that's giving you increased customisability, it's Compiz that is doing that. That's like combining every application in repo and getting pissy that some DE doesn't have all of that functionality built in. Now that's just crazy, but that's the argument you are making here.

You're trying to take features from another application and say that GS should have it built in (even though G2 natively doesn't do what compiz does) and behave exactly the same even though those two projects are developed by two different development teams? How is that supposed to be possible?

[kaczu]

Mutter/GS hasn't surpassed compiz, not even close. It lacks way too many features to make that claim. Furthermore, in GS you can't change any of the settings during runtime, as at least the last time i checked, they are all stored in javascript. Then any changes you make will disappear on an update. As far as beryl is concerned ~ that project died years ago, and is pointless in this conversation. I haven't had gtk-window-decorator / metacity give me any grief in a 'very long long time'. Nor do i have any problems with full-screen apps. KDE support Compiz in part because kwin and compiz share some code, and are very similar. i should also note: try disabling compositing in GS and watch what happens to your desktop - now do the same with compiz or kwin/KDE... and Mutter didn't even support disabling compositing on fullscreen, until 3.2 (but the patch had existed for what, a year before).

I had to go back to this point as there's something that I don't believe is correct. KDE can run uncomposited and so can GS. Compiz is a compositor just like Mutter and Kwin are. I've never run compiz uncomposited. Please tell me how that works. BTW Mutter is quite a bit faster than Compiz. Actually Kwin is as well.

[ninez]

Now being able to change settings is far cry from saying something it isn't there. Those are two totally different issues. Now we are on to disabling compositing?? I thought we were talking about productivity and how it gets in your way. Not trying to highlight that compiz and GS don't work the same. Are you complaining to just complain here?

Yes, not being able to change settings is a far cry from saying something's not there. But if you read what i wrote, i cover both cases A). not being able to change settings B). some stuff not even implemented (including being able to change settings on the fly..lol). Both of these affect productivity, as you have to waste time manually changing bits of code, after every update, you just deal it. And not having necessary stuff implemented that one requires can mean a direct loss in productivity. As for disabling compositing, that yet again affects productivity. Having to log in and out, rather than just quickly disabling compositing, really you think that is more productive??

let's put it this way - a big part of productivity is about efficiency and not wasting time, being able to work without distractions and as few slow downs as possible. ie: nothing interfering with your work.. All of the above scenarios waste time in GS, and were a few quick examples.

Actually it does. Again not being able to change settings is one thing, but saying that scale on compiz and the overlay in GS are completely different is hogwash when it comes to their basic functionality and intended use. That's customisability not productivity. You want GS to be compiz. How exactly is that supposed to be possible?

No, they don't work the same. are you on glue???? both Compiz and OSX implement more features in scale/expo. You can see for yourself, either use a mac and/or install compiz and look at ccsm, the addon features, and while you are at it, open dockbarX's preferences, and look at the compiz specific extras. You repeatedly claiming they function the same, does not make this true. I have both a Mac Pro (snow leopard) sitting in front of me, and my Archlinux workstation GS and/or Compiz (from which i have already compared them, as of today!). Is the basic function the same, yes - but that is not what i am talking about, and have already made that very clear - what aren't you understanding, exactly? i didn't say that i wanted GS to be compiz. OSX also uses expose/scale - both OSX and compiz use scale/expose very similar, ie: they grouping/tabbing... GS scale is basic, as i said like expose when it first appeared in OSX (years ago)... and also it's much more distracting.

So setting the speed is increasing your productivity?? Hmmm

In many cases, yes. As one example - being able to navigate between running proaudio applications, that are both interdependent and interconnected using them in realtime (as in jamming live), you bet being able to shave time off directly affects my productivity and workflow. but even in a normal desktop scenario, i find i am always waiting around on bling and distracted when using GS. Compiz - turn animation speed to zero (or near zero) improves things 10 fold. i get down to business, no interruptions.

There's gesture apps that can easily do that.

Exactly. I am using Easystroke. As for cluttered, hell no. unless you consider a minimal looking desktop to be cluttered. (the charactors at the bottom may look like a dock, but they are apart of the wallpaper, dock is on top-left, the blue star (left of gnome-pie) is an easytroke gesture being executed.)



