Gnome devs have a clear vision of what Gnome is supposed to be:
simplistic, designed for touchpad and keyboard, not mousy-clicky, and staying out of your way.
People install it, miss stuff they are used to from traditional desktops like Windows or Plasma, and bolt that back on using extensions from third parties.
They install those extensions from a different source than Gnome itself (Gnome from their distro repos, extensions from the website).
And then they complain when those third party add-ons from a different source aren’t perfectly integrated or in sync after an update.
I think their vision is solid.
I just think there are gaps in following their vision. Wheres the “create new empty file”? Where’s the “open folder in terminal”?
Why do I need to install bunch of bloatware to change more than 2 options?
I think their vision is solid. I just think there are gaps in following their vision. Wheres the “create new empty file”? Where’s the “open folder in terminal”? Why do I need to install bunch of bloatware to change more than 2 options?
On my Gnome Files, there is option to “Open in terminal” and create new files (from templates, which were set up by default on my distro). All by default without any extensions or anything.
Gnome is about deliberate lack of features. Blank windows with the few existing UI elements crammed into the top bar and a hamburger menu with nothing in it because Gnome and its associated software are not intended to be used for anything.
tl/dr:
They’re an old spec from 2002
They’re too small to click for people with increased accessibility needs
They serve the needs of app publishers (making their app visible at all times), not those of the user
-> There are too many of them
-> They look bad
They don’t.
Programs only show themselves when you take an action (hit a key) or when it’s urgent (in a notification).
Otherwise they’re supposed to stay invisible.
So in Gnome philosophy, your sensor would notify you when the temp goes critical and otherwise you’d have to open it manually.
thank you for this it is interesting to know their rationale. but i still disagree with it, i think it makes life using the computer more comfortable, it is a good way of managing apps that usually operate unattended and everyone is used to it and expects or relies on this functionality.
Counterpoint: The main criticism of Gnome seems to be that it doesn’t match the design philosophy of Windows 95, which users are used to.
But at this point, an entire human generation later, and 14 years after the release of Gnome 3, I don’t think that’s a valid criticism anymore.
the above tl;dr forgot something massive: all current protocols are unsafe (e.g. need exporting the entirety of org.kde.* in dbus) and/or only work on X11
Gnome devs have a clear vision of what Gnome is supposed to be:
simplistic, designed for touchpad and keyboard, not mousy-clicky, and staying out of your way.
Nobody questioned this.
People install it, miss stuff they are used to from traditional desktops like Windows or Plasma, and bolt that back on using extensions from third parties.
Like the Extension feature intends it.
They install those extensions from a different source than Gnome itself (Gnome from their distro repos, extensions from the website).
Even those you can install from some distro repos can cause your whole Gnome DE to crash. However this isn’t even the main problem; the point is that it’s able to crash your DE at all. If they did it correctly only the bad extension would crash. If that doesn’t work for some reason, the whole extension layer/API may crashes without taking the DE with it. If something phenomenally bad happens your DE should crash but, as the absolute minimum, your open applications should still keep working so you can save things and restart things gracefully. What you just did is blame the extension devs again.
And then they complain when those third party add-ons from a different source aren’t perfectly integrated or in sync after an update.
It’s about your computer (well, everything graphically) crashing, not some small problems. Get your facts straight.
Gnome devs have a clear vision of what Gnome is supposed to be:
simplistic, designed for touchpad and keyboard, not mousy-clicky, and staying out of your way.
People install it, miss stuff they are used to from traditional desktops like Windows or Plasma, and bolt that back on using extensions from third parties.
They install those extensions from a different source than Gnome itself (Gnome from their distro repos, extensions from the website).
And then they complain when those third party add-ons from a different source aren’t perfectly integrated or in sync after an update.
And blame the Gnome devs.
I don’t blame GNOME devs, I blame the straight up lies from GNOME enthusiasts that GNOME is customizable, because it is not.
Conclusion: the clear vision that Gnome devs have is obviously wrong.
I think their vision is solid. I just think there are gaps in following their vision. Wheres the “create new empty file”? Where’s the “open folder in terminal”? Why do I need to install bunch of bloatware to change more than 2 options?
On my Gnome Files, there is option to “Open in terminal” and create new files (from templates, which were set up by default on my distro). All by default without any extensions or anything.
Gnome is about deliberate lack of features. Blank windows with the few existing UI elements crammed into the top bar and a hamburger menu with nothing in it because Gnome and its associated software are not intended to be used for anything.
It’s a non-profit, open source project.
If you don’t like it, just ignore it.
It’s not a commercial project where market share is important.
The only defense of Gnome: It’s not mandatory.
Except they also do GTK, which still manages to leak outside their 9 foot thick steel and concrete containment vessel.
i cant think of any valid reason gnome doesnt have official system tray icons
Gnome’s official stance on that matter:
https://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2017/08/31/status-icons-and-gnome/
tl/dr:
They’re an old spec from 2002
They’re too small to click for people with increased accessibility needs
They serve the needs of app publishers (making their app visible at all times), not those of the user
-> There are too many of them
-> They look bad
Ok but how do programs under Gnome display state? (temperature and stuff like that)
They don’t.
Programs only show themselves when you take an action (hit a key) or when it’s urgent (in a notification).
Otherwise they’re supposed to stay invisible.
So in Gnome philosophy, your sensor would notify you when the temp goes critical and otherwise you’d have to open it manually.
thank you for this it is interesting to know their rationale. but i still disagree with it, i think it makes life using the computer more comfortable, it is a good way of managing apps that usually operate unattended and everyone is used to it and expects or relies on this functionality.
Counterpoint: The main criticism of Gnome seems to be that it doesn’t match the design philosophy of Windows 95, which users are used to.
But at this point, an entire human generation later, and 14 years after the release of Gnome 3, I don’t think that’s a valid criticism anymore.
They’re useful, “old” is no excuse. Mobile OS have something similiar. No, don’t create a new spec, you’re bad at that kind of thing.
Make them bigger? I can do that on XFCE.
Again, they are useful to the user. Just give the user a way to control which to display or not.
Your design team sucks
And that’s why i don’t like Gnome (and Gtk for that matter); they prioritize their skewed visions over everything else, including usability.
the above tl;dr forgot something massive: all current protocols are unsafe (e.g. need exporting the entirety of org.kde.* in dbus) and/or only work on X11
Insecure? It is run by the user, communicates only with things run by the user.
So things like sandboxing or even not running everything as root should exist.
Nobody questioned this.
Like the Extension feature intends it.
Even those you can install from some distro repos can cause your whole Gnome DE to crash. However this isn’t even the main problem; the point is that it’s able to crash your DE at all. If they did it correctly only the bad extension would crash. If that doesn’t work for some reason, the whole extension layer/API may crashes without taking the DE with it. If something phenomenally bad happens your DE should crash but, as the absolute minimum, your open applications should still keep working so you can save things and restart things gracefully. What you just did is blame the extension devs again.
It’s about your computer (well, everything graphically) crashing, not some small problems. Get your facts straight.