The Red Hat–backed Fedora Project has released the latest version of its Linux-based operating system, Fedora 15, into the wild. Despite the similarities of the two leading Linux-based PC operating systems, Fedora has long played second fiddle to Ubuntu in the minds of many Linux fans. Now – for the first time – there are …
The one making assumptions is you; GNOME 3's design doesn't have anything to do with small touchscreens. Note that the control center design is rather like OS X's, do you assume OS X was designed for small touchscreens too?
I've been using Fedora as my only OS since Fedora 9. Until recently, for various reasons, I've been using Gnome. Then I read a description of what the Gnome Shell would be like and I was appalled. Not only does it do a number of things I don't like (I like having one panel, at the bottom, not the top, TYVM and I want to decide for myself which desktop each window goes on.) most of them can't be turned off. Not only that, every time there's a Gnome "upgrade," it's less and less customizable. You're stuck doing things the way the Gnome devs like to do things whether you like it or not. And, if you dare complain, you get a combination of flames and snotty-grams telling you to write an extension of your own from people who probably weren't born yet the last time I did any serious programming.
As soon as I saw the shape of things to come, I started looking around. I'm now using XFCE on both my desktop and my laptop, and I'm very happy with it. I haven't upgraded to F 15, yet, but I've learned better than to jump in the first day or two. Not only are the servers slammed, there's always a few last-second gotchas to be cleaned up. Once things settle down, though, I'll be using F 15 with XFCE and Gnome can go in whatever direction the devs in their ivory tower think it should.
So, you read a description? You didn't even bother trying to use it for half an hour?
The problem with Gnome 3 and Unity is they both seem to distance the user from the basic functions a user needs.
The key principles of GUI design must be simplicity and consistency.. as best I can see both fail this test to varying degrees.
Even Windows 7 and OSX 10.7 (Lion) seem to moving away from the user being able to interact directly with the file system and desktop. (The dumbed down file explorer in Windows 7 is a classic example along with the increasing desire to hide menus or functions requiring clicks or keyboard actions to make them popup)
Have a look at many users' desktops ..they are full of files because it is the quickest and easiest place to put files. This reveals a basic failure of the file management application beit Windows, OSX or Linux.
KDE's desktop with its strange panels etc. is a prime example of the new style of UI that pushes its way between the user and their files and workflow. Sure it works (I managed to batter it into submission) but I shouldn't need to.
A GUI should get out of the way, be simple and easy to use. Those principles were the same in 1968 at Palo Alto as they are today.
KDE4 can look & behave like a classical desktop
I have KDE4.5.3 on Mepis 11 (based on Debian Squeeze stable) and it is easy to make it look and behave like a classic old-timer desktop, with icons, task-bar, menus, dock... but with all the bells and whistles of Compiz with new hardware. With QtCurve, you can even have the same look-and-feel on GTK and Qt apps.
What's not to like ?
As the op says the mere fact that you have to significantly tinker with settings to get there?
...that's exactly what GNOME 3 is trying to do. You might notice that you can't put files on GNOME 3's desktop; this isn't because the GNOME developers hate the world, it's because - as you correctly point out - dumping every file on the desktop is a really bad way of managing things. GNOME 3.2 and on will provide new mechanics for dealing with this; if you want to look at the designs then they're being developed under the name 'finding and reminding', if you search the GNOME wiki / mailing lists with that term it should provide some interesting hits.
has made me all nostalgic for Win3.11, and the File Mangler. Oh, happy days, drawing a pixel art mangler, just to service a bad pun...
Seriously, though, storing files on the desktop is dreadful behaviour, and something that I'm always telling myself off for.
Well I'm a full time Linux user both at work and at home
And I can say that neither Unity nor Gnome 3 are ready for prime time.
As they are now, they're both a walking disaster.
Unity may become little more than a gimmick by Ubuntu 13.04, perhaps 13.10
Gnome 3 may be useful again after two, maybe three revisions, but as a long time Gnome user, I think it is a huge ten steps back.
We need a sad penguin (or panda) icon.
Been using Unity
And have been less upset than I thought I was going to be. Just needs getting used to it.
