6 ms·

The webfont used (Cantarell) does not look good in Windows. The texts are almost unreadable: http://op111.net/u/misc/20110407-win7-fx4-gnome.org.png http://op11

The webfont used (Cantarell) does not look good in Windows. The texts are almost unreadable: http://op111.net/u/misc/20110407-win7-fx4-gnome.org.png http://op111.net/u/misc/20110407-win7-fx4-gnome.org.png — (It looks fine on Linux.) Cantarell, by the way, is also the UI font of Gnome Shell. Not a bad UI font, I think, but it has a narrow glyph range (about 400) and only includes Latin. Moving to the larger picture, my impression from the Gnome Shell desktop up to now is that it is an interesting experiment, trying to rethink as it does a lot of stuff that we have grown to take for granted in desktop environments. But it is not necessarily a good desktop experience. Up to now (I have used it for about 40 hours in total) I find it tiring and distracting, rather than distraction-free. Switching between app windows, e.g., is not a pleasant experience for me, with all the action I see on the screen and that I have to take myself each time I want to switch. (Alt-tabbing avoids all that, but I don’t always switch windows with Alt+Tab.) Another thing that does not help me, and that I find strange as an design decision, is the position of the clock right in the middle of the topbar. It causes me stress; I feel like time is hunting me. In general, Gnome Shell seems to me to offer an experience more tuned to small rather than large screens. In a 2560*1600 screen, say, and if you prefer using the mouse rather than the keyboard, the distances you have to travel are ridiculous. I expect the whole thing to improve in the next couple of years or so, but I am curious to see how much it can improve given its basic design principles.

jrockway 16y ago
UIs like this are not for power users. They use xmonad or awesome or dwm or ratpoison or ... This is for someone who turns on their computer, does some work, and then stops using their computer. They do not want to bother themselves with a lot of learning. Simple actions that can be easily learned and improve speed (like keyboard shortcuts) are in reach. But more "confusing" concepts like virtual desktops without visual cues are not what they go for, even though pressing M-1 is much faster than moving your mouse to some picture of window. The idea is "how can we make computing accessible to the average person", not "how can we make demetris not feel stress on his 2560x1600 screen". Once you reach a certain level of interest in optimizing everything, you have to use tools to build your own desktop environment, because you are a unique flower, and only you can decide what you want. You've reached this point, so GNOME is not for you.
- decode 16y ago
  I consider myself a power user and I've been happily using Gnome for several years now. It's got just enough room for customization that I can configure it to be a very efficient workspace, but it doesn't require me to spend days or weeks configuring it and learning a new way to use my computer. But it looks like this release might be enough to drive me away. The app-based window management paradigm just doesn't work if you regularly have 8 console windows and 4 browser windows open on a single virtual desktop. My working style used to be well supported by Gnome, but now it's been completely dropped.
- hollerith 16y ago
  >This is for someone who turns on their computer, does some work, and then stops using their computer. They do not want to bother themselves with a lot of learning. >Once you reach a certain level of interest in optimizing everything, you have to use tools to build your own desktop environment, because you are a unique flower Or the power user can switch to OS X, which requires less 'optimizing' to get it into a comfortable state than any of the Linux environments (e.g., Gnome 2, dwm and ratpoison) I have tried do. I do not want a set of tools with which I can build my own desktop. I want a desktop that is usable without major customization or tinkering although I do realize that any desktop warrants some customization and administration if it will be heavily used. ADDED. I ran Linux for 13 years, and command-line Gnu tools and Emacs on proprietary Unix for 5 years before that, and I would like to continue supporting free software if I can do so without undue sacrifice. Maybe I am just more sensitive to matters of design and aesthetics than most Linux users are, but I started using OS X last year. It's not perfect, but I like it better than I like the Gnome 2 on Linux I used before that even though I have put less effort (but still much effort, maybe more that is rational) into tweaking and customizing OS X than I have Gnome 2.
  - rufugee 16y ago
    As someone who has used both systems at length and who has commented on the subject before, I'll simply tell you that your opinion is obviously very subjective. I find the out-of-box Ubuntu experience to be far surperior to the OS X one, and to get OS X to even approach the level of efficiency I get from Ubuntu/Gnome/Compiz I end up investing well over $100 in utilities. Not that I mind supporting the developers, but it is what it is. I don't want to get into a features pissing match, but I can point specifics when I have more time to write. OS X is fine if it fits your view of the world or if you're willing to adapt your world view to fit it, but Ubuntu gives you a very solid experience out of the gate which you can mold to your heart's desire.

jrockway 16y ago

UIs like this are not for power users. They use xmonad or awesome or dwm or ratpoison or ... This is for someone who turns on their computer, does some work, and then stops using their computer. They do not want to bother themselves with a lot of learning. Simple actions that can be easily learned and improve speed (like keyboard shortcuts) are in reach. But more "confusing" concepts like virtual desktops without visual cues are not what they go for, even though pressing M-1 is much faster than moving your mouse to some picture of window. The idea is "how can we make computing accessible to the average person", not "how can we make demetris not feel stress on his 2560x1600 screen". Once you reach a certain level of interest in optimizing everything, you have to use tools to build your own desktop environment, because you are a unique flower, and only you can decide what you want. You've reached this point, so GNOME is not for you.

decode 16y ago
I consider myself a power user and I've been happily using Gnome for several years now. It's got just enough room for customization that I can configure it to be a very efficient workspace, but it doesn't require me to spend days or weeks configuring it and learning a new way to use my computer. But it looks like this release might be enough to drive me away. The app-based window management paradigm just doesn't work if you regularly have 8 console windows and 4 browser windows open on a single virtual desktop. My working style used to be well supported by Gnome, but now it's been completely dropped.
hollerith 16y ago
>This is for someone who turns on their computer, does some work, and then stops using their computer. They do not want to bother themselves with a lot of learning. >Once you reach a certain level of interest in optimizing everything, you have to use tools to build your own desktop environment, because you are a unique flower Or the power user can switch to OS X, which requires less 'optimizing' to get it into a comfortable state than any of the Linux environments (e.g., Gnome 2, dwm and ratpoison) I have tried do. I do not want a set of tools with which I can build my own desktop. I want a desktop that is usable without major customization or tinkering although I do realize that any desktop warrants some customization and administration if it will be heavily used. ADDED. I ran Linux for 13 years, and command-line Gnu tools and Emacs on proprietary Unix for 5 years before that, and I would like to continue supporting free software if I can do so without undue sacrifice. Maybe I am just more sensitive to matters of design and aesthetics than most Linux users are, but I started using OS X last year. It's not perfect, but I like it better than I like the Gnome 2 on Linux I used before that even though I have put less effort (but still much effort, maybe more that is rational) into tweaking and customizing OS X than I have Gnome 2.
- rufugee 16y ago
  As someone who has used both systems at length and who has commented on the subject before, I'll simply tell you that your opinion is obviously very subjective. I find the out-of-box Ubuntu experience to be far surperior to the OS X one, and to get OS X to even approach the level of efficiency I get from Ubuntu/Gnome/Compiz I end up investing well over $100 in utilities. Not that I mind supporting the developers, but it is what it is. I don't want to get into a features pissing match, but I can point specifics when I have more time to write. OS X is fine if it fits your view of the world or if you're willing to adapt your world view to fit it, but Ubuntu gives you a very solid experience out of the gate which you can mold to your heart's desire.