3 ms·

Of course many of these things are subjective, and likely post-facto reasoned by people, because we get very fiery over these things, but here are some of my “r

by kaba0 3y ago

Of course many of these things are subjective, and likely post-facto reasoned by people, because we get very fiery over these things, but here are some of my “rebuttals”: > The horizontal panel across the top of the screen is an egregious waste of space, especially on modern widescreen displays where vertical pixels are valuable. OSX has a similar toolbar, windows has a much bigger one at the bottom. It is valuable space, but I think it is well-used, will come back to it later. > A graphical task switcher was one of the most substantial UI improvements in Windows 95. GNOME banishers this to usually hidden, minor feature. That's bad design. GNOME is actively hostile to beginners and less proficient users. It is available by a single flick of the mouse (Fitt’s law: the corner is basically infinite sized) for beginners/when you are constrained to mouse/(minor point but even on touchscreen). For power users there is the super key, and for laptop users the swipe up with 3 fingers in a smooth motion is easily the best way to get to the activities tab. Besides the “task switcher” at the bottom, I personally am much quicker to discern which application I want to switch to based on how I expect it to look, vs an icon. Windows didn’t add a popup of how it looks for no reason to their task switcher. > keyboard It is quite customizable (if nothing else, by plugins), but I think it is unfair to take it as a negative that gnome2 hotkeys no longer work. It is quite clearly not an incremental change from that, for that go with Mate. > titlebar I am undecided on whether it’s a good thing or not. Your previously mentioned vertical space problem is literally the reasoning behind that, so it is not made on a whim. Otherwise, I have never really rolled up a window for real use, besides playing with animations back in the compiz days. I don’t find it useful. Minimization is also an interesting question - there could definitely be improvements here (maybe the sketch area of i3 and alia be a better option?), but it is absolutely usable. I usually just make multiple desktops and group activity-relevant windows on a same one. > I do not normally store files on my desktop, except the temporary holding place, but I do use it as a convenient place to store convenient shortcuts to my normal working folders. It's my computer, and therefore I get to choose where to store things. It is not the position of the desktop designers to decide that I cannot store things on the desktop. Feel free to reenable that with a single extension. > file manager You can use any file manager, it should not be a criticism of the Gnome DE, just because it runs under the same project. The same is true for your criticism of GTK.

lproven 3y ago
As you would probably expect, I reject all of those, but let me explain why. > OSX has a similar toolbar No, it does not, because it's not similar. It may look similar but this is not about looks, it's about structure and function. ("S&F" is a specific term in evolutionary biology.) The OS X top panel is a menu bar. It is a core part of the UI. It contains 3 functional areas, none of which GNOME has. 1. The leftmost entry is the Apple system menu. Click on it, and you get system-wide options such as "about this Mac" and so on. 2. Then there is the app menu. The name tells you useful info: the current app. It has options global to that app, such as preferences and quit, in a standard place. 3. Then there is the app's own menu bar, which varies app to app. 4. Then at the right is the system's notification area, which has global applets, a clock and so on, visually separated. GNOME has a vestige it's trying to banish. That's 4 important functions, just one of which GNOME implements badly. Not the same thing. MacOS gives me a lot in return for that strip. GNOME wastes it. > Windows has a much bigger one at the bottom. Again, not even comparable. Until the broken Win11, you could move it. You can't in GNOME. It does a tonne of stuff; it's a launcher and a switcher and an info display and a status monitor. That's efficient use of space. GNOME moves less than 50% of this to the favourites bar and then hides it. That is not efficient: that's wasteful. > It is available by a single flick of the mouse No, it is hidden by default, that is the point here. I do not want my UI to hide stuff from me. It is there to tell me stuff. If it doesn't tell me it is not doing its job. Tell me, or don't do it. Hiding info from a person is called lying. I do not want my desktop to lie to me. > (Fitt’s law: the corner is basically infinite sized) Which is why macOS puts the menus there. GNOME wastes this vital functionality. > For power users there is the super key Bogus. 1. I don't have one. 2. How should I know that? Where does it tell me? 3. Why is the keyboard for power users? > and for laptop users the swipe up with 3 fingers in a smooth motion is easily the best way to get to the activities tab. Easily the best? Prove it. That is an assertion of fact. That means it needs evidence. Personally I loathe gestures and I turn off my trackpad. I know how to use all 3 buttons on my mouse; the GNOME devs do not, because they have removed the core "send to back" function that is far quicker than any PITA gestures. > Besides the “task switcher” at the bottom, I personally am much quicker to discern which application I want to switch to based on how I expect it to look, vs an icon. Windows didn’t add a popup of how it looks for no reason to their task switcher. Good for you. Me, I read words. I want words over pics. > keyboard It is quite customizable (if nothing else, by plugins), but I think it is unfair to take it as a negative that gnome2 hotkeys no longer work. It is quite clearly not an incremental change from that, for that go with Mate. >> titlebar > > I am undecided on whether it’s a good thing or not. Your previously mentioned vertical space problem is literally the reasoning behind that, so it is not made on a whim. False comparison. The space is still wasted. > Otherwise, I have never really rolled up a window for real use, besides playing with animations back in the compiz days. Speak for yourself. I did. > I don’t find it useful. I did. I want it. It's been taken from me. Says who? Why is that right? Why wasn't I asked? Is this a community project or an autocracy? > I usually just make multiple desktops and group activity-relevant windows on a same one. I only use them on laptops when I have just 1 screen. Normally I have 2 or 3 screens. GNOME sucks at multiscreen. Forcing me to use a kludgy replacement for missing hardware is bad design. Not supporting the hardware properly is worse. > Feel free to reenable that with a single extension. No. 1. Extensions break GNOME upgrades. 2. It is again stealing functions I want from me. Bad design. 3. The bolted-back-on functions are crude and only half functional. 4. Chesterton's fence: don't remove something if you don't know why it's there. > You can use any file manager, it should not be a criticism of the Gnome DE False. It 100% is part of the GNOME DE and so it is fair target. It is a poor design if the user has to fix it. Assume I have no root privs. Make what is bundled work. Don't lean on others.