Yes, there are rough edges - some stuff takes longer to do/more keypresses, which is daft, but in general, it works, and hasn't slowed me down. Perhaps one of my biggest gripes is that quite a few times I've not been able to figure out how to do something, but once I have its been easy. For example, say you have a terminal icon in the launcher. You click it, you get a terminal, You click it again, you go to the same terminal, not a new one. So how do you get a new one? Middle button click. Took ages to find that out, but once you know it, very quick.
I do hope that Canonical take note of what people are saying about the issues, and I think they should be able to sort most problems pretty quickly. I think it should end up being pretty good.
But has it sped you up.
Surely the test of a UI improvement is that it speeds up your activities?
Any thing else is a failure. Most platforms UI revisions seem to have missed this point instead adopting a shiny shiny approach.
Can I suggest you install Synapse to speed up key press: http://www.webupd8.org/2011/02/synapse-launcher-024-released-with-new.html
"GNOME emerges from last century..."
... and lands in Playmobil City Life / Fisher-Price Play Family Village / Weebleville.
I've tried Gnome Shell, and have tried to like it... But I just can't. It seems to me that GNOME.org has decided that the whole "desktop" metaphor is broken in some fundamental way, and that the best way to fix it is to completely ditch established Human Interface Guidelines developed through years (or even decades) of ergonomic and semiotic research.
Sure, Gnome Shell **looks** slick, but it lacks flexibility, and takes away much more than it brings to the computing world: It has no customisable panel(s) (it does have a top panel-like bar, but you can't do much with it) or panel applets; no native, always-visible panel-based task switcher (the Gnome Shell "Dock" extension doesn't count; there are fundamental differences of behaviour between docks and task switchers); is too rigidly designed around a "one instance per app" paradigm; and (in my experience) has flaky multi-monitor support.
Unity has, IMHO, more promise, but still isn't ready for prime-time (Canonical should have waited another six months to one year before releasing it as the default desktop for Ubuntu), and also lacks a certain amount of flexibility and customisability. Things may get better if/when Canonical rewrites Unity to use GTK+ 3.x, because GTK+ 3.x is quite a bit cleaner and more modular than GTK+ 2.x. (Right now, the "standard" Unity interface is written as a Compiz plugin and uses GTK+ 2.x, the "non-compositing/non-accelerated" Unity interface uses Qt 4.x.)
So, where to from here, then? For me, unless the "Classic Gnome" desktop is forked and/or re-written under GTK+ 3.x, I'll probably be migrating to Xfce. I've tried KDE SC 4.x (since version 4.3, it has been quite stable), and it has a lot of cool features, but is still a bit too resource-heavy for my tastes, and has a little too much of a "cartoonish" look to it (especially with regard to its native window decoration and icon sets).
(A note for completeness: "GNOME Shell" does not equal "GNOME 3." "GNOME 3" is the third-generation GNOME/GTK+ framework. "GNOME Shell" is a user interface and window management system based on GNOME 3 and GTK+ 3. Canonical has indicated that in the near future, Unity's codebase will be migrated to GNOME 3 and GTK+ 3, to take better advantage of GTK+ 3's modularity.)
Tonka Toy desktops???
LOL – Fisher Price, that's not far off. I've tried both Unity and Gnome 3 and my reaction was actually Tonka Toy desktops. Without the virtual desktop panel nav applet, there's no way to switch desktops with a single click! WOW, now that's better <snark>.
I've always preferred KDE so was really just looking out of curiosity. At least when KDE moved from 3.x to 4.x they warned everyone that it was only half baked and most distros kept 3.x as the default until several revisions later. Even now, if you don't care for the new candied menu structure it's possible to switch to something like the 3.x menus.
Unlike Ubuntu where you at least have a fall back option, Gnome seems to have decided that right-handedness is passe and have chosen to prove their point by chopping for everyone's right hand.
The great thing is - when it comes to choice, Linux RULES and thrives as a result. The only question is will Gnome thrive in the choice barren land to which they moved?
I've had this discussion a dozen times already, and here's how it goes:
I point out that there's lots of ways to do all those things that are more efficient even than clicking on a panel. You can switch workspace with ctrl-alt-up or ctrl-alt-down. You can switch apps with alt-tab and alt-key-above-tab.
Then people reply and say 'yeah, but who the hell wants to learn KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS, and how is that good for new users, huh!??!' (completely ignoring the fact that their initial argument had nothing to do with new users; it had to do with their own current work flow).