1. Easystroke does not require a GUI, when running (unless you are changing settings).
2. DockbarX is extremely customizable, so i run it lite and small (top-left)
3. Gnome-pie only appears, if i use the hotkey or use a gesture

I install AWN even in G2. It wouldn't matter what the DE was. That is my preference. So far it seems you just want compiz.

I too like AWN. i used to use it, but haven't in a while. (like a year). DockbarX is also DE neutral (you can run it standalone, as i do). It's not so much that i want compiz (although, at this point it's my best option). My problem with GS is mainly the whole 'Activities' overlay (which is the main piece of GS) - it's just too over-bearing, it's tied into everything and attempts to replace so many better tools. Compiz at this point just has the best (most useful) plugins, and seems to be the most flexible for me. Being able to do things such as window placement, tiling, etc .. being able to tweak it's setting, right down to most behaviors is very handy.

Sorry it does. Not having settings available to change is one thing, but I've used Scale in compiz and for the life of me while things look different their basic functionality is quite similar.

again, asserting something doesn't make it true. Anyone sitting in front of a modern version of compiz or OSX can tell you, that while maybe 'basic function' is the same, that is where it ends. GS' current implementation of scale has less features. period. it goes beyond look (although, hands down both compiz and OSX way is less distracting and looks better too). and again, not being able to change setting during runtime sucks (it's not the end of the world, but having to change GS's behaviors in js files sucks even more, especially when considering that updates will probably remove them).

Of course it's not going to be, Gnome != compiz. They aren't developed by the same people. You would end up with 2 docks in G2 you would have to delete one of them. You don't even see the second dock unless you hit overlay. So you are mad because it's loading something you can't see?

Really Gnome isn't Compiz?? lol. there not developed by the same people..lol thanks tips! MacOSX and Compiz aren't developed by the same people either, but they both seem to do things in a similar way, as far as some WM features are concerned.

I'm not talking about G2, we're talking about G3. (and in g2 i wouldn't have deleted them, dash doesn't exist in G2. and if you mean gnome-panel. i don't use gnome-panel, not in G2 or G3). As far as having 2 docks, and being mad because it's loading something i can't see?? - that is not the point, the real point is - why would i want to have 2 dock's running in this manner? why not just have 1 that does the job right in the first place??? ....think Unix Philosophy....do you get my point? I shouldn't as another example have both kupfer and gnome-shell's keyboard launching features enabled, i should just have kupfer - it does a better job anyway.

Your logic here isn't making any sense. If you are installing all of those apps in G2 it's because G2 doesn't provide them natively, no? So what's the deal?

I DO NOT USE G2! i install these apps because GS does a poor job of implementing the same feature-sets. AGAIN - I AM USING GNOME 3.2 / Archlinux and haven't used G2 (other than on CentOS @ work) for a long time. what aren't you understanding?

On one side of your mouth your saying GS doesn't do what all the apps you install do. Well that's not a surprise. Then install them. It's as simple as that.

I don't like bloat, and again think of the Unix philosophy. I don't want 2x the applications that are meant to do the same task. That is pointless. Use 1 tool that works, not 1 that works and one that 1/2 works to do the exact same thing. - ..and yes, it is as simple as that.

So far the only thing I agree with you on is the lack of customisability which is to be expected considering we are at what 3.2?

like i said before, maybe they'll have it figured out by 4.0 ...but even still, i would still be stuck with 'Activities' which is a big caveat.

However, just about all of your points are centered around compiz, something Gnome Devs don't support and KDE has trouble supporting as well. How much sense does it make to take an application that the Gnome Developers don't develop, and then say GS is getting in your way when Gnome doesn't develop that software?

No, that isn't what i said, at all. The point is, if you are going to design software that is 'statically' apart of you DE, it better be better than the alternatives - otherwise i am running twice the amount of apps for no good reason.

That's ridiculous. It's not G2 that's giving you increased customisability, it's Compiz that is doing that. That's like combining every application in repo and getting pissy that some DE doesn't have all of that functionality built in. Now that's just crazy, but that's the argument you are making here.

again, not using G2. Well aware of what compiz does compared to what a DE provides, thanks. How exactly is comparing 3-4 applications, to their GS counterparts, combining the whole repo??!?! I don't know what distro you use, but that would mean thousands of applications

GS provides Dash, which essentially a dock/quicklauncher - so yes, i can compare it to software that functions the same way (like AWN or DockbarX). Yes, i can compare gtk2-style menu or Gnome-pie vs, 'Activites' for the same purpose, and yes, i can compare GS to compiz - as they are both compositing WMs (i could throw cairocompmgr and kwin in too, as well as AERO and Quartz compositor).

