Gnome 3 vs Gnome 2 (Compare)

[RogerOdle2]

The point is that Fedora can choose a graphic environment that just works for the installer. Gnome 3 gives up with sme useless lame "Oh no..." message. It can not revert back to a simplified known working state that allows you to fix the problem. Worst still, the login screen is also Gnome 3 so if Gnome 3 can not start then you can not even switch to a different session manager to try to fix the problem.

I do know something about graphics and graphics hardware. It's what I get paid to do which is why I know that this can be made simpler, more reliable, and require less sophisticated hardware. If nothing else, turn off disable the hardware specific driver and boot into VGA mode. At least I can do something.

Gnome 3 is just not ready for prime time.

[glway]

Well to be fairly honest I don't recall anyone liking gnome 3 at the beginning. Including myself. First two minutes were the "wow" moments. And short after that followed by raging and screaming. But after some tweaks and modifications I started liking it. Make the application icons (a lot) smaller, getting rid of the smart corners and other things. But the thing I still don't like is the fact that gnome2 was fast, easy and responsive, while 3 is large bulky, eats up your resources like nothing just to add some visual effects that I'm pretty confident won't impress any linux user since there is no need for them whatsoever. I admit some features are convenient but let's face it-there is no need for a desktop computer or a laptop to be turned into a tablet. Let's hope they find their senses before gnome 4....

[RogerOdle2]

The future is a computer that likely moves between being a tablet and a desktop or that there will be so many out there that that sort of computer will be the norm. So the environment will become one which accomodates both. There are already relatively inexpensive touch screens for your desktop. The sales of these will probably increase since Hollywood keeps showing actors using touch screens in the office to promote that as "the latest thing". The pressure is there.

The number of people whose first experience with a computer is a tablet is increasing. They are very young now but time passes quickly. They will be uncomfortable with an environment that is very different from a tablet. It isn't that difficult to run a desktop computer with a tablet interface. Once you get used to an environment you start thinking that thats the way it is and will always be. You just do it and don't think about it.

The biggest problem with Gnome 3 is the bugs. There are some unfortunate design choices under the hood that could be changed or eliminated without altering the user experience in any significant way. This could reduce the bulk and the bugs. A lighter version of Gnome 3 that concentrates on desktop operations and just works would be nice.

Regardless of what desktop environment you are developing. Leave cloud computing out of it. I have had nothing but bad experiences with desktops in the past that had some network dependency that resulted in either failure to start or unacceptable sluggish behaviour. I know the software vendors are now injecting add streams in every application under the sun. I have applications on my tablet that crash if there is no internet connection. This is unacceptable. This sort of thing is likely to creep into the Linux desktop world. I know there is tremendous pressure from the vendors to move your stuff to the cloud. This delites the cell phone companies who get to charge outrageous data charges. Keep in mind who is supposed to bennifit from your desktop work. If someone wants to add applications or gadgets that do this sort of thing then that is their business but don't let it interfer with desktop operations.

[BBQdave]

Originally Posted by RogerOdle2

Regardless of what desktop environment you are developing. Leave cloud computing out of it. I have had nothing but bad experiences with desktops in the past that had some network dependency that resulted in either failure to start or unacceptable sluggish behaviour.

That is an interesting thought, that I am still trying to understand (and adjust my system - F16). Start up speed of Fedora depends on how fast my wireless connection is. Fast download speed = Fast start up. So it appears network interaction is a large component of modern OS's.

[Dan]

Modern tablet/smartphone/simple device connectivity without resorting to the cloud!? <....>

I'm not a big fan of the cloud either, but that strikes me as a helluva lot like asking a fish not to get wet.

[RogerOdle2]

My tablet does not have a cell phone (3G or otherwise) connection. The only time it is connected to the Internet is at home or a WiFi spot. Application that will not run without an active Internet connection do not simply not work, they crash with some kind of useless "somthing went wrong" message. The programs work correctly when there is an Internet connection. These applications can not be used when I am riding in a car and I do a lot of traveling. This online-all-the-time attitude is not user friendly and it is a terrible compromise in personal security.