So, here's the deal: either you're a new user and you need an interface that you can figure out, and it's so important how fast it is. In this case, an overview where it's immediately clear (or at least clearer) what everything is is clearly better. A row of thumbnails of virtual desktops clearly communicates the concept of virtual desktops better than a tiny 32x32 hieroglyphic of slightly differently colored rectangles.
Or, you're a 'power user', in which case you damn well can spend half an hour learning some keyboard shortcuts.
I point out that there's lots of ways to do all those things that are more efficient even than clicking on a panel. You can switch workspace with ctrl-alt-up or ctrl-alt-down.
So to change desktop all i need to do is :
put down my coffee, let go of my mouse, take my eyes off the screen to look at the keyboard, press ctrl and alt with my left hand, press up (or down) with my right, look back at the screen to check I'm on the right desktop, repeat as necessary and finally go back to the mouse and pick up my coffee.
How much more efficient that is than the old-fashioned way of "move mouse two or three inches, click on icon in desktop switcher applet, continue working"
With the old-fashioned way, you never even got the chance to look away from the screen!
you have to look down at the keyboard to find ctrl, alt and an arrow key? so much so that you then have to look up again (oh, the pain!) to see the screen?
I think we've reached the 'protest too much' stage.
(hell, on both my laptop and my desktop, the keyboard and monitors are so arranged that I can actually see - wait for it - *both at once*! shocking, I know.)
"... put down my coffee..."
That's **exactly** what I was thinking, and is a pretty elegant way of describing one of my "cornerstones" of GUI-friendliness: I should be able to do anything I need to do to manipulate the desktop, without having to set down my cup of coffee (or mug of ale) and use both hands to do it...
Definitely drink to that one...!
Have a beer or two and take a deep breath.
Sorry, Adam. Was it my Tonka Toy desktop that set you off or have you just been working too hard? It was meant to reflect the outsized appearance and not the underlying quality of the work that it represents. You've made two other assumptions.
First, I'm guessing your reference to “a tiny 32x32 hieroglyphic” is based on the default panel size. My panel is approximately half the vertical size of the default so is smaller than even your definition of tiny. I can't tell by looking what the window layout is on any of the panels, if that's the lack of functionality your implying. But here's the point, I don't need that functionality because I know where everything is because I put everything where I wanted it. Efficiency of work flow is highly subjective and no amount of focus group analysis will ever reveal all the nuances of individual preference. The choice of mouse or keyboard is the individual user's to make.
Second, you're comment that “you damn well can...” may betray the accuracy of the perception of a dictatorial attitude underlining the design and deployment of the new Gnome desktop. It's not the choices that have been made that is at issue so much as the “ 'and now for something completely different' - no looking back cause we're burning that bridge as we speak” thing.
In the credit where credit is due dept, the Gnome team has shown a truck load of courage in the bold step that Gnome 3 represents. The reaction should not be a surprise to you though. This is after all the world of Linux and holding back or hedging an opinion it not the way of the Linux community. Every visionary must suffer the abuse of the doubters at the outset of the journey. Only time will reveal the wisdom or the folly of the decision to embark on the journey.
Beer icon, 'cause it really sounds like you could use one or two. Cheers, and carry on.
A few things
You can't infer anything about the attitude of the GNOME project from what I say because I'm not in any way part of it. =) I don't work on GNOME for GNOME or Red Hat or anyone else; I do QA; on everything, not just GNOME. It just means I've been using GNOME 3 for a while. I personally happen to like it, but you're free not to; I mostly just get annoyed at the criticism that's simply utterly wrong headed, and apparently based on a mulish refusal to accept that anything different to Windows 98 could ever possibly be anything other than a downright failure produced by active malice on the part of evil moustache-twirlers who wake up every day, eat a kitten, and think 'what can we do to ruin the lives of computer users this fine morn?'
So, yes, GNOME 3 is different to GNOME 2. This almost inevitably means that, if you try to use it in exactly the same way, you will wind up being less efficient. I just find it kind of a shame that some people are apparently not willing to even *try* and get over this - and then take the fact that the GNOME team actually tried to do something innovative instead of just polishing that Win98 turd for another six months as some kind of personal insult.