Are comparisions of similar things intended to do provide similar functionality, not allowed in your world??? In the world i am from, planet earth - that is how we decide which is better, and also often how ideas/implementations evolve.

what is crazy, is how you keep making wrong assumptions about what i am saying, instead of asking what i mean, if you are confused about something or not understanding something. then ask! Instead of purposing that whatever dribble you've come up with in your head, and labelling it as what i said.

You're trying to take features from another application and say that GS should have it built in (even though G2 natively doesn't do what compiz does) and behave exactly the same even though those two projects are developed by two different development teams? How is that supposed to be possible?

Again, what does G2 have to do with anything. it is deprecated, and i don't use it. Compiz / kwin / GS are comparable and should be compared against each other, and also against Win and Mac ways of doing the same crap. If GS is going to integrate it's own dash/dock && keylauncher && compositer , etc - and expect users to adopt them, then they should be better than the non-integrated tools. if they aren't, then they are just adding cruft to the desktop for users, who want to swap them out, but essentially cant.

[ninez]

I had to go back to this point as there's something that I don't believe is correct. KDE can run uncomposited and so can GS. Compiz is a compositor just like Mutter and Kwin are. I've never run compiz uncomposited. Please tell me how that works. BTW Mutter is quite a bit faster than Compiz. Actually Kwin is as well.

It's not running compiz uncomposited - it's making the DE uncomposited WITHOUT significant interruption. KDE does this great. You can also do this with compiz in any DE, depending on what your DE is setup like - you will see no significant change in your desktop, no loggin out required... But that is not how GS works, GS is going to be using LLVMpipe driver, which is a much different approach - and is a significant interruption, as you can probably imagine. it would be like me executing 'init 3' unloading the nvidia driver and replacing it with the LLVMpipe one instead, and than executing 'init 5' to start gnome-shell again.

And yes, i have heard mutter is faster - but the only data i've seen to support this claim, was by mutter's developer. I have zero speed issues with compiz, no chugging, slowdowns - while GS has improved with Nvidia over the last while, it's affects including zoom and it's ugly folding affect look like crap - same with maximization. Compiz' plugins/fx look smoother on my hardware - kwin also looks better than GS/mutter, in that way.

oh and kwin is that fastest, atleast on nvidia hardware. but still, i would sacrifice a cycle or two to have a customizable fully-featured compositor over using mutter/GS.

[kaczu]

Having to log in and out, rather than just quickly disabling compositing, really you think that is more productive??

That issue isn't about productivity. Especially since you are using compiz in every example here. So you are going to disable compositing and maintain your productivity? If you are disabling compositing you are disabling compiz vs redirect rendering to uncomposited. If you are disabling it, what's the point of mentioning it?

I DO NOT USE G2! i install these apps because GS does a poor job of implementing the same feature-sets. AGAIN - I AM USING GNOME 3.2 / Archlinux and haven't used G2 (other than on CentOS @ work) for a long time. what aren't you understanding?

Again, what does G2 have to do with anything. it is deprecated, and i don't use it. Compiz / kwin / GS are comparable and should be compared against each other, and also against Win and Mac ways of doing the same crap. If GS is going to integrate it's own dash/dock && keylauncher && compositer , etc - and expect users to adopt them, then they should be better than the non-integrated tools. if they aren't, then they are just adding cruft to the desktop for users, who want to swap them out, but essentially cant.

Who are you kidding? You would have to install every app you listed to have that type of flexibility no matter the DE. KDE, Gnome, XFCE, take your pick none of them include that functionality at their core. Absolutely NONE OF THEM. But here you are going to compiz's plug in set, and any other app in repo you'd care to name as though any of the DE's are responsible for them. Those apps are what give you that flexibility not the DE and they have just as much if not more responsibility creating plugins or versions of their own apps to work with GS just like every other app in repo does. In your screenshot it looks like you've removed everything and replaced it with an app of your choosing. That's hardly an good example. If anything it highlights just how much DE's need in general.

Quick question: If you are using G3.2, how did you get rid of Shell? I thought that the only options were Shell and Gnome Classic (Fallback)?

