Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 11:29 +, Sergey Udaltsov a écrit : > > I cannot believe this topic keeps coming up again and again :-( > > > > "Linux is not about choice": > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html > You know why this happen again and again? Because ppl want it to be > about choice. It’s always the same people who want it to be about choice. And generally, it’s not those having to do user support and/or fix bugs. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
GNOME Shell UX validation [Was: My thoughts on fallback mode]
> Well, now that people are throwing percents at each other, it is a > very interesting point as such - does anybody know anything about > userbase whose experience GNOME3 is going to improve? I am not > ranting/trolling here, I am really interested. Was there any research > made? There is an evidence base that has been utilised and developed during the shell design process: * The shell design is a response to well documented issues with GNOME 2 and similar interfaces. (We can extrapolate a lot from what other OSs are doing here.) * Jon did a pretty extensive literature review (some of that can be found here [1])... I'm sure he can tell you more about the results of that. * The shell has been used extensively by its developers, designers and community members. Some have inevitably complained after using the shell, but there are also a lot of people who prefer it over GNOME 2 (myself included). * Previous studies and experiences which have been drawn upon by the shell designers. * Stock usability principles and knowledge have been routinely referred to. * I recently conducted a small usability study on the shell (results to be published soon). It established that the basics of the shell UI essentially work. It was a sanity check, nothing more. But the shell passed. The shell design wasn't formulated on a whim. It involved a lot of research and a lot of work. I know from working with Jon, Jimmac and others that empirical reference points have been sought whenever possible, and many options have been explored (and discarded) during the design process. > I realize that my references to voting on linux.org.ru cannot be > seriously considered - but perhaps someone made serious usability > testing or survey, someone could say XX% are not happy, YY% are not > happy with GNOME2 (of course, ZZ% do not care at all or not using > gnome), the first figure is going to increase with GNOME3 to XY%, the > second will drop as low as YX%? User attitudes or opinions are not the best guide for measuring the effectiveness of a user interface. We can test usability (though the resources for doing so are limited), and we can explore user experience (ditto), but it's very difficult to get a definitive answer through research. > That kind of research, if properly > made, is usually a conclusive argument for/against any serious visible > design changes. I am personally convinced that GNOME Shell offers an improved user experience over GNOME 2. It avoids a whole bunch of mistakes from the past, adds useful features that are relevant to contemporary users, it will be more visually attractive, and it is better suited to today's screens and input devices. And we know from my study and from dog fooding that it works. Allan [1] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/References#Articles -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 20:58 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek a écrit : > The solution would have been to provide a fallback mode for GNOME-Shell, > which > allows it to run with any WM. AFAIR it was rejected because of architectual > reason, which if you ask me don't make sense, as the stack below is still the > same (kernel, x11, gtk, clutter). Seriously, you are completely missing the point. In this thread, many reasons for which gnome-panel is good have been told. Some of them silly, most of them very valid. But just because it is good, it is completely unrealistic to ask the Shell developers to keep all of the corresponding features in their new solution. In order to cope with other, incompatible needs, they made design choices that make this impossible. For very good reasons too. Instead of focusing on telling the Shell developers do this or that (and frankly, if I were them, that would be the last kind of speech I would like to hear), you should focus on keeping the gnome-panel experience available. Said otherwise, you should invest time in helping to maintain gnome-panel and port it to work with GNOME 3 technologies (think mostly of the control center, maybe of GTK+ 3), instead of investing it on trolling this mailing list. That would achieve what you want in a much better and more useful way. > Just one last thing for now: Most of those who disagreed with me are > developers, most of them who agreed with me are users. Users? Let me laugh. Power users, maybe. As soon as you are talking about people wanting to customize their window manager, you are not talking about real users. Users might understand having a choice between GNOME and GNOME Classic, just as they understand the one between GNOME and KDE, given the huge difference in general ergonomy - and even that is too much for some categories of people. But window managers? A real user might not even know he can add new applets to his panel! -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 00:14 +, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : > > and controlling CPU state (on laptops) > > controlling CPU state is the job of the kernel, not the user. if the > user has to be involved *at all* then we already lost and no amount of > papering over is going to solve this fuck up. In a perfect world where all applications are exempt from bugs, that would be true. In the real world, which is full of javascript or flash running wild on crappy websites, you want to know when your CPU starts spinning. Jeez, I have even seen hardware that crashes if the CPU frequency changes too much, forcing to use the userspace governor and the cpufreq applet to set the frequency. (Yes, this should be fixed in the BIOS and kernel somehow. No, this won’t happen. Not a perfect world.) > plus, the CPU state > display is going to affect the state the CPU is in - which kind of > doubly misses the point. I have seen junk software that does it, but this is definitely not true of the cpufreq applet. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Minimum system requirements for GNOME Shell
Le lundi 03 janvier 2011 à 11:20 -0500, Owen Taylor a écrit : > > This is just not true. Widespread chipsets like the ATI RS690, which > > should be more than recent enough, don’t cut it. > > In what sense? A rs690 should be fine leaving aside the possibility of > bugs with the driver versions you have. Last time I tried, Mutter was just insanely slow on that hardware. I should probably try again with a more recent Clutter version, but this is my main desktop. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
2011/1/4 Mario Blättermann > Am Dienstag, den 04.01.2011, 20:58 +0100 schrieb Christopher Roy > Bratusek: > Have a look at the most important GNOME-reseller Ubuntu: There will be > no gnome-shell by default, they have decided to use Unity. Well, due to > it is also clutter-based, there will be similar problems. Moreover, the > help browser doesn't show the usual overview of the GNOME docs, instead > users see the Ubuntu Help Center, and there's no way to browse to > GNOME's Desktop User Guide. Most distributions have such »features«, > which lead the user to accept his distribution as a unique OS, and to > accept GNOME as a second stage free gift. Could be that the gnome-shell > won't flop because of misusability, but because of too less users take > notice of it. > Yes, we were concerned about this as a Marketing Team when we met in October 2009 at Google's office in Chicago and decided then to make a special effort to reach out to distributors to offer marketing assets that they could brand with their own logos. Unfortunately, Ubuntu made their Unity decision before we could get to that point and for business reasons. I still hope that users will see a vastly superior experience in other distributions (ie. Fedora) which ship Shell by default and encourage Canonical to reevaluate their decision. And we will still make the marketing assets in such a way that any distribution can take and remix them for their own use. Hell, we don't even care all that much that GNOME plays a prominent role in downstream distributions' marketing. Enthusiasts who can become developers will understand what GNOME is. All we have to do is help distributions get users excited about the improved, awesome user experience--that's the only way an end user can get GNOME anyway. We understand that this is a very different situation from, say, Firefox. > It can't be the goal to win new users with a »bleeding-edge new desktop > experience« and, on the other hand, to ignore the other ones which want > to keep the well-known desktop principles (kernel, X11, WM, DE) which > allows them to put their own desktop experience together, if they like > it (!). I can't speak for the Shell team (my impression is that they are merely interested in a great user experience) but the Marketing Team is focusing entirely on current users for the 3.0 marketing push. We are not looking for new users with 3.0--if they come it will be as a side effect of this effort on current users. Specifically, marketing assets will focus on how your user experience is better in GNOME 3 versus prior releases, especially with regard to long-standing and now resolved "warts" on the GNOME 2.x user interface. > And, we shouldn't speak about »selling« GNOME. We don't sell it, > we provide it. That's an important difference. If we would sell it, we > had to concentrate our efforts to ship new hardware with an OS with very > nice and exiting features. But because we provide it, we must recognize > more than these users and their moneybags. Yes, we know this and it's was an unintended implication of the "car" analogy. We don't think of GNOME as a product; it is an upstream project that is ultimately made available through distributions. > As I already wrote, one of > the most important advantages of GNOME is its modularity, which doesn't > preclude integrity. But modularity is not implicitly integrity. > A desktop as strong bolted as Windows or MacOS which > forces people to use this and not that is misplaced. > I think we are saying that Shell will be a better user experience because we were able to much more rapidly develop GNOME Shell and that's partially *because* the window manager cannot be switched with another. I just want to make it abundantly clear: that is all that has changed. No other component in the existing GNOME stack has lost its modularity. > BTW, all these thoughts are from a user's point of view. I'm not a > developer, just a translator, and I have subscribed to this list > actually by accidence. But it is very interesting to see how decisions > for the future are seem to made, ignoring a considerable number of > long-standing users. It is more than a handful, be sure. No one is ignoring anyone. We are listening. