Still a piece of garbage. Can't they simply admit they were wrong and add a permanent panel with icons (like Windows or Mac) at the bottom of the screen and move on?
Eh, I used to think this way until I actually tried GNOME for a bit. I've grown quite fond of its workflow. There's definitely extensions that I feel I need for it to be fully usable from my perspective, but in some ways I see it as a positive to start out with a good foundation and then allow users to extend the functionality they feel they need onto that base. Not every user is going to want the same thing, so keeping the core minimalist makes sense.
If I wanted something like Windows, I'd use KDE. If I really wanted a GNOME Windows-like experience similar to the old GNOME2 behavior I'd use something like MATE or Cinnamon. I guess my point is that there's plenty of DEs out there that are essentially copies of the same workflow. I respect the desire to innovate in GNOME3.
I'm guessing everyone who likes GNOME (me included) only uses it because of its unique workflow. And that's exactly why people were hesitant by GNOME 3 (besides the UI. I'm not a linux user from that time but damn the UI was weird seeing some old screenshots)
For me it just strikes a nice balance between a full tiler and a classic desktop UI.
And in my book, you don't even need any extensions, the core product is fine as it is.
At the time they went in a different direction with Gnome 3 it wasn't so much the direction itself, as the fact they gave people no choice.
One day you were happily using your Gnome 2 desktop, the next you were being told "we're changing everything, deal with it". Not "hey we're forking Gnome 2 to try something new, see if you like it and maybe switch", no, it was "we're changing it and you're gonna like it".
It's this "mommy knows best" attitude that's always pissed people off about Gnome.
I can’t agree as I love Gnome and now feel lost when I have to use windows or MacOs. The way it uses the workspace and the way your screen isn’t cluttered with informations is great for someone like me.
And extensions are there to help you with almost every limitation you encounter.
You don't like your LEDs blinking Morse code of your 1s average combined CPU load?
Again, extensions aren't as polished as built in stuff. A prime example of this was when they ditched desktop icons, the extensions that followed fail sometimes.
I mean if oyu don't like it, then don't use it or install an extension. I never missed a bar at the bottom and can find all open windows in the overview very quickly
Yes but extensions work to a degree and not out of the box. For instance, when they abandoned desktop icons a long time ago we never had and extension that delivered the same polished experience.
GNOME has some quite strict design guidelines (a "vision", if you will). And sticking to that a vision has enabled them to create a very polished DE (probably the most polished DE on Linux). What people get wrong is that GNOME wasn't really made for desktops. It was made for mobile devices (laptops, tablets, and in the future phones). Using GNOME on a "proper" mobile device really makes sense. No, that doesn't mean using a laptop connected to an external monitor all the time, or just using it at a desk all the time. It means using a laptop as a laptops, going out and about, using it without a mouse and using it with it's internal display.
GNOME wasn't really made for desktops
I can certainly believe that. Yet, pretty much every desktop distro ships it as the default, which boggles my mind.
Well GNOME is the most polished, which means it eneded up being the most popular, which means GTK has the most apps, which makes GNOME look very polished, and the cycle repeats itself.
Also the vast majority of people use laptops, not desktops.
@thegreenguy@TCB13 yep this exactly I first used gnome on a laptop and the experience is great the gesture support makes all the workspaces and different overviews work perfectly
then I started using it on desktop and it just doesn't work the same. it feels clunky and far from as smooth.
They weren't wrong. There is no need for a panel, you can just type what program you want. It's not year 2000 anymore.
Besides, Plasma is much more like Windows. It has panels, lots of windows and bugs.
you can just type what program you want. It’s not year 2000 anymore.
Typing the name of the program you want is a 1970s thing.
Good response to be honest. :)
Only a bit tongue-in-cheek... :)
Sometimes typing something is better, sometimes just clicking a button is better. It just depends on... too many things to list.
Yes ironically desktop environments "revolutionized" computing by not having a way to type what program we want to then, after decades re-introduce that :D
Yep, because we realized the pointy clicky hand-eye coordination paradigm is often not an improvement.
@TCB13@RoboRay I don’t remember a distro or DE that lacked a command line. Hell, even windows never actually abandoned it.
Sure, which makes it curious that the previous comment implied that it's a new thing since 2000 when it's actually a very old thing.
I know it's contentious but for laptops and limited size displays I love the GNOME layout over KDE. Gestures are also way better, even on X11.
It does everything MacOS was trying to do, but executes it way better. I say this as someone who uses MacOS daily for work.
It has some pain points but there's a reason it's such a large part of the Linux ecosystem
@TCB13@thegreenguy I prefer it the way it is. If you love the Windows design so much, just use KDE.
No, KDE is even worse than GNOME. GNOME has some sense of design and things are properly designed most of the time, consistent spacing between elements and whatnot, KDE fails on that. GNOME fails on providing a basic desktop experience to those familiar with Windows and macOS.
GNOME is easily modified to suit those workflows. Some distros even offer simple apps to do the heavy lifting of setting up a layout for you, like Manjaro and Zorin.
What do you use atm?
Because, once again, extensions and quicks fixes doesn't provide the same experience as built in features. Eg. GNOME 3.28 removed desktop icons and the extensions currently available don't provide the same polished experience.
Fair enough. Though if you've not tried a lot of these extensions recently I'd bet you'd be surprised with the quality that some of them have nowadays. Ubuntu for example uses a handful of GNOME extensions to replace lost functionality like taskbar icons and desktop icons with good enough quality that most of their users don't even notice it was ever missing.
You will do it the way they saw in that fever dream, for such is the way of Gnome.
Still a piece of garbage. Can't they simply admit they were wrong and add a permanent panel with icons (like Windows or Mac) at the bottom of the screen and move on?