I do not need mysteriously high cell phone data charges because of advertising splashed on my phone or tablet. This is spam all over again. The courts had decided at one point that spam was protected first amendment speech. It isn't. When it cost the receiver money out of pocket then it is a personal injury issue. No one has the right to excersise their first amendment rights at anothers expense. The cell phone companies are delighted with these online-all-the-time devices but they are like ticks-on-a-dog to your wallet. They are sucking money from you like blood and the public is going along with it because the charges are hidden. We just accept that data connections for cell phones should have a high price tag. We are lousy consumers who do not really know what exactly we are paying for. What percentage of your cell phone data traffic is your own business and how much is in the interest of advertisers and data miners? I have no idea how to do that. Don't you think that the consumer should know this?

Cloud computing doesn't mean today what it did yesterday. Many money sucking schemes have been pulled under that tent and all of them take control away from the consumer and offer up the consumer on a platter for big business and big brother.
We need tablets and desktops that stand on their own and just work even when there is no network connection.

[glway]

^^Absolutely. As someone who has suffered A LOT from mobile operators and paying bills from Mars without really using any 3g services or talking much, a couple of years ago I decided to switch to a prepaid plan. And so far I'm really comfortable with it since that has cut my phone bills by half, as strange as it may sound. Personally I use my mobile connection very little for two purposes:

1. google maps
2. ssh

That said there in my case(and a lot of people I know) that is far more than enough.

Then again looking at my 5 year old cousin-he has never sat on a computer while he is playing games on a tablet on regular basis. I've read about schools investing in tablets. Which to my mind is a crime against humanity. I can list a million and one reasons why this will only end badly. The development of mobile devices should carry on in terms of smartphones. As far as tablets I cannot see a single reason for them to exist. Which brings us to the main issue-why bother turning a computer into a tablet? Let's be perfectly honest-if you run Linux on your home computer and that is your preference chances are you are not looking for a shiny effects and logos. I mean if that's what we are after there is a company called Apple which has been doing that for decades now. In other words-gnome 3 was a step in the wrong direction but could be really nice if you spend a week of tweaking(that's how much it took me). So the question here is-is there a need to make something that will require a week of your life to turn it into what you actually want?

[Dan]

Originally Posted by glway

... I've read about schools investing in tablets. Which to my mind is a crime against humanity. I can list a million and one reasons why this will only end badly.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by glway

... As far as tablets I cannot see a single reason for them to exist.

... Uhm ... because customers/purchasers want them?

Agreed they're not terribly useful to the likes of you or me, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

[glway]

I don't deny that if there is a market they should exist. I completely don't understand the hype however. Somewhat portable-yes-I admit carrying a 17 inch laptop on your back around airports isn't what I'd call practical. Which is why i have a small 12 inch laptop for those cases. But I still can't see where the tablet could be useful. Much like the mighty Siri which in reality does nothing and all we see people using it for is asking "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood". It's the same situation with the tablets-I haven't met a single person that has a legitimate use for a tablet and has bought it for any other reason than.... Fashion???

[droidhacker]

Originally Posted by glway

I don't deny that if there is a market they should exist. I completely don't understand the hype however. Somewhat portable-yes-I admit carrying a 17 inch laptop on your back around airports isn't what I'd call practical. Which is why i have a small 12 inch laptop for those cases. But I still can't see where the tablet could be useful. Much like the mighty Siri which in reality does nothing and all we see people using it for is asking "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood". It's the same situation with the tablets-I haven't met a single person that has a legitimate use for a tablet and has bought it for any other reason than.... Fashion???

