On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:37:03 +0100
drago01 wrote:
> I can't recall that many stability bugs getting reported against GNOME
> 3.0 ... so [citation needed].
Well the fallback mode being a poor man's excuse was partly the case why
the people couldn't stay with gnome. Loads of features weren't
implemented in 3.0. If anything Gnome 3.0 was more of a technology
preview than fully usable desktop.
> Nonsense. Shutdown has always been implemented. It just got presented
> differently.
That's even more the reason -- the code was present, so it was not a
problem of not having the human resources to make it work as expected by
users. It was just the devs being stuck on the mundane idea that it's
bad to have it shown by default.
>
> > * Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you
> > way.
>
> Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever
> you want with the desktop ....
1st Gnome 3 isn't just a gnome shell, gnome apps are getting worse as
well (but there are also some positive trends)
2nd Yes, three major releases after 3.0 we finally get something that
can be used by majority of gnome 2 user base. I'm sorry, but that's
too late for most of them to think of going back.
> GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better
M> on
> touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware
> isn't really a bad thing imo.
I think they've done the same mistake, that does not implicate that
they have anything else to do with each other (besides gnome shell is
older than Win 8). Being neither cat nor dog isn't a good thing, IMHO.
Either you optimize for touch devices or for traditional input, not for
both.
>
> > * We believe that due to the differences between Gnome 2 and Gnome
> > 3, many users left Fedora during the switch.
Notice the wording I used. I'm not presenting it as fact, but as a
belief based on experience. There aren't any acceptable statistics to
either prove or disprove the claim.
> Anecdotes do not count (there are user that switched to Fedora because
> they wanted a good GNOME 3 experience).
That users left does not imply new didn't come ;-)
> > * huge overuse of symbolic icons (this includes the new anaconda)
>
> That's a problem why exactly? Actually it is the opposite ... stuff
> looks way better and polished if you compare it to the GNOME2.
Better? Polished? Those huge lumps of blurry grey stuff you have no
idea what they represent? Oh yes, on my B&W e-book reader they look
awesome, but on desktop? Are we back in the days when displays didn't
display colour? I tried directly comparing Nautilus with Thunar,
side-by-side, in F18. It's actually Nautilus that looks like from last
millennium, not Thunar. Despite having otherwise very similar interface.
I'm not against symbolic icons ideologically. They have their place in
modern desktop. But when they are used too much, and in bigger sizes,
they tend to be bland. Plus, as they are actually composed of no more
than 2 or 3 shades/colours, they're very limited in how they can look,
so having too much of them is severely damaging your ability to tell
them apart.
And while talking about polish -- why in the world is the Adwaitha
scrollbar a grey rounded rectangle while almost everything else in the
theme is shaded with gradients, shadows and distinct borders? No, I
definitely cannot talk about polish when speaking about Gnome 3. In
some places yes, but it's hugely inconsistent. Looks like half-done
work (some areas polished [almost] professionally, while others are
bland and non-fitting with the rest). IMHO
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
