On 20/06/11 13:50, Christian Resnik wrote:
On 06/20/2011 02:31 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:
On 20/06/11 13:06, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:49:03PM +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
On 20/06/11 12:26, Olav Vitters wrote:
You can disagree with that, but release wise there is nothing wrong
with how 3.0 was handled.
You are quite right I do disagree. In my opinion there is plenty
wrong with the way it was handled.
Could you expand on that? We're (speaking as a release-team person)
open
to feedback, suggestions, criticism...
I think it's not right to blame Olav for anything. He's nice enough to
ask for feedback and now it's up to you to provide some.
I personally am not blaming Olav for anything, he asked for feedback and
I gave it from MY perspective.
As I said earlier, I only found out that Gnome 3 was coming when it was
well into development. The developers should have firstly looked at
Gnome 2 and asked what is wrong with it, what do users what/need and
then come up with a draft design and thrown it open for discussion. If
this happened I never found it mentioned anywhere.
Given all the coverage of GNOME 3, I find it hard to believe that you
didn't know GNOME 3 was coming.
Apparently, GNOME developers were asking around (according to
themselves) before taking decisions. But I cannot help feeling that
instead of users they only asked themselves, they were happy with what
they had created and then released it.
I never said that I didn't know it was coming, only that I only found
out about it when it was well under construction. I personally do not go
looking for a new desktop when I am happy what I have got.
In my opinion Gnome 3 as standard is not fit for purpose as a desktop
for general use, I tried to use it, found that things that I have taken
for granted were seemingly not there or if they were there I had to
click the mouse several times and move all over the screen, and you call
this progress, I call it a mess.
I'm not too happy with GNOME 3 either (missing shutdown option, no
icons/folders/files on desktop, ect) but apparently so were a lot of
people with KDE 4.0. Since then, things got much better and this is
what I'm hoping for on GNOME 3.
So you are happy to wait 18 months and get a desktop that is still not
as good as the last major version?
I had to spend several hours on google to get a semi working desktop but
I am still not happy and will probably have to invest more time to put
right what the developers have messed up.
I can think of only one thing worse than Gnome 3, Unity - this forced me
to change distro, unity is far worse than Gnome.
Unity is not that bad... it's closer to GNOME 2 than GNOME 3 actually.
Ironically, using Unity on a large screen is much more fun than on a
small laptop, although Unity was originally developed for netbooks.
The lack of default option (e.g. resizing icons) is a bit worrying but
maybe this will be fixed in oneiric.
Unity ( in my opinion ) is absolutely terrible, I tried it originally on
a netbook, this was like trying to wade through treacle it was that
slow, it was quickly remove in favour of Gnome 2. I was running Ubuntu
10.10 on my laptop until I upgraded to 11.04, I tried to get on with
unity but I couldn't. So, after browsing the internet, I jumped ship to
Fedora 14 and used that until F15 came out. I gave this some time to
settle and the upgraded, this is where I came in, I now am using
gnome-shell but with several alterations to make it usable.
As an aside, I have just received my latest copy of Linux Format and
they have an article on hacking Gnome 3. I could have written it, as it
would seem to cover just what I have had to do to get a working desktop.
_______________________________________________
gnome-list mailing list
gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
gnome-list mailing list
gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