"First, I'm guessing your reference to “a tiny 32x32 hieroglyphic” is based on the default panel size. My panel is approximately half the vertical size of the default so is smaller than even your definition of tiny. I can't tell by looking what the window layout is on any of the panels, if that's the lack of functionality your implying. But here's the point, I don't need that functionality because I know where everything is because I put everything where I wanted it. Efficiency of work flow is highly subjective and no amount of focus group analysis will ever reveal all the nuances of individual preference. The choice of mouse or keyboard is the individual user's to make."
Again, read what I wrote: I acknowledged that a workspace switcher that's always visible on the screen is a more efficient way of switching workspaces than one which requires a mouse movement or keypress to make visible. But is that really the only thing we should take into consideration?
One: is switching workspaces so important you need a quick way to do it all the time? As it happens the answer to this is probably 'yes', but the answer for some similar things that now aren't immediately accessible is 'no', which was a factor in why they didn't need to be taking up screen space all the time any more. But this one gets a pass.
Two: is an always-visible tiny icon actually the only quick and efficient way of changing desktops? Answer: no, you can use keyboard shortcuts. Yes, you can't do this while you're holding a coffee, but I'm willing to allow the designers not to expect you to be able to do everything as efficiently as possible when holding a coffee. You can still switch workspaces. (Hell, given that there are ctrl and alt keys on the right hand side of the keyboard too, you can actually do it with the keyboard short cut with one hand. I just tried.)
Three: is an always-visible tiny icon a good way of exposing the concept of virtual desktops? Answer: no. No, it really isn't. Have you ever plonked someone who hasn't used GNOME before down in front of GNOME 2.x and had them actually figure out what virtual desktops are and how to use them? Cos I haven't. With the GNOME 3 interface it's a lot easier. You probably aren't going to get it right off the bat, but after a few minutes messing around you'd probably figure it out. The way virtual desktops behave in the overview makes it sufficiently obvious what's going on after you play with them for a bit. The GNOME 2 switcher...doesn't.
It's really worth looking at things from a few angles and not just 'oh shit I can't do exactly what I did with GNOME 2, this thing sucks'.
Gnome 3 emerges from last century?
How very apposite.
The 21st Century!
Corporate controlled, user ignoring, dumbed down, hard to use crap.
How about a follow-up article?
It's nice to see a positive article on Gnome 3. although I chose the XFCE4 route myself. However, the issues of lack of customisation, one of the great joys of gnome 2.x and linux desktops in general, and "enforced" defaults are a concern. It's fair that it took the writer a week to get over the hurdle of learning gnome 3's new ways. How about a follow-up article after a month or two to see if the concerns of some regarding comfort as a desktop pan out? Shiny and new doesn't necessarily equate to better once the shine wars off, but hopefully there are things in gnome 3 that can show the way.
Otherwise, just a few teeny bijou issuettes with XFCE 4.8, like not being able to single-click desktop icons, and XFCE looks as though it's showing the way.
Oh dear. KDE went through the same process with version 4 a couple of years ago. Now it is scarecely mentioned in these columns, or anywhere else. Project leaders, take note of what your users are saying. Making it look like a giant iPhone should not be your number 1 priority.
"After all, GNOME 2 borrowed much of its UI design and basic interface concepts from Windows 95"
No it didn't. The very fact that is avoided the "lower-left start menu on a bottom task-bar" style favoured by OSes such as Win 95 - great for neck strain and not much else - is one reason I use it, even (sometimes) through the truly awful days of early GNOME 2.
What other "basic interface concepts" do you think it used that come from Win 95 ? Icons ?
KDE, on the other hand, seemed to follow a closer course to the Windows look until recently (when the converse seems to be happening) - but none of them can claim many rights on much of the interface, conceptually or otherwise.
Linux Mint is the way to go
(btw files and shortcuts on the desktop did NOT start with Win 95 - MS copied the idea. I would rather move to XFCE than put up with less functionality with an overgrown smartphone interface)
Linux Mint is the way to go, if you want to jump ship from Ubuntu. It's "Ubuntu done right" with minty freshness!
Favor to ask...
I tried to install Mint 10 Debian in WMware player the other day and it absolutely, 100% didn't work at all (mouse wouldn't work, and even if it did it would eventually go nonresponsive). Any idea if the XFCE version works with VMware... or should I try a different VM like Virtualbox?