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Am Dienstag, den 04.01.2011, 20:58 +0100 schrieb Christopher Roy Bratusek: > But as some have unvealed today, it's not the real reason, marketing is the > magic word and to provide a desktop "made from one", and some other less > valid > reasons (eg.: even if you allow modularization you can provide great user- > experience as modifications made by the user bother him/her not you). > The »Desktop made from one« is a long lasting dream of almost all developers of integrated desktop environments. »THE GNOME« doesn't exist and won't exist ever. What folks are using is mostly the desktop which the distributors ship as default. Have a look at the most important GNOME-reseller Ubuntu: There will be no gnome-shell by default, they have decided to use Unity. Well, due to it is also clutter-based, there will be similar problems. Moreover, the help browser doesn't show the usual overview of the GNOME docs, instead users see the Ubuntu Help Center, and there's no way to browse to GNOME's Desktop User Guide. Most distributions have such »features«, which lead the user to accept his distribution as a unique OS, and to accept GNOME as a second stage free gift. Could be that the gnome-shell won't flop because of misusability, but because of too less users take notice of it. It can't be the goal to win new users with a »bleeding-edge new desktop experience« and, on the other hand, to ignore the other ones which want to keep the well-known desktop principles (kernel, X11, WM, DE) which allows them to put their own desktop experience together, if they like it (!). And, we shouldn't speak about »selling« GNOME. We don't sell it, we provide it. That's an important difference. If we would sell it, we had to concentrate our efforts to ship new hardware with an OS with very nice and exiting features. But because we provide it, we must recognize more than these users and their moneybags. As I already wrote, one of the most important advantages of GNOME is its modularity, which doesn't preclude integrity. A desktop as strong bolted as Windows or MacOS which forces people to use this and not that is misplaced. BTW, all these thoughts are from a user's point of view. I'm not a developer, just a translator, and I have subscribed to this list actually by accidence. But it is very interesting to see how decisions for the future are seem to made, ignoring a considerable number of long-standing users. It is more than a handful, be sure. Cheers, Mario ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 20:58 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > Maciej Piechotka schreef op di 04-01-2011 om 20:43 [+0100]: > > On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 20:37 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > > > Let me add "convenient for frequent use" to my original phrasing and my > > > point still holds. > > I believe that compose key gives such option. > > Say Compose+g+a can be configured to give alpha. > > Oh yes, it's very convenient for me, and also for others who know about > it and explicitly enabled it in their keyboard configuration (hidden in > a dozen other options behind 3 level dialog structure). > > My point was that there should be a more easily discoverable and > user-friendly way, i.e. "pick from a visual list" versus "remember > sequences hidden behind an invisible magic key". The character map > applet provides exactly this, which is why I am arguing it is essential, > especially for many non-English speakers. > To be honest - I *did* try to add modification of keyboard feature request[1]. Personally I'd like to have an advanced, easy to use, integrated with desktop keyboard editor. [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599200 > (FYI: Dutch requires some accented letters to be able to write > correctly, but those characters are not on our keyboards since all > computers have a generic American English keyboard.) (FYI. So do Polish, the exact letters are ąćęń󟿥ĆĘŃÓŹŻ. I managed to tweak keyboard by xmodmap although you may also choose to switch keyboard layout - I don't since I normally use UK keyboard which have few keys in different places and I don't like if @ key is in different place). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
>> Somehow I suspect that non-developer users on desktop-devel-list do >> not represent a majority of GNOME users. > > Well, the world is bigger than this ML and I never said that the majority is > complaining, just that 1% is not the truth. > > Compared to how many users stuff like Compiz, AWN & Co got I would say it's > somewhere between 5 and 10%. Maybe I'm wrong, but 1% is wrong, too. Well, now that people are throwing percents at each other, it is a very interesting point as such - does anybody know anything about userbase whose experience GNOME3 is going to improve? I am not ranting/trolling here, I am really interested. Was there any research made? I realize that my references to voting on linux.org.ru cannot be seriously considered - but perhaps someone made serious usability testing or survey, someone could say XX% are not happy, YY% are not happy with GNOME2 (of course, ZZ% do not care at all or not using gnome), the first figure is going to increase with GNOME3 to XY%, the second will drop as low as YX%? That kind of research, if properly made, is usually a conclusive argument for/against any serious visible design changes. I hope that GNOME3 is not just a leap of faith... Sergey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:21:01PM +0100, Florian Müllner wrote: > Please take AWN (CairoDock, Docky, ...) out of your argumentation - > there's exactly nothing stopping you from using those applications with > GNOME Shell. Let's agree that we cannot be certain and stop this guessing at this percentage game. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 21:07 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > Compared to how many users stuff like Compiz, AWN & Co got I would say it's > somewhere between 5 and 10%. Please take AWN (CairoDock, Docky, ...) out of your argumentation - there's exactly nothing stopping you from using those applications with GNOME Shell. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 08:58:26PM +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > The solution would have been to provide a fallback mode for GNOME-Shell, > which > allows it to run with any WM. AFAIR it was rejected because of architectual > reason, which if you ask me don't make sense, as the stack below is still the > same (kernel, x11, gtk, clutter). I don't see why gnome-shell must make it possible to run another window manager. Ideally it should, but it doesn't. And that would still not be a fallback. It would not be GNOME anymore. Current fallback is gnome-panel and maybe if someones hacks on it gnome-applets as well. But ideally the software rendering bits would make the fallback not required. Then GNOME 3 is just gnome-shell (fallback being a slower experience). People wanting to run gnome-panel and gnome-applets on the GNOME 3.x platform would be free to do so, but on an as-is basis (gnome-panel hasn't gotten much attention during last releases.. 99% sure the maintainer fully agrees with that). > But as some have unvealed today, it's not the real reason, marketing is the > magic word and to provide a desktop "made from one", and some other less > valid > reasons (eg.: even if you allow modularization you can provide great user- > experience as modifications made by the user bother him/her not you). You're misinterpreting the answers given to you. So to state it again: 1. Marketing is not the reason. I stated marketing, as to explain we focus on gnome-shell, not on gnome-applets. I don't see anything wrong with saying we focus on gnome-shell 2. Integration has made things quicker to develop 3. Not integrating within the window manager has been considered and has been discussed, various times See gnome-shell mailing list archives. Decision was NOT taken lightly. I forgot the many reasons why it wasn't easy, but it is all available for anyone who really cares in the gnome-shell mailing list. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 13:58, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > > I'm not personally attacking people with whom I disagree. I just > > described where the different perception of how many users want to > > replace their WM might come from. Which is quite a central point when > > discussing whether it's hugely important to be WM agnostic, or not. > ... > Well, I already said, but still, I'm speaking what users think. I'm reading > it > on Forums, OpenDesktop, ProLinux, ML & Co. All I wanted is that people at > least listen to it, but for some this seems impossible. ... > But as some have unvealed today, it's not the real reason, marketing is the > magic word and to provide a desktop "made from one", and some other less > valid > reasons (eg.: even if you allow modularization you can provide great user- > experience as modifications made by the user bother him/her not you). > > So today I finally got the real reasons told and I told you my opinion > (with > wich, as you can see from the responses, I'm not alone). > Your tone and behavior is outside the bounds of what I care to continue to engage and so this will be my last response to you. I said that I was speaking as a member of the Marketing Team. The MT had *no* involvement whatsoever in guiding the design of GNOME Shell. Jon and Jakob's UI Shell designs stand on their own as good user interface design--that is their goal, nothing else. The MT's job is to take the finished product and narrate that to the outside world. You cannot take anything else from what I wrote. > Just one last thing for now: Most of those who disagreed with me are > developers, most of them who agreed with me are users. For me that means > that > I'm right when I say I'm pointing out what I heard from users all around > the > places. No one subscribed to d-d-l would be representative of our end users. I could not even consider the occasional unhappy enthusiast on a forum representative. > Also note the discussion about the applets, there where several people > complaining. Next take into account that you a) have to register for this > ML > and b) be "brave" enough (lots of users simply don't ask/complain/comment > because they think "they don't are allowed/have the right"). > > Now if you take the complaining people from all places mentioned above and > all > other places I never visited (regional forums, LUGs etc pp), you can be > sure > that more than 1% is unhappy with your decision. > > Of course it's yours, but it must be possible that critics aren't > automatically interpreted as rants or attacks. I got the feeling some > around > here do that. > You are ranting and your tone is entirely accusatory. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi, On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:37:33PM +0100, Gendre Sebastien wrote: >> Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 10:54 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek a >> écrit : > [..] >> > GNOME3 + Compiz = Fail ... or: GNOME3 + Sawfish = Fail > [..] >> I agree with you Chris. The non-modularity of GnomeShell and the >> non-mind-open of her dev team is problematic. >> >> I tried to give my opinion about Gnome Shell on its mailing list and I >> was ignored. I tried the IRC chat and I was insulted (some people say >> that I'm contitioning, unable to think by myself). This is intolerable >> in a community project. > > Being ignored is not the same as being insulted. With being ignored, it > is unfortunate, but there can be multiple reasons why this happens. Just > as simple as holidays or overlooking an email. Though could even be that > you've asked something which was explained various times before. Let's be very clear about this. No one on the shell list is ignored. Every message is read and considered. However, it is unreasonable to expect that every thought, suggestion, flame will get a response or change the direction of the project. Not if we ever want to get anything done. A thoughtful response that doesn't come off as extremely curt or rude takes a considerable amount of time. We're all working pretty tirelessly to make something wonderful for ourselves, for you, and for the world. With any luck that will be evident in time. An open creative process is a serious challenge. Imagine trying to plan and prepare a meal in a commercial kitchen with a hundred self-described foodies hovering about you. Whether or not any of the advice and criticism is valid is almost beside the point - it is just not helpful in that form or forum. There is no sense getting all peeved that your advice was unheeded or that the frantic, sweat-tinged labor did not take a moment to address your concerns. Your challenge, if you really do want to be influential, is to find a place for yourself in the process. Learn how to become a valuable and trusted collaborator. To be sought out for consultation, to be trusted to work independently toward a shared goal, to take a personal stake in the outcome. Are you ready? Go grab an apron, wash your hands, tie your hippy hair back. We've got mouths to feed. Jon ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > Just one last thing for now: Most of those who disagreed with me are > developers, most of them who agreed with me are users. Somehow I suspect that non-developer users on desktop-devel-list do not represent a majority of GNOME users. Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Maciej Piechotka schreef op di 04-01-2011 om 20:43 [+0100]: > On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 20:37 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > > Let me add "convenient for frequent use" to my original phrasing and my > > point still holds. > I believe that compose key gives such option. > Say Compose+g+a can be configured to give alpha. Oh yes, it's very convenient for me, and also for others who know about it and explicitly enabled it in their keyboard configuration (hidden in a dozen other options behind 3 level dialog structure). My point was that there should be a more easily discoverable and user-friendly way, i.e. "pick from a visual list" versus "remember sequences hidden behind an invisible magic key". The character map applet provides exactly this, which is why I am arguing it is essential, especially for many non-English speakers. (FYI: Dutch requires some accented letters to be able to write correctly, but those characters are not on our keyboards since all computers have a generic American English keyboard.) — Wouter signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Christopher Roy Bratusek schreef op di 04-01-2011 om 11:04 [+0100]: > Well the resources? No, I don't think so. The decision to disallow > other WMs was made in very early stages of GNOME-Shell, where enough > resources were available to write it in a way so that it can work with > any WM. Gnome Shell is a (pluggable) part of the window manager, not something stacked on top of it. This means your point does not hold. — Wouter signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 20:37 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi schreef op di 04-01-2011 om 00:14 [+]: > > > Still being able to type > > > "weird" characters > > > > I count three ways of doing that: > > > > • Ctrl + Shift + U + . > > • Compose key. > > • Character Map > > Let me add "convenient for frequent use" to my original phrasing and my > point still holds. > > — Wouter I believe that compose key gives such option. Say Compose+g+a can be configured to give alpha. Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Emmanuele Bassi schreef op di 04-01-2011 om 00:14 [+]: > > Still being able to type > > "weird" characters > > I count three ways of doing that: > > • Ctrl + Shift + U + . > • Compose key. > • Character Map Let me add "convenient for frequent use" to my original phrasing and my point still holds. — Wouter signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:37:33PM +0100, Gendre Sebastien wrote: > Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 10:54 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek a > écrit : [..] > > GNOME3 + Compiz = Fail ... or: GNOME3 + Sawfish = Fail [..] > I agree with you Chris. The non-modularity of GnomeShell and the > non-mind-open of her dev team is problematic. > > I tried to give my opinion about Gnome Shell on its mailing list and I > was ignored. I tried the IRC chat and I was insulted (some people say > that I'm contitioning, unable to think by myself). This is intolerable > in a community project. Being ignored is not the same as being insulted. With being ignored, it is unfortunate, but there can be multiple reasons why this happens. Just as simple as holidays or overlooking an email. Though could even be that you've asked something which was explained various times before. Regarding being insulted: Please tell me your nickname and date & time of the chat in a private email so I can get a better understanding. > So, I have a message for the dev team of Gnome Shell: > You are not alone in this community. I think we should continue this on the gnome-shell mailing list. I have a total different viewpoint and I'm just following it from the sidelines; not a developer. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Blocker Report for week 01
From: Andre Klapper > Envelope-to: apinhe...@igalia.com > Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:27:19 +0100 > > Data taken from Bugzilla (bug reports with GNOME Target field set): > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&cf_gnome_target=3.0 > > I can send this on a weekly basis if it's considered helpful. > Feedback welcome. One question about these targets: "Migrate from PyGTK to PyGObject introspection-based bindings" "Port to GSettings" I had the feeling, probably wrong, that both objetives were "good to be", or "we would like that all the modules fulfill this", in summary something that "...could definitely help with our work in integration and consistency" (from here [1]). But now you are including them as a reason to be included on a blocker list. Could you confirm that? It those apps doesn't fulfil those GnomeGoals [2][3] will be blocked for GNOME 3? [1] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/ [2] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/PythonIntrospectionPorting [3] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/GSettingsMigration === API (apinhe...@igalia.com) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Blocker Report for week 01