by kaba0 3y ago

lproven 3y ago

As you would probably expect, I reject all of those, but let me explain why. > OSX has a similar toolbar No, it does not, because it's not similar. It may look similar but this is not about looks, it's about structure and function. ("S&F" is a specific term in evolutionary biology.) The OS X top panel is a menu bar. It is a core part of the UI. It contains 3 functional areas, none of which GNOME has. 1. The leftmost entry is the Apple system menu. Click on it, and you get system-wide options such as "about this Mac" and so on. 2. Then there is the app menu. The name tells you useful info: the current app. It has options global to that app, such as preferences and quit, in a standard place. 3. Then there is the app's own menu bar, which varies app to app. 4. Then at the right is the system's notification area, which has global applets, a clock and so on, visually separated. GNOME has a vestige it's trying to banish. That's 4 important functions, just one of which GNOME implements badly. Not the same thing. MacOS gives me a lot in return for that strip. GNOME wastes it. > Windows has a much bigger one at the bottom. Again, not even comparable. Until the broken Win11, you could move it. You can't in GNOME. It does a tonne of stuff; it's a launcher and a switcher and an info display and a status monitor. That's efficient use of space. GNOME moves less than 50% of this to the favourites bar and then hides it. That is not efficient: that's wasteful. > It is available by a single flick of the mouse No, it is hidden by default, that is the point here. I do not want my UI to hide stuff from me. It is there to tell me stuff. If it doesn't tell me it is not doing its job. Tell me, or don't do it. Hiding info from a person is called lying. I do not want my desktop to lie to me. > (Fitt’s law: the corner is basically infinite sized) Which is why macOS puts the menus there. GNOME wastes this vital functionality. > For power users there is the super key Bogus. 1. I don't have one. 2. How should I know that? Where does it tell me? 3. Why is the keyboard for power users? > and for laptop users the swipe up with 3 fingers in a smooth motion is easily the best way to get to the activities tab. Easily the best? Prove it. That is an assertion of fact. That means it needs evidence. Personally I loathe gestures and I turn off my trackpad. I know how to use all 3 buttons on my mouse; the GNOME devs do not, because they have removed the core "send to back" function that is far quicker than any PITA gestures. > Besides the “task switcher” at the bottom, I personally am much quicker to discern which application I want to switch to based on how I expect it to look, vs an icon. Windows didn’t add a popup of how it looks for no reason to their task switcher. Good for you. Me, I read words. I want words over pics. > keyboard It is quite customizable (if nothing else, by plugins), but I think it is unfair to take it as a negative that gnome2 hotkeys no longer work. It is quite clearly not an incremental change from that, for that go with Mate. >> titlebar > > I am undecided on whether it’s a good thing or not. Your previously mentioned vertical space problem is literally the reasoning behind that, so it is not made on a whim. False comparison. The space is still wasted. > Otherwise, I have never really rolled up a window for real use, besides playing with animations back in the compiz days. Speak for yourself. I did. > I don’t find it useful. I did. I want it. It's been taken from me. Says who? Why is that right? Why wasn't I asked? Is this a community project or an autocracy? > I usually just make multiple desktops and group activity-relevant windows on a same one. I only use them on laptops when I have just 1 screen. Normally I have 2 or 3 screens. GNOME sucks at multiscreen. Forcing me to use a kludgy replacement for missing hardware is bad design. Not supporting the hardware properly is worse. > Feel free to reenable that with a single extension. No. 1. Extensions break GNOME upgrades. 2. It is again stealing functions I want from me. Bad design. 3. The bolted-back-on functions are crude and only half functional. 4. Chesterton's fence: don't remove something if you don't know why it's there. > You can use any file manager, it should not be a criticism of the Gnome DE False. It 100% is part of the GNOME DE and so it is fair target. It is a poor design if the user has to fix it. Assume I have no root privs. Make what is bundled work. Don't lean on others.