Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.

[Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk redhat com>]

On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 09:33 -0500, Ryan Peters wrote:
> Expecting GNOME 3 to be the same as every 
> other OS is unrealistic; GNOME 3 is not a straightforward upgrade from 
> GNOME 2 and requires re-training. I thought that was understood.

For me, Gnome 3 appears as part of Fedora 13->15 upgrade.
I didn't elect to try this new UI. It is sort of forced on Fedora 15
users, unless they want to be left on soon-to-be obsolete unsupported
Fedora 13 (not a realistic option for me).

Very different situation from "one installs Gnome 3 because
he hates Gnome 2 and needs something newer and different".

> > 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?
>
> Explain to me how it's so hard to move your mouse to the left instead of 
> upwards.

Explaining:
Now I need to move it upwards, then downwards.

If I want to start four apps in a row, which I do every day in the
morning, I can't go up and click-click-click-click, I need to
go up, go down and click,
go up, go down and click,
go up, go down and click,
go up, go down and click.

>  All it takes to switch windows is an easy, fast tap on the 
> windows key and clicking the window or icon you want. As I explained in 
> my previous email, this can even be faster and more efficient than the 
> GNOME 2 way of doing things if you get used to it.

Alt-tabbing seems to work mostly similar to Gnome 2. This isn't what I'm
complaining about.

> >> 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.
> ...So, it's not a choice, yet it's a user-configurable option? Do you 
> understand what the word "choice" means? I don't mean to sound rude; it 
> really is a choice.

I did my homework: googled about this stuff and understood that fallback
mode isn't going to be supported in the long term. So if I switch to it,
it means I will be in the same spot (Gnome 3 Shell), just a bit later,
when it will be even more difficult to convince developers to change
anything.

> >> 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.
> I never said it was. If you want a "viable, long term choice" then I'd 
> HIGHLY suggest to stop upgrading your Fedora install

How viable for me. How can I develop software for Fedora if I don't
upgrade my Fedora? Developing includes testing. Testing for F15 requires
F15. "eating your own dog food" etc.

> Do you remember the backlash when KDE4 came out? Vista? Even XP?

I use none of these.

> >> 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?
> Of course it is. When your "customers" refuse to learn a new way to use 
> the desktop and demand that we drop everything we've done and go back to 
> the old days, no matter what responses they've been given, though... Do 
>you get my point?

WHERE did I said that "drop everything" part?

I point out SPECIFIC things which seem to be usability regressions.

I assure you that the things I'm NOT complaining about are fine with me.
The Expose, for example. It's neat.

>  I'm trying as hard as I can to answer your concerns, 
> and I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

So far the list of things I am annoyed by is rather short:

* nuked launch icons at the top
* nuked task bar
* strange window behavior in some cases:
  - some windows are without [x] close button (big wtf moment)
  - some windows are "glued" to the parent (smaller nit)
  - window title bar having the same gray color as the menu line
    (makes it harder to figure out where is it, such as when
    I want to drag the window)

Only 5 items are very far from alleged "the whole Gnome 3 suxxx"
attitude you ascribed to me.

> >> 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.
>
> Hit the windows key and you get the titles *and* thumbnails of every 
> window on your current workspace.

More of "we know better than you what is good for you"?
Users are *different*. Some users don't want to have to press anything
to see the task list. How difficult is to understand that?

> As I said, hit the windows key

My Windows key switches Latin/Cyrillic keyboard layout for last 10
years. I prefer to not have to unlearn/relearn that too, so I'll keep it
bound the old way.

-- 
vda