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 19:10 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: > Evolution-Data-Server: Port to GSettings > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635379 Evolution and Evolution-Data-Server will still use GConf for GNOME 3.0. I'm working on it, but it's not a simple migration and I'm not gonna get it done and tested by April. Matthew Barnes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:25, Alan Cox wrote: > > It would be like releasing a new car and then telling the buyer that the > > tires that are included aren't good enough but that's okay because they > are > > free to go through the trouble of replacing them right after they take > > ownership. Modularity is not a feature; a good feature is a feature. > > You wouldn't be a very good car salesman then would you ? In fact people > loathe and hate the lock-ins wired into cars. Please do not be hyperbolic; we aren't locking anyone in to anything except, in this analogy, saying that putting a Hemi engine in a sub-compat is outside the scope of our design goals. > Plus of course the first > thing anyone does when they get into a car is umm > >Adjust the mirros >Adjust the seats >Adjust the music >Adjust the airconditioning >Adjust the satnav >Fit random personal objects (modularity) >... > That's personalization, not customization, and is completely within the scope of will be implemented in GNOME 3: themes, backgrounds, localization, a11y, favorite launch items, etc. And has been said before, that's just the beginning: by 3.2 we hope to have a well-defined extension API so that even more *personalization* is possible. "I'd like to use a random bluetooth hands free", "sorry our car is only > available with our official hands free option" > > "radio", "ours only" > > "satnav", "ours only" > > "engine management", "ours only, DRM protected and we sued the other guys" > > "I need snow tyres", "sorry we don't support snow tyres, you don't need > them." > > "I added go faster stripes" "You've voided the warranty" > > The car market is such a mind-numbingly bad example, in fact it's the very > market whose abuse led the european union to pass legislation to limit > the power of "no reverse engineering" clauses, that later proved such a > good situation for software ! > Fine, pick another analogy then. You got my point and now you're just going off on a rant about cars. > > If a user has to do a bunch of customization after installing to get > > a tolerable desktop experience, we have failed at design. > > If the user can't then customise it to get a nice desktop experience to > suit their needs after that you've also failed. That of course cuts both > ways - it can have so much stuff you can't configure it. > You appear to have missed my point: if it's not a nice desktop experience to begin with, it's too late. We are working on *that*, not asking the user to do it for us. > The distros gather hardware info with permission from plenty of users so > they ought to be able to answer "what percentage of our users can run > this stuff". "Anything newer than 5 years old." Though we started saying that last Spring so it's going to be 6 years old by the time we release this Spring--which is longer than I've kept any computer. > Not sure if they have enough data to do "what portion of our > users desktops can be seamlessly migrated - ie all the equivalents for > each applet exist and the settings can be mapped" > None, and that's a completely unrealistic expectation. We don't change the UI paradigm and expect things to behave as they always have; that would be by its very definition be the same paradigm. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >> It would be like releasing a new car and then telling the buyer that the >> tires that are included aren't good enough but that's okay because they are >> free to go through the trouble of replacing them right after they take >> ownership. Modularity is not a feature; a good feature is a feature. > You wouldn't be a very good car salesman then would you ? In fact people > loathe and hate the lock-ins wired into cars. Plus of course the first > thing anyone does when they get into a car is umm > > Adjust the mirros > Adjust the seats > Adjust the music > Adjust the airconditioning > Adjust the satnav > Fit random personal objects (modularity) > ... > > "I'd like to use a random bluetooth hands free", "sorry our car is only > available with our official hands free option" > > "radio", "ours only" > > "satnav", "ours only" > > "engine management", "ours only, DRM protected and we sued the other guys" > > "I need snow tyres", "sorry we don't support snow tyres, you don't need > them." To be fair, current GNOME situation is more like "I previously owned a large Ford van and I demand you make this piano fit into my new Lamborghini". -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Blocker Report for week 01
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: > Tomboy: Get rid of bonobo dependency: Applet DBUS migration GnomeGoal > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=620829 I've removed the GNOME target from this bug, since we disabled building the panel applet by default in the previous cycle. Porting to the D-Bus applet API is still welcome work, but doesn't block Tomboy in GNOME 3.0 and probably won't happen this cycle anyway. Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> It would be like releasing a new car and then telling the buyer that the > tires that are included aren't good enough but that's okay because they are > free to go through the trouble of replacing them right after they take > ownership. Modularity is not a feature; a good feature is a feature. You wouldn't be a very good car salesman then would you ? In fact people loathe and hate the lock-ins wired into cars. Plus of course the first thing anyone does when they get into a car is umm Adjust the mirros Adjust the seats Adjust the music Adjust the airconditioning Adjust the satnav Fit random personal objects (modularity) ... "I'd like to use a random bluetooth hands free", "sorry our car is only available with our official hands free option" "radio", "ours only" "satnav", "ours only" "engine management", "ours only, DRM protected and we sued the other guys" "I need snow tyres", "sorry we don't support snow tyres, you don't need them." "I added go faster stripes" "You've voided the warranty" The car market is such a mind-numbingly bad example, in fact it's the very market whose abuse led the european union to pass legislation to limit the power of "no reverse engineering" clauses, that later proved such a good situation for software ! > If a user has to do a bunch of customization after installing to get > a tolerable desktop experience, we have failed at design. If the user can't then customise it to get a nice desktop experience to suit their needs after that you've also failed. That of course cuts both ways - it can have so much stuff you can't configure it. The distros gather hardware info with permission from plenty of users so they ought to be able to answer "what percentage of our users can run this stuff". Not sure if they have enough data to do "what portion of our users desktops can be seamlessly migrated - ie all the equivalents for each applet exist and the settings can be mapped" ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
GNOME 3.0 Blocker Report for week 01
Data taken from Bugzilla (bug reports with GNOME Target field set): https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&cf_gnome_target=3.0 I can send this on a weekly basis if it's considered helpful. Feedback welcome. Total number: 133 bugs. accerciser: Migrate from PyGTK to PyGObject introspection-based bindings https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=626252 alacarte: Migrate from PyGTK to PyGObject introspection-based bindings https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=626220 brasero: drop status icon use https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631957 bug-buddy: Get rid of deprecated Bonobo https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=571874 dasher: Should use at-spi2 instead at-spi https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621951 dasher: Get rid of deprecated Bonobo https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=571750 ekiga: Shouldn't we move from hal to DeviceKit? https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585955 ekiga: Handle x-scheme-handler/ mime-types https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631396 ekiga: Does not compile with -DGSEAL_ENABLE https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621634 empathy: Don't use a status icon if the notification server supports persistence https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631944 empathy: Handle x-scheme-handler/ mime-types https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631397 empathy: Hide the user Individual from the contact list https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=637151 eog: Migrate from PyGTK to PyGObject introspection-based bindings https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=626224 epiphany: Port to the new gtk+ 3.0 GtkStyleContext https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636501 epiphany: Revamp download management UI https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=618443 epiphany: Port Epiphany to GtkApplication https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=637334 epiphany: Port EphyNetMonitor to GDBus https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624421 epiphany: gtk_button_pressed and gtk_button_released are deprecated https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628364 epiphany-extensions: auto-scroller: needs porting from deprecated GdkPixmap use https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631844 evince: remove NoDisplay=true https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=634245 Evolution: Port EMap widget to GTK+ 3 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=637081 Evolution: gtk3 compatibility tracker bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636677 Evolution: Problems with maildir migration https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=637395 Evolution: Don't use a status icon if the notification server supports persistence https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=633297 Evolution: don't use a status icon in calendar publishing plugin https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=633298 Evolution Webcal: handle combo box text api going away https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=632642 Evolution-Data-Server: Add introspection support https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=623017 Evolution-Data-Server: Port to GSettings https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635379 