Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.

[Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk redhat com>]

On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 17:36 -0500, Ryan Peters wrote:
> Somebody needs to take this thread out back behind the shed and put a 
> bullet through it's head for the good of humanity, so I volunteer to do so.
> 
> Denys, GNOME 3 is a radical change and you have a right to be upset, but 
> your responses have been rather rude. Asserting that the designers made 
> the change for no reason insults their intelligence; just because you 
> didn't read the design documents/pages that outlined what problems GNOME 
> 3 would fix with it's design doesn't mean that they "changed for the 
> sake of it".

I *don't have to* read design documents every time I upgrade
to a new version of software. If I do, then said software is user
unfriendly.

> Second, imitation isn't always the way to go. If GNOME simply stood the 
> same for years without changing, there would be no innovation.

I didn't say I am against any innovation. Scaled-down windows in window
switching are useful. Combining "app launch icon" and "switch to a
running app" icon is useful.
I don't like disruptive innovation when it is not presented as an
option, but showed down my throat by force.
Tell me, how the particular bit of innovation which removed the
possibility to have app launch icons in top panes is useful?
Why this new thing (or rather, absence of old, perfectly working thing)
is not optional?

> In 
> addition, your claim that GNOME "gives users no choice" is incredibly 
> false: you can enable Forced Fallback mode in System Settings to a GNOME 
> 2-like UI which is meant for setups that cannot run the new GNOME 3.

Wrong. Fallback mode is not a choice, it was stated numerous times it
exists only because not every GPU supports features necessary
for Gnome 3. Whoever took refuge in fallback mode (most of my colleagues
did) is in for a nasty surprise a year from now or so.

> However, it's called "Fallback Mode" for a reason; it's deprecated, 
> won't receive future updates unless they're extremely important, and 

Exactly. It's not a viable long term choice.

> GNOME 3's default desktop is much better for a variety of reasons.

To me statements like these sound like a thinly veiled "we know better
what is good for you, dumbo" attitude. This isn't rude?

> I, as 
> well as the people working on developing and marketing GNOME 3, firmly 
> believe that GNOME 3 is the future, which is a good thing and not bad 
> like you suggest.

Don't you think that a bit of listening to your "customers" may be a
good thing?

> You can switch windows with Alt+Tab and Alt+[key above Tab, usually `], 
> the former switching applications and the latter switching windows in an 
> application. It works very well and you should try it!

You missed the point. I miss task bar because it was showing me what
apps are running, not because it allowed me to switch between apps.

> in GNOME 2). Your claim that GNOME doesn't let you add launchers is also 
> false: right-click any running application (or any application in the 
> Applications menu or Search function) and click "Add to Favorites".

Again, you missed the point. Favorites are harder to access than old
launchers in top bar. For me it feels like totally unnecessary
regression. Why can't favorites sit on a top bar? Why they are hidden?

-- 
vda