I'm running it on Win7...
/beer, because I'd happily buy one for some help here.
"Fedora has long played second fiddle to Ubuntu in the minds of many Linux fans"
They're completely different things. Ubuntu is designed to install easily on anything and be ready-to-go as a desktop, Fedora is a test bed for potential RHEL technologies, desktop and server.
I suppose, if by fan you mean the sort of person who self identifies as a geek and has jumped on the linux bandwagon for browsing his pron and downloading music, the statement might make sense. But for anyone else it's nonsensical.
Fedora still broken with some of the AMD/ATI HDxxxx card family
Ever since kernel modesetting came in, Fedora's installer has been broken for me with my ATI cards (HD2600XT and HD4290) if you choose the graphical option (pressing Tab and adding nomodeset to the kernel line fixes this) and F15 is sadly no exception.
Once you get F15 installed, there's still no support for my ATI cards, so it runs in "fallback mode", which provides some Frankenstein GNOME 2-ish 2-task bar environment where you can't seem to right-click at all to change anything!
So I trundle off to rpmfusion.org (a bit of secret that fedoraproject.org don't mention prominently, when they should), only to find that there's no F15 repos there yet and hence no nice Catalyst driver RPMs to use. Yes, I could get the latest drivers from ati.com, but the RPMs are much more convenient.
So if you've got an ATI HDxxxx card, good luck getting GNOME 3 to work out of the box. I can't believe both Ubuntu and Fedora have been broken for years with this kernel modesetting issue!
there are several hundred Radeon HDXXXX cards, and most of them work fine. (No, really: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-23_Radeon ). It's obviously unfortunate that both of yours have trouble (have you filed a bug on the radeon driver?), but your generalization doesn't hold.
End of the road.
GnomeShell and Unity are two different cars driving off the edge of the same cliff.
If this is the future then there is a need to try something else. XFCE is ok but what about KDE? The last time I tried KDE was back when Mandrake was the next big thing. I tried it again recently and KDE 4.6 was a hugely pleasant surprise. Whatever problems it had when 4 was first released are history. It's a great desktop.
I'd urge you to download the ISO of Kubuntu 11.04 burn to a USB stick and try out the live session, without installing. Well worth the effort.
Still won't catch on
One of the best things about Windows is that you can install an application by simply clicking on an executable and it runs.
Installing software such as the VMWare Tools is perplexing to someone who isn't used to having to take multiple steps to what was once a one-step process.
Another thing - Linux people continue to bash Windows for constantly requiring patches, etc., but have you looked at how many patches are required for Linux on a weekly basis? Seriously - there's an awful lot of them.
I'm not saying Linux has to be Windows, but if you want to convert more Windows users, you need to simplify things more.
Things like this will continue to dog the Linux distros, regardless of how "pretty" the face looks.
Just my two cents.
Two cents FUD.
I'm afraid your information is a little out of date.
"One of the best things about Windows is that you can install an application by simply clicking on an executable and it runs."
When was the last time you used Linux, 1904? If you use a Debian based distro you will find that most applications are supplied as .deb files. You click on them and they install. End of story.
There is also a software centre that contains thousands of apps, you can choose an application and click install. That's it.
As for patches. There aren't so many patches but there are frequent software updates. I think that's quite useful to have your software updated automatically without having to go to the website and download and install new versions, that is assuming you even know that a new version of a given program is available.
Updates also download and install with the minimum of fuss and unless it's a kernel update, without requiring reboots. So no being told that you can't unplug or switch off your computer while updates are installing, when you are trying to shutdown or then being told that you have to wait while updates are configured before you can use your computer when you turn it on again. Which is, I think peoples biggest gripe about Windows patches.
Are you kidding? For serious admins both apt and yum do what we need-- and for the general user Canonical has got a nice GUI-driven setup with tons of apps; click, password, done! Even programs from other sources are not difficult for anyone who can follow directions. My girlfriend (oops, am I now kicked out of the Linux true believer club for violating the celibacy rule?) is not technical and she loves her dual booted laptop, and complains bitterly when she has to reboot to run ITunes on Windows....
It's my real experience with Linux. Just last week (and I didn't know Linux existed before computers - interesting) I installed the latest Ubuntu on a VM.