[ninez]

That issue isn't about productivity. Especially since you are using compiz in every example here. So you are going to disable compositing and maintain your productivity? If you are disabling compositing you are disabling compiz vs redirect rendering to uncomposited. If you are disabling it, what's the point of mentioning it?

There are situations were you actually may want compositing completely off. and FYI It doesn't kill my productivity at all, in the odd case where i do this... I still have all of my desktops, the majority of hotkeys and the rest of my tools such as dockbarX/kupfer/etc. Not only that but i have gestures to enable/disable compositing ~ it's not an issue at all.

Who are you kidding? You would have to install every app you listed to have that type of flexibility no matter the DE. KDE, Gnome, XFCE, take your pick none of them include that functionality at their core. Absolutely NONE OF THEM.

So gnome-shell doesn't include a dock/launcher? (Dash)
gnome-shell doesn't include keylauncher?
gnome-shell doesn't include a modern compositing WM? (mutter/GS itself)
gnome-shell doesn't include 'main-menu' or similar function???

NOTE: KDE / GNOME are full on DE's with modern features and plugins (and e17 to a lesser extent). Fxce, LXDE, FLUXBOX, etc are small / minimal (winXP or less type DE...old style) desktops in comparison. Would you compare XFCE to win7 - probably not. How about KDE/GS vs. win7 - they are a little closer in size and features, right?? (probably a better comparision, don't you think?)

Are you really this silly? I'm comparing 'apples to apples'. Gnome3/GS does include all of this shit, and saying otherwise, now after we have been over this stuff, is retarded. How about KDE??? Last time i took KDE for a spin - it was fully-featured (KDE 4.7). FYI the only thing i didn't include above was easystroke (but that was never in the comparison to begin with, just mentioned as a 'sidenote').

comparing G3/Compiz to GS is completely relevent!

But here you are going to compiz's plug in set, and any other app in repo you'd care to name as though any of the DE's are responsible for them. Those apps are what give you that flexibility not the DE and they have just as much if not more responsibility creating plugins or versions of their own apps to work with GS just like every other app in repo does.

again, you seem to completely miss the point. GS seeks to implement 'integrated' clones of docks, launchers, compositingWM, plugins, etc - they are implementented 'statically' in most cases (except extensions) into the Gnome-Shell DE. Your argument here is both illogical, and by your own words you are contradicting the facts and even worse yourself -> because GS DOES implement all of this stuff.(albeit shotty in comparison) Are you now going to say that GS doesn't provide you with any functionality and flexibility??? - you've already claimed the quite oppisite in other posts...

In your screenshot it looks like you've removed everything and replaced it with an app of your choosing. That's hardly an good example. If anything it highlights just how much DE's need in general.

removed everything? you mean i don't use GS, gnome-panel or mutter??? lol. i've already listed the 4 applications that replaced any and all functionality provided by the 'stock' gnome DE experience (plus, easystroke). oooh, 5 small applications...

Quick question: If you are using G3.2, how did you get rid of Shell? I thought that the only options were Shell and Gnome Classic (Fallback)?

it's not 'if i am using G3.2' - I AM using G3.2;



you just create a .session that doesn't use GS ~ just like fallback does. If you are using lightDM or GDM, you should be able to select it as your session. Any other apps that you want on startup you just add to 'startup applications' in gnome. If you browse through the ArchWiki for gnome and also compiz (archlinux wiki), it provides clear concise instructions, it takes like 1 minute to do.

alternatively, one could also use a modified 'startx' script (if you aren't using a display manager) and specify everything you want to startup for your desktop. (which is what i will do when they remove fallback. it works fine, already tested.

pretty simple stuff.

[prokoudine]

They didn't compromise and still refuse to, so why should I? They didn't consult their user base and still refuse to.

There's only so much lies people can take.

https://live.gnome.org/UsabilityProject/UsabilityTests/GnomeGeneralResearch

I've seen several discussions on G+ where GNOME designers ask for feedback and input and actually use it. I can give you a handful of links on that. I also read the IRC discussions and participate in them sometimes and I know for sure that feedback and input are welcome.

The problem is that it doesn't matter if we provides facts, prooflinks or anything. You just want to believe that GNOME3 designers/programmers are bad. You have a system of antiGNOME3 beliefs there that is an inch away from becoming religion, and I'm not arguing over religion, my friend.