Evolution-Data-Server: Hang when moving folders from mbox account to the new default maildir account https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=637396 gdm: Does not compile with -DGSEAL_ENABLED https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612472 gdm: Get rid of deprecated Bonobo https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=571877 gdm: drop GtkObject use https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=630684 gdm: handle combo box text api going away https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=632603 gdm: Port gnome-settings-daemon code to GSettings https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=632080 gdm: Need to disable resize grip on gdm panel when building against gtk+ 3.0 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=632307 gdm: GNOME 3 greeter https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621847 gedit: gedit-bugreport.sh.in: Migrate from PyGTK to PyGObject introspection-based bindings https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=626250 gedit: Signals from gedit.Window are in wrong order https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612592 glade3: Drop GdkPixmap usage https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631828 glade3: Migrate from PyGTK to PyGObject introspection-based bindings https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=626225 glade3: [Tracker] Make glade working with gtk+-3.0 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636726 gnome-applets: Compile with -DGDK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED and -Werror https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627490 gnome-applets: drop GtkObject use https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=630680 gnome-applets: Port applets to libpanel-applet3 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619818 gnome-applets: Remove gnome-desktop dependency https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=623369 gnome-control-center: shell window placement is
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:00, Holger Berndt wrote: > On Di, 04.01.2011 18:47, Gendre Sebastien wrote: > > >Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 16:27 +0100, Holger Berndt a écrit : > >> As it puts your posts into context, you could have mentioned that > >> you're actually the maintainer of Sawfish. In all of your posts in > >> this > >> thread, I don't hear a concerned user, but an annoyed WM developer, > >> angry that the GNOME Shell doesn't work with his "baby". > >> > >> That also explains why your perception of the amount of users who want > >> to replace their WM differs from others. I'm absolutely sure that you, > >> as Sawfish maintainer, know a lot of users of Sawfish and other 3rd > >> party WMs. I doubt that you're representative for the general GNOME > >> user base, though. > >> > >> Non-IT users don't know what a WM is. They don't want to know, and if > >> they need to know what it is and how to replace it, something is > >> broken in the first place, and work should be spent on fixing > >> the problems instead of abstracting them. > > > >Please, if you have no good arguments, don't try to marginalize and make > >personal atttak on people with whom you are desagree. > > I'm not personally attacking people with whom I disagree. I just > described where the different perception of how many users want to > replace their WM might come from. Which is quite a central point when > discussing whether it's hugely important to be WM agnostic, or not. Let me add, with my Marketing Team hat on, that we would *never* emphasis the modularity of any part of GNOME as a feature to be marketed to end users. Even if you look back through our release notes from past releases all the way back to 2.0, we have never shown off the modularity of the desktop. It's not a narrative that makes sense from a marketing perspective. It would be like releasing a new car and then telling the buyer that the tires that are included aren't good enough but that's okay because they are free to go through the trouble of replacing them right after they take ownership. Modularity is not a feature; a good feature is a feature. If a user has to do a bunch of customization after installing to get a tolerable desktop experience, we have failed at design. We are finally addressing that and that is one of the many reasons that I love GNOME Shell. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 18:37 +0100, Gendre Sebastien wrote: > - Gnome Shell are no modular. It's need to separate the Shell from the > window manager. Each window have to be managed by the window manager > and > Shell menu and panels by the Shell. With actually Gnome Shell, the > non-modularity imposes the Shell with the Window manager and vice > versa. As far as I understand the gnome-shell **is** window manager. For example in overview mode it is shell which allows me to move windows from desktop to desktop etc. While I'm not necessary fun of the current situation I don't think it is possible and not due to implementation choice. Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi Gendre, On Di, 04.01.2011 18:47, Gendre Sebastien wrote: >Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 16:27 +0100, Holger Berndt a écrit : >> As it puts your posts into context, you could have mentioned that >> you're actually the maintainer of Sawfish. In all of your posts in >> this >> thread, I don't hear a concerned user, but an annoyed WM developer, >> angry that the GNOME Shell doesn't work with his "baby". >> >> That also explains why your perception of the amount of users who want >> to replace their WM differs from others. I'm absolutely sure that you, >> as Sawfish maintainer, know a lot of users of Sawfish and other 3rd >> party WMs. I doubt that you're representative for the general GNOME >> user base, though. >> >> Non-IT users don't know what a WM is. They don't want to know, and if >> they need to know what it is and how to replace it, something is >> broken in the first place, and work should be spent on fixing >> the problems instead of abstracting them. > >Please, if you have no good arguments, don't try to marginalize and make >personal atttak on people with whom you are desagree. I'm not personally attacking people with whom I disagree. I just described where the different perception of how many users want to replace their WM might come from. Which is quite a central point when discussing whether it's hugely important to be WM agnostic, or not. Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 16:27 +0100, Holger Berndt a écrit : > As it puts your posts into context, you could have mentioned that > you're actually the maintainer of Sawfish. In all of your posts in > this > thread, I don't hear a concerned user, but an annoyed WM developer, > angry that the GNOME Shell doesn't work with his "baby". > > That also explains why your perception of the amount of users who want > to replace their WM differs from others. I'm absolutely sure that you, > as Sawfish maintainer, know a lot of users of Sawfish and other 3rd > party WMs. I doubt that you're representative for the general GNOME > user base, though. > > Non-IT users don't know what a WM is. They don't want to know, and if > they need to know what it is and how to replace it, something is > broken in the first place, and work should be spent on fixing > the problems instead of abstracting them. Please, if you have no good arguments, don't try to marginalize and make personal atttak on people with whom you are desagree. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 10:54 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek a écrit : > Ever thought, that the attitude of the people above (especially Emanuelles > arrogant "we allow you to choose another DE, that's the freedom we leave to > you") might stop possible contributors from doing so? > > And: if critics are only allowed when providing patches, something isn't > right. Unless they don't accept that they are not infaillable, why should > they > accept patches, as it's their mind and their decision that's ultimate, not > the > contributors or (even worser) users? > > Emanuelle said GNOME3 won't be modular anymore, so why should anyone bother > providing patches, *before* they changed their mood? No one will, because > their statements clearly tell people "we won't accept patches in that > direction, as the decision we made is already done and ultimate, we don't > fail, period". > > So before doing anything we would first try to open their minds by writing > mails like we just did, but: they are not open-minded, so I fear we could > make > this discussion endless with no change in any regard. > > To bring this discussion to end from my side, my conclusion: > > Linus was absolutely right as he called them "control freaks", but with > GNOME3 > their freakyness is taken to another dimension, if you ask me. Since they > argue like what they do is ultimate, no one will waste his/her freetime to > contribute patches in a direction against those decisions. (Again: I'm *not* > talking about gnome-applets!) I thought we would be able to wake them up from > their trance, but we failed... lot's of users already left GNOME and > especially Compiz-Fans will, as soon as they recognize: > > GNOME3 + Compiz = Fail ... or: GNOME3 + Sawfish = Fail > > Why should someone who's hardware is capable of running Plasma (which runs > just fine without 3D accel and which is equal in 2D and 3D, except > animations), > use an incomplete fallback rather than something more appealing? Unlike GNOME- > Shell Plasms is not limited to KWin. Sooner or later people will recognize > that and KDE will get "lightyears" in front. We wanted to point that > missconcept out, but imagine this: someone would listen to a non-gods (^= non- > RT) voice. OMG. > > Chris I agree with you Chris. The non-modularity of GnomeShell and the non-mind-open of her dev team is problematic. I tried to give my opinion about Gnome Shell on its mailing list and I was ignored. I tried the IRC chat and I was insulted (some people say that I'm contitioning, unable to think by myself). This is intolerable in a community project. Gnome-Shell have some seriuus problems: - No final line defined. Where it go? When will it considered as sufficiently complete for the final release? What exactly waiting we at Gnome 3? We have the impression that the dev team progresses in the dark. - Gnome Shell are no modular. It's need to separate the Shell from the window manager. Each window have to be managed by the window manager and Shell menu and panels by the Shell. With actually Gnome Shell, the non-modularity imposes the Shell with the Window manager and vice versa. - The dev team of Gnome Shell are so closed. I think the last possibility that remains is the fork. Why don't make many Shell? It's too early for the Gnome Shell. I think it's better If we have a Gnome Shell based on Gnome Panels, but with somes new features and design comes from Gnome Shell, and a Gnome Shell Lab like the actually Gnome Shell, for test all concepts thath the dev team want. But the Shell have to be separate from the Window manager. With this solution all people be happy and have the choice, but with the actually solution only the dev team of Gnome Shell and many fans are happy. Other people are forced. So, I have a message for the dev team of Gnome Shell: You are not alone in this community. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Other window managers with GNOME-Shell [Was: My thoughts on fallback mode]
