Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.
- From: Ryan Peters <sloshy45 sbcglobal net>
- To: Tim Murphy <tnmurphy gmail com>, gnome-shell-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:55:21 -0500
First of all, I'd like to ask you to respond to the mailing list please.
Add "gnome-shell-list gnome org" to the list of recipients of your
emails so all of us, not just me, can get them. This is the second time
you've done this so far, so I thought I'd let you know.
On 05/17/2011 10:46 AM, Tim Murphy wrote:
Because your blog won't let me directly comment for some reason
(maybe it's an add-on), I'm responding here:
I'm very glad that you gave GNOME 3 a chance! It's a well-known
fact around here that comments like "there's no taskbar", or "you
need to click a lot", or "there's no minimize/maximize buttons",
or even the ever-popular "If I wanted to use a smartphone
interface, I'd use a smartphone" show that the writer of those
comments has given little-to-no effort whatsoever to enjoy GNOME 3.
I dispute the "fact" part of that claim.
I also think that given the level of trouble required to acclimatise
to Gnome Shell, is it really all that great?
Your mileage may vary. As I said earlier on the mailing list (not sure
which thread), it took less than five minutes to explain the concept to
my family, all of which immediately picked up the concept (and my family
is 5 people besides myself, ranging from 9 to 42).
I've had to acclimatise to all sorts of horrible interfaces after
using better ones e.g. to Windows after Linux and you can get used to
almost anything. I can even get to the point where it's difficult to
get back into the thing you prefer because you have hardwired all the
Windows crap ways of doing things. Is that all there is to say about
it ?
This is a huge reason why so many people dislike GNOME 3. Instead of
getting used to how it works, they complain that it's not exactly how
they're used to using it. Many people have approached it with an open
mind and, for the most part, enjoy it very much. If we enjoy it, then
GNOME Shell has to be at least somewhat good, yes? Just because you do
not see it as so does not make it bad.
Imagine trying to sell people a product that took 14 days to like? I
think that's really part of the issue. People are not encountering
gnome shell because they want it but because someone has put it there
like a hump in the road and your alternative is to take the dirt track
diversion after you read the faq that tells you how to unpick the lock
on the gate.
Does Windows have new releases every six months? Is Windows a rolling
release? On the most popular GNU/Linux operating systems, changes come
very quickly. On Mac or Windows, changes are incremental and major
updates are considered separate from the older software. This is how
GNOME 3 wants to be treated; not as an "incremental update that's forced
upon the users" like you suggest, but as a completely new desktop, and
it must be seen as that or else a user's first impression will be
sub-optimal.
Also, let me give you an analogy: say that GNOME 2 is a bicycle and
GNOME 3 is a motorbike. Naturally, it still does the same things, but it
does them in a different way that requires some re-learning. For some it
might be a short period of time, for others, a long period of time. The
requirement of fuel could be considered analogous to the hardware
acceleration requirement; some people cannot afford it, but it's
necessary for the design (and arguably, in the case of the motorbike,
the addition of fuel and an engine is much nicer than having to pedal
yourself). Arguably, the motorbike would take a bit of getting used to,
and it doesn't have some advantages of a bike (faster start-up, easier
customization, etc), but it gets you to your destination faster and much
more elegantly than a bike does.
It's ugly to read the putdowns on this list - telling people that what
they think is wrong and trying to put the onus on them to like your
software rather than the other way around.
We wouldn't do that *if they weren't wrong*. You have the false
assumption that every complaint a user has is valid. Some things, like,
"where is the taskbar?" are not considered regressions because GNOME 3
replaces it with a dock, Expose-style overview, and a greatly improved
Alt+Tab mechanism. It is simply unnecessary. Also, a good majority of
these complaints about regressions have no good examples. Every once in
a while I do read a good example of a regression and I agree that it
needs to be fixed, but most of the complaints are the most immature things.
Expecting GNOME 3 to be like GNOME 2 is like expecting a roller coaster
to be like a tricycle. It's a completely different beast and requires
re-thinking the way you use the desktop. And no, this is not a bad
thing, and in most cases takes much, much less time than "14 days". How
long would it take to explain how to use Windows to somebody that has
never used a computer? How about GNOME 3? The argument you have, if I'm
reading this correctly, is essentially "we shouldn't have to re-learn
how to use the desktop". Why not? If it brings improvement, as several
people in this mailing list and on the internet have stated from
first-hand experience, then it's a worthwhile change.
If GNOME 3 was considered the standard desktop, and nobody else was
familiar with another desktop system, what if GNOME 4 switched to a
Windows-like design (assuming, for the sake of example, that it's easier
to use in the long run)? There would be people such as yourself claiming
that we shouldn't have to re-learn how to use the desktop, yes? I think
that explains the general position of the designers.
Basically if gnome shell was a total option and won out by popularity
rather than by herding people
You can still use GNOME 2, just like how you can still use Vista now
that Windows 7 is out. Several distributions support it.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]