Eh, I used to think this way until I actually tried GNOME for a bit. I've grown quite fond of its workflow. There's definitely extensions that I feel I need for it to be fully usable from my perspective, but in some ways I see it as a positive to start out with a good foundation and then allow users to extend the functionality they feel they need onto that base. Not every user is going to want the same thing, so keeping the core minimalist makes sense.
If I wanted something like Windows, I'd use KDE. If I really wanted a GNOME Windows-like experience similar to the old GNOME2 behavior I'd use something like MATE or Cinnamon. I guess my point is that there's plenty of DEs out there that are essentially copies of the same workflow. I respect the desire to innovate in GNOME3.
I'm guessing everyone who likes GNOME (me included) only uses it because of its unique workflow. And that's exactly why people were hesitant by GNOME 3 (besides the UI. I'm not a linux user from that time but damn the UI was weird seeing some old screenshots)
is it that unique?
For me it just strikes a nice balance between a full tiler and a classic desktop UI.
And in my book, you don't even need any extensions, the core product is fine as it is.
At the time they went in a different direction with Gnome 3 it wasn't so much the direction itself, as the fact they gave people no choice.
One day you were happily using your Gnome 2 desktop, the next you were being told "we're changing everything, deal with it". Not "hey we're forking Gnome 2 to try something new, see if you like it and maybe switch", no, it was "we're changing it and you're gonna like it".
It's this "mommy knows best" attitude that's always pissed people off about Gnome.
I can’t agree as I love Gnome and now feel lost when I have to use windows or MacOs. The way it uses the workspace and the way your screen isn’t cluttered with informations is great for someone like me.
And extensions are there to help you with almost every limitation you encounter.
You don't like your LEDs blinking Morse code of your 1s average combined CPU load?
Again, extensions aren't as polished as built in stuff. A prime example of this was when they ditched desktop icons, the extensions that followed fail sometimes.
I mean if oyu don't like it, then don't use it or install an extension. I never missed a bar at the bottom and can find all open windows in the overview very quickly
Yes but extensions work to a degree and not out of the box. For instance, when they abandoned desktop icons a long time ago we never had and extension that delivered the same polished experience.
GNOME has some quite strict design guidelines (a "vision", if you will). And sticking to that a vision has enabled them to create a very polished DE (probably the most polished DE on Linux). What people get wrong is that GNOME wasn't really made for desktops. It was made for mobile devices (laptops, tablets, and in the future phones). Using GNOME on a "proper" mobile device really makes sense. No, that doesn't mean using a laptop connected to an external monitor all the time, or just using it at a desk all the time. It means using a laptop as a laptops, going out and about, using it without a mouse and using it with it's internal display.
I can certainly believe that. Yet, pretty much every desktop distro ships it as the default, which boggles my mind.
Well GNOME is the most polished, which means it eneded up being the most popular, which means GTK has the most apps, which makes GNOME look very polished, and the cycle repeats itself.
Also the vast majority of people use laptops, not desktops.
@thegreenguy @TCB13 yep this exactly I first used gnome on a laptop and the experience is great the gesture support makes all the workspaces and different overviews work perfectly
then I started using it on desktop and it just doesn't work the same. it feels clunky and far from as smooth.
Just use one of the 50 gnome 3 forks
😂 😂 😂 😂
Or just you can use a different de and move on?
Use the dash to dock extension
I'm using that and ArcMenu...
They weren't wrong. There is no need for a panel, you can just type what program you want. It's not year 2000 anymore.
Besides, Plasma is much more like Windows. It has panels, lots of windows and bugs.
Typing the name of the program you want is a 1970s thing.
Good response to be honest. :)
Only a bit tongue-in-cheek... :)
Sometimes typing something is better, sometimes just clicking a button is better. It just depends on... too many things to list.
Yes ironically desktop environments "revolutionized" computing by not having a way to type what program we want to then, after decades re-introduce that :D
Yep, because we realized the pointy clicky hand-eye coordination paradigm is often not an improvement.
@TCB13 @RoboRay I don’t remember a distro or DE that lacked a command line. Hell, even windows never actually abandoned it.
Sure, which makes it curious that the previous comment implied that it's a new thing since 2000 when it's actually a very old thing.
On that we can agree. And let me add more: inconsistent design.
Dash to panel/dock + Arc Menu? ;)
I know it's contentious but for laptops and limited size displays I love the GNOME layout over KDE. Gestures are also way better, even on X11.
It does everything MacOS was trying to do, but executes it way better. I say this as someone who uses MacOS daily for work.
It has some pain points but there's a reason it's such a large part of the Linux ecosystem
@TCB13 @thegreenguy I prefer it the way it is. If you love the Windows design so much, just use KDE.
No, KDE is even worse than GNOME. GNOME has some sense of design and things are properly designed most of the time, consistent spacing between elements and whatnot, KDE fails on that. GNOME fails on providing a basic desktop experience to those familiar with Windows and macOS.
GNOME is easily modified to suit those workflows. Some distros even offer simple apps to do the heavy lifting of setting up a layout for you, like Manjaro and Zorin.
What do you use atm?
Because, once again, extensions and quicks fixes doesn't provide the same experience as built in features. Eg. GNOME 3.28 removed desktop icons and the extensions currently available don't provide the same polished experience.
Fair enough. Though if you've not tried a lot of these extensions recently I'd bet you'd be surprised with the quality that some of them have nowadays. Ubuntu for example uses a handful of GNOME extensions to replace lost functionality like taskbar icons and desktop icons with good enough quality that most of their users don't even notice it was ever missing.
You will do it the way they saw in that fever dream, for such is the way of Gnome.
I wish that's all they were wrong about...