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Havoc Pennington wrote: > "other window managers with gnome-shell" doesn't even make sense > technically. the WM is entangled with the shell, which is the whole > point, because it lets you do more complex things and have smooth > graphics. I know that. The discussion that was talking place was about the fact that users cannot use other window managers than mutter and gnome-shell at the same time because of the way gnome-shell is implemented. I was merely putting the existing discussion on another thread :) > > what you could have instead could be: > > * have a well-defined interface to replace the entire shell, sort of > "EWMH plus more stuff." of course this is harder than writing a > regular WM since now you have the equivalent of the panel and the > compositor in there too. The "fallback mode" with gnome-panel and > metacity is essentially this. btw this is kind of back-to-the-future; > WMs such as WindowMaker and fvwm2 had their own "panel" etc. i.e. a > window manager used to be a whole desktop shell, as gnome-shell is, > instead of purely the window decorations. > > * allow extensions to the shell that change how the window management works > > Havoc > -- Sam Spilsbury ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Other window managers with GNOME-Shell [Was: My thoughts on fallback mode]
"other window managers with gnome-shell" doesn't even make sense technically. the WM is entangled with the shell, which is the whole point, because it lets you do more complex things and have smooth graphics. what you could have instead could be: * have a well-defined interface to replace the entire shell, sort of "EWMH plus more stuff." of course this is harder than writing a regular WM since now you have the equivalent of the panel and the compositor in there too. The "fallback mode" with gnome-panel and metacity is essentially this. btw this is kind of back-to-the-future; WMs such as WindowMaker and fvwm2 had their own "panel" etc. i.e. a window manager used to be a whole desktop shell, as gnome-shell is, instead of purely the window decorations. * allow extensions to the shell that change how the window management works Havoc ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Other window managers with GNOME-Shell [Was: My thoughts on fallback mode]
This probably should have been done a while ago, but here is a separate thread for discussing this. > Well, in this case I am a user. Believe me, it's not me who wants to use SF > with GNOME Shell. (if you want a prove I > can give some) > No, I know lots of users feeling like that, the outermost are compiz users, > but also openbox & co. To be exact I know > only 3 people using SF with GNOME > - I'm none of them. > But of course it's easier for you now. > Chris ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Sam Spilsbury ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Well, in this case I am a user. Believe me, it's not me who wants to use SF with GNOME Shell. (if you want a prove I can give some) No, I know lots of users feeling like that, the outermost are compiz users, but also openbox & co. To be exact I know only 3 people using SF with GNOME - I'm none of them. But of course it's easier for you now. Chris ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Di, 04.01.2011 12:13, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: >I'm also a maintainer As it puts your posts into context, you could have mentioned that you're actually the maintainer of Sawfish. In all of your posts in this thread, I don't hear a concerned user, but an annoyed WM developer, angry that the GNOME Shell doesn't work with his "baby". That also explains why your perception of the amount of users who want to replace their WM differs from others. I'm absolutely sure that you, as Sawfish maintainer, know a lot of users of Sawfish and other 3rd party WMs. I doubt that you're representative for the general GNOME user base, though. Non-IT users don't know what a WM is. They don't want to know, and if they need to know what it is and how to replace it, something is broken in the first place, and work should be spent on fixing the problems instead of abstracting them. Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 14:07 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > What I don't understand is why the decision was made that it is being > implemented as a Mutter (strange name for a WM if you speak german, btw) > plugin, rather than as a "normal" application which would allow to be used > with any WM. Nonsense. There are already too many roundtrips involved with the current X11 architecture, why would you want to add yet another application doing some more IPC, slowing things down during windows operations ? Xav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> Assume this: > - "Power-User" > - using Compiz/Sawfish/Whatever > - wants to use Compiz/Sawfish/Whatever with GNOME-Shell as he likes both > > What now? You said that you would like them to stay at GNOMEs, but how do you > want to achieve that? (that's a serious question!). By making GNOME 3 the best desktop out there, and by providing other customisation options for those who like to tinker. > Especially since other WMs in other setups than the "default" might beat > Mutter easily and therefore the latter won't be a suitable choice. > > Well GNOME2 did allow that, while GNOME3 doesn't. No, you can't change the WM in GNOME 3, but it will make up for that by being better than GNOME 2 in many, many ways: * beautiful visuals and animations * built-in messaging * refined, elegant interaction model * graphical window switching * visual simplicity and lack of clutter * overview search allows super fast keyboard-only app launching and switching, opening locations, etc * no horrible nested menus for application launching * snazzy tiled windows * effective use of hot-corners (muscle memory FTW!) * enhanced workspaces UI * notifications which are both subtle and persistent * compatible with touch screens and a range of form factors * simplified and easy to understand system settings * cool (still to be utilised) possibilities for customisation ... * and many really awesome enhancements as 3.x progresses So you can choose that, or you can choose to stick with GNOME 2, or you can even choose some other DE. I personally think you should choose GNOME 3, because I think it will be superior to everything else that's out there, and because I want both existing and new users to enjoy using GNOME. But it's your choice. I'm sorry if that's a tough choice for you, but I honestly think that this path is inevitable if GNOME is to have genuine mass appeal. Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi, Andre Klapper wrote: > Am Montag, den 03.01.2011, 21:00 + schrieb Sergey Udaltsov: >> Thanks again, I really hope the release team would consider your >> opinion seriously. > > to clarify: What exactly do you expect from the release team? For my part, I'd like what I said: a commitment that if panel applets are up to scratch for GNOME 3 by (deadline date X) that they're part of the release set. If the work gets done, it gets done. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Minimum system requirements for GNOME Shell
> lot. I've also seen lots of people running virtualized GNOME desktops as > VMs under Windows in production. It's used Linux on Linux as well. In particular if your desktop is a guest you can take it with you on your laptop then put it on a box with a bit more welly when not travelling. Alan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Minimum system requirements for GNOME Shell