I have it open as I type this. Click on the "Install VMWare Tools" link in the VMWare Infrastructure Web Access and of course, it comes up as a drive on the Ubuntu VM. No problem.
Double-click the DVD icon. I get three files: a .txt., .rpm, and .gz file. Double-click on .rpm opens Archive Manager. Double-click on the .gz and again the Archive Manager opens up. Not exactly intuitive.
Now what? Can't just "click and run". I posted in the Ubuntu forums on how to install the VMWare Tools on Ubuntu. Got zero response.
In Windows, you double-click on one file and it starts the install process.
It's stuff like this that makes it more difficult to make the transition.
I've been involved with Novell and Windows for well over 20 years, and while I'm no Linux expert, I'm not some neophyte, either.
I just want it to work as simple as possible. I am trying to convert others to Linux (I didn't like what Novell did to SuSE and prefer Ubuntu), but things like this make it hard to believe that it would be easy to convince others who are almost afraid of their computers.
I'm no troll or FUD-dweller. I don't want or need a Windows-clone. I don't want a Mac clone, either. I just want it to work for someone as simple as I am.
Blow me off if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many like me who would love to make the move, but can't because of things like this.
For a start you need to use the right software for the distribution that you are using. A .rpm file is a RedHat Package Manager extension. It wont work on ubuntu which is Debian based. You need a .deb file. If you think that's "Not exactly intuitive." Then look at it this way. Microsoft Office runs on both Windows and Apple Mac right. But you wouldn't expect the same copy to install on both Windows 7 and Mac as well would you. You need Office for Mac for one and Office for Windows for the other. In the same way you're not going to get a .rpm to install on ubuntu.
If VMWare can't provide the right software for your installation or documentation to make you aware of its limitations then that's their look out.
Alternatively you could click on Applications on your ubuntu desktop, click on Ubuntu Software Centre, type in VMWare Tools in to the search box (no need to press enter) and then select open-vm-tools and click on the big Install button that will download and install the software for you.
Just because one provider can't be bothered to document their software properly that doesn't suddenly justify a blanket claim that Linux wont be up to scratch until it can provide click and run software installation like Windows does.
Linux does do this and it even provides a superb Software Centre that Windows doesn't yet have. Your statement is an inaccurate gross exaggeration, in the same way that it would be a gross exaggeration if I were to state that Windows is command line hell just because ipconfig is run from a DOS prompt.
Thanks for the informative post.
With over what, 350 different "flavors" of Linux, don't you think there should be some sort of consistency among them? Should there not be some kind of consistent way to deliver applications that don't require "for Ubuntu, Press 1, for Red Hat, Press 2, for SuSE, Press 3, etc"?
There shouldn't be hundreds of ways to deliver a simple application. Yes, the Linux group has created a bunch of applications - some even worthwhile and not game-like - but there should still be a consistent way to deliver them. IF there were, it would open up many more apps across the board.
Yes, that would also invite malware, etc., but that's going to happen anyway, so use AppArmor or something to help protect the kernel, etc.
I don't use MS software on a Mac. Seems counter-productive to me.
I was a bit supporter of StarOffice when it came out (until it took over the entire desktop), and now a big advocate of OpenOffice.
I'm no Redmond-Altar worshiper by any stretch of the imagination. I just want Linux to be easier to work with.
I shouldn't have to break out to shell commands to type in stuff that MS now seems to want to do with their cmdlet crapola, because they're too lazy to get it in a UI, IMO.
Simplify and get commonality in how apps are delivered and things will get better for Linux adoption as a whole, IMO.
Bork, bork, bork.
"I don't use MS software on a Mac. Seems counter-productive to me."
Probably shouldn't use a RedHat package on ubuntu then, it's counter productive.
How is it that you've gone from not understanding why clicking on a .rpm in ubuntu would open the archive manager and also not understanding why zipped files open with the archive manager to espousing the benefits of AppArmor to Kernel security?
"With over what, 350 different "flavors" of Linux, don't you think there should be some sort of consistency among them?"
There is they distil down into several distinct trees namely....
"Should there not be some kind of consistent way to deliver applications that don't require "for Ubuntu, Press 1, for Red Hat, Press 2, for SuSE, Press 3, etc"?"