1) My wife uses a tablet in the kitchen for cooking/recipes. Tablets are CHEAP and SMALL, so they don't take up valuable counter space, and if you accidentally dump liquid on one, it isn't a big deal. These advantages obviously wouldn't apply to overpriced apple crap, rather the much more practical 7" china tablets.
2) My wife uses a tablet as a portable picture book. You have to admit that this is a FAR better choice than a laptop.
3) I use it as a network/diag tool. The key is that it is highly portable and has a long battery life. It makes a great interface for remote and/or headless systems, and on the rare occasion I might need to get into a difficult position, like up top a communication tower, a laptop would be useless since it is impossible to carry and takes 3 hands to operate if you don't have a table to set it on.

Incidently, a 7" tablet will fit nicely into a moderately large pocket, so they are, TRULY, portable (unlike 10" tablets, which are truly useless).

I also find 7" (in portrait mode) to be optimal when it comes to touchscreen typing. In this size/configuration, you can still thumb type with both thumbs (without stretching). In landscape mode or for larger tablets, you need to hold the tablet in one hand and poke at it with the other. This reduced your accuracy and increases the amount of energy and focus it takes to type.

[fixles]

I love Gnome 3. I think if people forced themselves to use it for a week people would see its genius. I love it.

[RogerOdle2]

Why a tablet instead of a laptop? They are tremendously usefull gadgets. Once you get one you find that you go to the tablet for certain things even when you are in front of your desktop. I loaded ecopies of by reference manuals on mine. When I am following a howto, out comes the tablet. What does it have over a small laptop? Almost instant on to begin with. Laptop sleep/hibernate doesn't begin to compete with the instant availabilty of a tablet. Of course there is no good reason that laptops and desktops can not as fast. Start by eliminating as many of the seemingly endless background tasks as possible.

On a typical Linux install, sendmail is installed. Why? This is an email transport agent like you ISP uses to handle mail for you. It has nothing to do with delivering your mail with POP or IMAP. You do that by communicating with the ISP's version of sendmail. I install fedora but I can not uninstall sendmail because there are way too many dependencies on this server that I don't even need. It seems like I need to gut the system to get rid of it. Yes I can turn it off, and I do, but it is still there as useless as ever. And this is not the only thing that needs to be tossed.

Stable and reliable systems start with simplifcation. The cross dependencies need to be broken up to reduce the system foot print. If a mail transport agent is really needed then tell the user to have the admin put one in. I know that some system components want to use the mail system to send status to the system administrator. This is the most common reason for the sendmail dependency. This should be optional. It is only a usefull feature if you have several machines and you want this information sent to your IT department. For a standalone system, a home computer, or a mobile device it is worse than useless because the user's probably does not have an account with the local sendmail server anyway so all of that traffic gets dumped in the bit bucket anyway.

I am not picking on sendmail specifically. Sendmail is a good program for the purpose its intended purpose but it is way too complex for a simple desktop system and should not be part of that desktop design.

[deanej]

Originally Posted by RogerOdle2

Why a tablet instead of a laptop? They are tremendously usefull gadgets. Once you get one you find that you go to the tablet for certain things even when you are in front of your desktop. I loaded ecopies of by reference manuals on mine. When I am following a howto, out comes the tablet. What does it have over a small laptop? Almost instant on to begin with. Laptop sleep/hibernate doesn't begin to compete with the instant availabilty of a tablet. Of course there is no good reason that laptops and desktops can not as fast. Start by eliminating as many of the seemingly endless background tasks as possible.

A laptop will resume a lot faster if you use "suspend" rather than "hibernate" (which IMO is useless 90% of the time). My laptop can resume from suspend nearly instantly... getting networking back takes longer, but that's the problem of the network, not the laptop.

On a typical Linux install, sendmail is installed. Why? This is an email transport agent like you ISP uses to handle mail for you. It has nothing to do with delivering your mail with POP or IMAP. You do that by communicating with the ISP's version of sendmail. I install fedora but I can not uninstall sendmail because there are way too many dependencies on this server that I don't even need. It seems like I need to gut the system to get rid of it. Yes I can turn it off, and I do, but it is still there as useless as ever. And this is not the only thing that needs to be tossed.