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:33:12AM +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 11:56 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le samedi 25 décembre 2010 à 10:40 +, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : > > > > Well, none of the currently available virtualization solution does it > > > > correctly. Now what? > > > > > > incorrect: GL passthrough in QEMU allows to run the MeeGo netbook user > > > experience, which is based on Mutter and Clutter, exactly like > > > gnome-shell: > > > > > > http://wiki.meego.com/MeeGo_SDK_with_QEMU#Setup_QEMU-based_MeeGo_Emulator > > > > Given how GLX is designed (in short: giant root security hole), that > > basically means giving root access on the host to any user on the guest. > > and, as I said in the rest of my email, virtualization is only > interesting for testing/evaluation and development purposes. Which affects live CDs and images people use to evaluate GNOME 3. Not being able to preview GNOME 3 in a VM might possibly hinder adoption a lot. I've also seen lots of people running virtualized GNOME desktops as VMs under Windows in production. Cheers, -- Guido ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi! > Either way still one question remain: > > Assume this: > - "Power-User" > - using Compiz/Sawfish/Whatever > - wants to use Compiz/Sawfish/Whatever with GNOME-Shell as he likes both I think that's the wrong question. The right question would be: "Power-User wants to have feature X,Y and Z". I hope people don't care about window manager names but about getting their beloved features and getting their work done. If feature X,Y and Z can be implemented without causing problems with the default feature than I think patches will be happily accepted by the shell developers. Of course sometimes features will be rejected (as happend in GNOME 2.x a lot) because they don't fit at all with the design. Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> I don't see gnome-applets as part of GNOME 3. But it doesn't mean we > cannot ship gnome-applets 3.x. > > GNOME 3 is about gnome-shell. Gnome-applets will always be a fallback. A > fallback which includes gnome-applets would be nice. But it is a > still fallback. > > So the statement: gnome 3 is not going to include them is wrong. I > already mentioned I expect a gnome-applets 3.x during GNOME 3.2 > timeframe. However, officially it will stay as a fallback. > > Meaning: If you want to develop something for GNOME 3, it should be an > extension to gnome-shell, not an applet. This is an important point, and I totally agree. To users, GNOME 3 should be GNOME Shell. Correspondingly, GNOME panel will need to be communicated as the GNOME 2 (or fallback) interface. GNOME Shell will be the thing that is most different to users, and GNOME Shell + the default GNOME 3 wallpaper will be a big part of our visual identity, which will be crucial for marketing. Though there will be 3.x releases of gnome-panel and friends, we need to be very clear that they are not part of the GNOME 3 experience. Basically, we need to distinguish between GNOME 3 as a UI and GNOME 3.x as a release series. Which is what Olav was saying originally, of course. :) As an aside: I'd just like to say that I agree with what Emmanuelle, Johannes and Olav have been saying on this list in the past few days. There's been a lot of negative energy around here recently. Change is difficult. Change in the open is even more difficult. But let's not forget everything that we've achieved, and let's look forward to what *is* going to be a great release. Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 10:36 +0100, Johannes Schmid wrote: > Hi Christopher! > > > Besides... did modularity ever enslave a GNOME developer? Never. I expected > > more than a statement like that. > > This modularity prevents to create a solid user experience in various > ways because everything needs to be compatible with random components > that cannot even be tested properly. It also makes high-quality, cutting-edge design extremely difficult (if not impossible). Besides if the design doesn't Just Work, then we've failed anyway: 99% of users will never customise their panel, let alone change WM. Also, remember that GNOME Shell has a bunch of design requirements that weren't made of the GNOME 2 desktop: an expanded range of target hardware (netbooks, tablets, etc), embedded messaging, more nuanced and stylish visuals. You can't fulfill all of these new requirements *and* cater to all the old ones too. The game has changed, and switching WM or a UI for panel customisation doesn't fit into that new game. There will undoubtedly be GNOME 3 users who miss the ability to switch their window manager or rearrange their panels. I'm sure that nobody involved with GNOME 3 wants to alienate them. Let's be clear to those users: we want you to use GNOME 3, and we're sorry that you'll miss some of the things you've got used to in GNOME 2. But times have changed, and we want GNOME to be a competitive mass market product. There really wasn't much of a choice. Even if you do miss some things about GNOME 2, though, we still think that GNOME 3 has enough exciting new features to make it worth the switch. Besides, GNOME Shell actually has some pretty advanced features for those who want to tinker. Theming seems to be pretty easy, and Shell plugins can do exciting things. It's just that that side of things hasn't got going yet. Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 11:20 +, Sergey Udaltsov wrote: > > > Maybe because it's using Clutter, and no WM other than Mutter allows > > displaying windows as Clutter actors? The Shell isn't external to > the > > WM, it lives in the WM, and thus depends on its peculiarities. > Could that be standardized? standardized on *what*, precisely? GNOME Shell *is* Mutter; the fact that it's implemented as a plugin is the result of the fact that Mutter was/is also used by other platforms (Moblin, MeeGo Netbook). Mutter is an extensible, Clutter-based window manager; it can be extended using a specific plugin to provide a user shell on top of it - but the window management part (i.e. the boring part) is common. there's nothing to standardize. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> I cannot believe this topic keeps coming up again and again :-( > > "Linux is not about choice": > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html You know why this happen again and again? Because ppl want it to be about choice. Sergey AKA Capt. Obvious ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On 4 January 2011 10:59, Sergey Udaltsov wrote: >> This modularity prevents to create a solid user experience in various ways >> because everything needs to be compatible with random components that cannot >> even be tested properly. > > I cannot believe I am reading this on GNOME central mail list! [ snip ] I cannot believe this topic keeps coming up again and again :-( "Linux is not about choice": https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html Rui ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> Maybe because it's using Clutter, and no WM other than Mutter allows > displaying windows as Clutter actors? The Shell isn't external to the > WM, it lives in the WM, and thus depends on its peculiarities. Could that be standardized? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi! > From X11 POV gnome-shell is just an app. Why should it depend so > heavily on features of some particular wm? Perhaps, those features > could be published, standardized so other wms could follow? Just like > netwm... No, it's a window manager plugin (more specific a mutter plugin) so for the X11 world it is a window manager - not an application. And as a window manager it implements all the wm specs correctly. Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 11:11 +, Sergey Udaltsov a écrit : > From X11 POV gnome-shell is just an app. Why should it depend so > heavily on features of some particular wm? Maybe because it's using Clutter, and no WM other than Mutter allows displaying windows as Clutter actors? The Shell isn't external to the WM, it lives in the WM, and thus depends on its peculiarities. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> These standards are there to make sure GNOME *apps* are first-class > citizens in other DEs (& vice versa). It has little to do with being > able to play mix-and-match with core desktop components. >From X11 POV gnome-shell is just an app. Why should it depend so heavily on features of some particular wm? Perhaps, those features could be published, standardized so other wms could follow? Just like netwm... Sergey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Sergey Udaltsov wrote: >> This modularity prevents to create a solid user experience in various ways >> because everything needs to be compatible with random components that cannot >> even be tested properly. > I cannot believe I am reading this on GNOME central mail list! Is this the > same GNOME that helped to improve WM standards (to NETWM and beyond) so that > people could use different WMs? Is it the same GNOME that helped to > establish freedesktop.org with all those cross-DE standards? Are you > implicitly saying that GNOME does not believe in cross-DE standards anymore? > GNOME already effectively dropped cross-DE systray, right? Now, WM mobility > is gone. What's next, dare I ask? These standards are there to make sure GNOME *apps* are first-class citizens in other DEs (& vice versa). It has little to do with being able to play mix-and-match with core desktop components. -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> This modularity prevents to create a solid user experience in various ways because everything needs to be compatible with random components that cannot even be tested properly. I cannot believe I am reading this on GNOME central mail list! Is this the same GNOME that helped to improve WM standards (to NETWM and beyond) so that people could use different WMs? Is it the same GNOME that helped to establish freedesktop.org with all those cross-DE standards? Are you implicitly saying that GNOME does not believe in cross-DE standards anymore? GNOME already effectively dropped cross-DE systray, right? Now, WM mobility is gone. What's next, dare I ask? I feel somewhat uncomfortable to tell you that, but people invented standards exactly for that purpose - not to test everything with everything, but just to make sure things work together because they follow standards. And, if X does not work with Y - it is either because X does not follow standard S, or Y does not follow it - or there is some gap in S that can (and should) be fixed. That's the way things always worked in Unix world, that what makes unix great, what makes freedesktop.org important (perhaps even more important than GNOME, from some POV). One of the strongest selling points of Linux desktop was the freedom of choice. Not only "DE1 or DE2" but "component1 or component2". While GNOME2 provided reasonably consistent experience out of the box, it allowed people to change things as they wanted - and it was reasonably simple (no patching, thanks). For example, many users would just throw GNOME out of the window if that window could not be managed by their favorite tiling window manager. I realize that at this