....oh you already know. Good.
If you want more interoperability between package formats and distributions, should I also expect Microsoft to ensure that .exe files run on Mac OS, RISC/os, Aegis and AIX etc?
"There shouldn't be hundreds of ways to deliver a simple application."
Would it matter as long as there still exists one way that you can click and run? I use apt-get frequently, not because I can't browse to a website and download a .deb or install from the software centre, but because it's faster if I know what I want. I'm glad that there is more than one way. It's productive and helpful.
"Yes, the Linux group has created a bunch of applications - some even worthwhile and not game-like - ..."
OK enough, obvious Troll is obvious. Have a nice day.
So I express some frustrations and I'm labeled a "troll".
So much for the "friendly Linux community", eh?
You come here, spout a load of 1996 era uninformed FUD and then bleat about the "unfriendly Linux community"
My heart bleeds.
Question: If you get $RANDOM.EXE from teh intertoobs, do you have to care that it is the correct version for Win3, Win95, Win2000, WinXP, Vista, or Win7 or are all EXE's interchangable between all versions of Windows?
Answer on a postage stamp please.
Fedora/GNOME 3 and Ubuntu/Unity
Much as I'd like to say I've played with both, I haven't. The single reason being that under ESXi and Parallels Desktop (Mac) the VMs don't seem to meet the min hardware requirements now set for these reimagined desktops.
As that's how I usually test/play with a new (to me) OS nowadays it's a big dissapointement.
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
"...Btrfs is getting there, but probably not a good idea for mission-critical work."
The same could be said of Fedora as a whole imo.
If "mystery meat navigation" is bad on websites
Why is it good on the desktop?
GNOME 3 and choice
Like most people here, and like the author, I was very sceptical about Gnome 3 at first. But after a few days, Gnome 3 just 'feels right', and it's a struggle going back to desktop icons and menus, and... clutter. I actually find myself getting things done without all the hunt-and-click nuisance.
The nice thing about Linux, of course, is that you don't have to agree with me, or with the people who developed Gnome 3. UI's are a very personal choice. I happen to like Gnome 3 on Fedora 15. But if you want XFCE on Ubuntu, there's a .deb for that.
The trick is to type, you fools
If you're always insist on navigating your desktop with a mouse, you'll defiinitely find GNOME3 harder to use.
However, if you just tap the system key (the one with the Windows logo on it) and type what you want, it's frickin' glorious.
In many cases it will even match a rough idea of what you're after instead of the application's actual name - ie. type 'resolution' and it will return the Display settings program.
I like it, and it's really not that similar to a smartphone interface either - unless you insist on always going back to that big page with all the applications on it, which decidedly counts as Doing It Wrong.
So CLI rides again?
I thought we had mice for that?
Great! A new user interface!
Suppose you're test-driving a new car. The salesman reveals it has a new UI - brake and accelerator reversed, you work the indicators with your elbow, the gear-change responds to gestures and the wiper switch is now in the glove compartment.
Do you test it, or do you get out while you're still alive?
Your computer is less likely to kill you than your car, so the UI designers feel free to introduce new visual metaphors, not because the old ones don't work, but simply because they're "stale".
"Change" is not inherently bad.
"Change for change's sake" or "fixing what ain't broke", IMHO, is.
XFCE4 is the way to go.
I upgraded my lappy from Fedora 13 to 15 the other evening and was appalled when I logged in and saw what GNOME3 was like.
A quick "yum groupinstall xfce" and I had a new desktop installed in a minute (try that on Windows AC @Wednesday 25th May 2011 09:47 GMT) and was happy once again, I might even have another look at KDE which I haven't used since Ubuntu was still in nappies.
I've still got GNOME3 on there and I will revisit it but I can't see me getting on with it TBH.
I like it
A good moment, when we are moving to the post-pc era to introduce new desktop metaphors.
Tried Unity and Gnome3: So far I prefer Gnome3, but I guess they'll both evolve
It also makes KDE4 look a bit out of touch.... and as for XP.....
Extra UI idiocy
That is so not going to be thin client / remote session friendly. Who spends time gazing at their desktop anyway?
Most of the time ur in the web browser anyway - who spends time gazing at their desktop u just want to organisae and run applications.
On to xfce I go....