Email systems are also used to allow applications to send messages to each other. It's not just email.

Stable and reliable systems start with simplifcation.

Translation: dumbing down.

The cross dependencies need to be broken up to reduce the system foot print.

So you want to go to the Windows system of having each application bundle dependencies in itself and having to find a bazillion apps to get the system in a usable state? No thank you. It's much more work and actually INCREASES, rather than decreases, system foot print.

I am not picking on sendmail specifically. Sendmail is a good program for the purpose its intended purpose but it is way too complex for a simple desktop system and should not be part of that desktop design.

I doubt most Linux users even want a "simple" desktop system. We want powerful computers that can handle all the programming and/or server tasks we can throw at them.

[RogerOdle2]

Most users want a system that just works. Simplification doesn't mean dumbing down. How often is email used for one application to communicate with another? There are other and simpler mechanisms for that purpose and some of them do not require a persistent server. If sendmail was essential then my system would break when I disabled it. My point is that the thousands of dependencies on sendmail are unneccessary because sendmail is unneccessary yet the packaging system says I must have it. There are many other examples (like avahi for instance).

By simplification, I am not talking about what the user sees, I am talking about what goes on under the hood to make it all happen. What we have is not the product of sound design but of piling on and on. At some time, someone needs to step back and start untangling the mess. Simplification will result in greatly reducing the bugs and the mysterious "Oh No" messages that seem to plague the Gnome desktop lately.

Increasing the system footprint is not neccessarily a bad thing if it means that an essential service is self contained. For example, if you are running a web server you want to know that the components in that system are tested and reliable. You do not want something that is working to break because of a security update outside of that system. You only want your web server to be updated by modules that are components of that service and have been tested with that system before they were released. When these things are collected together for a singular purpose they are much easier to test and validate. Your confidence in their security and reliability goes way up. Doing this for everything on your computer is not the answer though,

It would be nice if select common services like email, smb, http, nfs,... were packaged managed as package sets so that the only dependencies were specific to those functions. I think that the desktop system (Gnome or whatever) needs to be built on top of a reliable and minimal set of packages with almost no outside dependencies so that you can not inadvertently destroy your computer's ability to boot because you uninstalled something. We can't do a graphical "safe mode" startup as things stand now so recovery has to be done from the command line using ancient user unfriendly tools. (Who ever thought that vi was a good idea anyway?) It makes system maintenence so painful it drives some people who might use Linux away.

[glway]

^^eerm.. what??

We can't do a graphical "safe mode" startup as things stand now so recovery has to be done from the command line using ancient user unfriendly tools.

I'm sorry but you are making the whole system useless here. How do you plan or setting up cronjobs? right click and archive then open up filezilla and upload it somewhere else... Manually!?!?! If so-do you take into consideration that using what you call "user friendly" tools will double or triple the execution time. Take a large database-like 20-25gb-not a dump but a whole directory and try to archive it using the "modern tools" and then try and doing the same using the ancient Egyptian command line. And that is just a really really really basic example. As I said before

if you run Linux on your home computer and that is your preference chances are you are not looking for a shiny effects and logos. I mean if that's what we are after there is a company called Apple which has been doing that for decades now.

Simple as that. From what you said I'm getting the idea that you want to get rid of the command line for good and anything that cannot be done with a powerpoint-like wizard. Linux is definitely not for people who want to post pictures on facebook taken in their bathroom mirror with their phone. To be perfectly honest those people should in fact stay away from computers and the web so their stupidity can be taken out of the general circulation. And I'm pretty sure the whole linux community couldn't care less if they are driven away by the complexity.

vi, mc, nano and so on are good ideas. As a matter of fact they are all great ideas for a million and one reasons.