stage GNOME3 (3.0) is not going to be flexible in this aspect. Not enough resources and such. But perhaps GNOME could admit that was a mistake - and express the intension to fix it in 3.2/3.4/... Now that nearly everybody is agree that applets are useful and would be nice to have around, perhaps the position on the WM could be adjusted somehow as well? Sergey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:54:29AM +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > :facepalm: [..] > Well, 99%? Strange, the outermost people I know used something different > (AWN, > Compiz, Sawfish, OpenBox (yes, you read right), CairoDock, PCManFM, Thunar, > GNOME-Global-Menu, GnoMenu, Screenlets and much more) and since that won't > work anymore with GNOME3 as in GNOME2, they changed/will change their DE. [..] > Hostels? Internet Cafés? Universities? Now it makes sense, the ordinary home- > user wasn't taken into account. All those installations are highly restricted > to their special use-case. [..] > If you really want to tell me "no one needs those features" then it's better > to don't answer at all. With my moderator hat on: Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies and the code of conduct link I gave before. Please do not use any logical fallacies, it is a bad way to argue. Your answers will very likely result in a heated argument. Disagreeing is fine. A discussion is fine too. A heated argument (on GNOME servers) is not and will not be allowed. I can understand you care about your ideas. Please use that and focus on convincing others. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
> What about the freedom to choose? At the point where you disallow users to You can choose. The FSF freedoms are sufficient for that You can choose to run the old code You can choose to modify the old code You can choose to share modifications to the old code It's completely within your power to fork GNOME if you wish and to create a new alternative configurable desktop or to run a modified Gnome that includes the choices you want. It's in your power to share those mods, to work with others of like mind and to create a whole new desktop from it should you wish. Alan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:54:59AM +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > Ever thought, that the attitude of the people above (especially Emanuelles > arrogant "we allow you to choose another DE, that's the freedom we leave to > you") might stop possible contributors from doing so? He's a developer and he says what he works upon and what not. People are always free to hack on other things, as what has been stated multiple times. The focus for GNOME 3 is clear, if you want to do something else, feel free. I am saying this as a release-team and sysadmin member, so, really, feel free. That said, if you want to participate in an existing project, you'll have to follow why goals of the maintainer. They will sometimes have different goals. Arguing that developers such as Emmanuele should focus on your wishes can be done, but please keep in mind that you'll need to convince someone. E.g. annoying them or calling them arrogant is not helpful. Especially when their goal/intention is just different. -- Regards, Olav PS: http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct (everyone has the best intentions even when there are conflicting views) PS2: Your user agent is breaking threads, which makes it a bit more difficult to follow the discussion ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Christopher Roy Bratusek a écrit: > especially Emanuelles It would be a good start to spell Emmanuele's name correctly. Just my 0.1 cent. -- Dodji ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 10:54 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek a écrit : > Ever thought, that the attitude of the people above (especially Emanuelles > arrogant "we allow you to choose another DE, that's the freedom we leave to > you") might stop possible contributors from doing so? > > And: if critics are only allowed when providing patches, something isn't > right. Unless they don't accept that they are not infaillable, why should > they > accept patches, as it's their mind and their decision that's ultimate, not > the > contributors or (even worser) users? > > Emanuelle said GNOME3 won't be modular anymore, so why should anyone bother > providing patches, *before* they changed their mood? No one will, because > their statements clearly tell people "we won't accept patches in that > direction, as the decision we made is already done and ultimate, we don't > fail, period". That's not about patches. The decision that the Shell requires Mutter isn't something you can patch out, that's a design decision that affects the whole codebase and strongly impacts developer's efficiency and the project's stability. This decision is in the hands of people that define the general design of the GNOME desktop, who are the ones working the most on it. You can ask them to listen to your criticism, but you can't force them to drop this design, because that's not something random contributors could fix (Contrary to keeping panel and applets working in GNOME 3.) > So before doing anything we would first try to open their minds by writing > mails like we just did, but: they are not open-minded, so I fear we could > make > this discussion endless with no change in any regard. > > To bring this discussion to end from my side, my conclusion: > > Linus was absolutely right as he called them "control freaks", but with > GNOME3 > their freakyness is taken to another dimension, if you ask me. Since they > argue like what they do is ultimate, no one will waste his/her freetime to > contribute patches in a direction against those decisions. (Again: I'm *not* > talking about gnome-applets!) I thought we would be able to wake them up from > their trance, but we failed... lot's of users already left GNOME and > especially Compiz-Fans will, as soon as they recognize: > > GNOME3 + Compiz = Fail ... or: GNOME3 + Sawfish = Fail GNOME 3's Shell + Compiz = Fail so use GNOME 3's fallback mode + Compiz if you really like Compiz (or Sawfish). Nobody said gnome-panel was being removed. > Why should someone who's hardware is capable of running Plasma (which runs > just fine without 3D accel and which is equal in 2D and 3D, except > animations), > use an incomplete fallback rather than something more appealing? Unlike GNOME- > Shell Plasms is not limited to KWin. Sooner or later people will recognize > that and KDE will get "lightyears" in front. We wanted to point that > missconcept out, but imagine this: someone would listen to a non-gods (^= non- > RT) voice. OMG. The Shell requires 3D acceleration because it's at the core of its features - that's not just eye candy, that's really useful. It's almost like asking Compiz to provide a non-composited compatibility mode. Do you want the Shell to work without animations, i.e. an Exposé-like effect that wouldn't use compositing? That wouldn't be usable. Regards ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi Christopher! > > This modularity prevents to create a solid user experience in various > > ways because everything needs to be compatible with random components > > that cannot even be tested properly. > > :facepalm: Sorry...cannot follow you here. > Well, 99%? Strange, the outermost people I know used something different > (AWN, > Compiz, Sawfish, OpenBox (yes, you read right), CairoDock, PCManFM, Thunar, > GNOME-Global-Menu, GnoMenu, Screenlets and much more) and since that won't > work anymore with GNOME3 as in GNOME2, they changed/will change their DE. > > But I guess it's like with those statistics one saying Linux is at 5% other > statistic saying it's at 0,7%... Do you know any non-cs people? Well, I do and even a lot using GNOME (without knowing they are doing that or caring much about it). And yes, they do it on their private PCs. > > As mutter provides all the compositing already, the choice for compiz is > obsolete. > > No it's not. Other WMs provide extra functionality besides bling-bling. > Compiz > does tabbed-windowing, will Mutter do? Sawfish provides EdgeActions and > Viewports, will Mutter do? Other WMs provide Tiling, will Mutter do? Mutter supports tiling and EdgeActions are one of the core features of the shell. Have you ever used the shell (from git) at all? > Well, you still won't be able to choose another Window-Manager, if you want > to > use GNOME-Shell. No, because the shell is the window manager. You cannot choose another window manager with Unity either. Nor can you on Windows, nor on MacOS. Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi Christopher! > Besides... did modularity ever enslave a GNOME developer? Never. I expected > more than a statement like that. This modularity prevents to create a solid user experience in various ways because everything needs to be compatible with random components that cannot even be tested properly. And to be honest, 99% of the user-base has used gnome-panel + metacity/compiz through the whole GNOME 2.x life-cycle so it is save to assume that customization is not a big feature. Have a look at the installations used by mainstream users (at hostels, internet cafés, universities, non cs-students) and you will hardly find anybody not using metacity (ok, or compiz, hardly any effects on) + gnome-shell. As mutter provides all the compositing already, the choice for compiz is obsolete. Having said this, GNOME 3 is still quite modular, you could even write a gnome-panel as mutter plugin and you can run GNOME 3 components with Unity or whatever. It won't be called vanilla GNOME though. Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 11:52:28PM -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Christopher Roy Bratusek > wrote: > > > So to summarize: As long as users accept what you want them to, it's ok, > > else > > they might go jump in the lake... Not that other Desktops fullfil users > > wishes > > by 100% but much more than GNOME3 will do. > > > > > I believe Olav has stated that applets will be returning in 3.2. So why are > you so adamant that they show up in the 3.0? It was also stated that I > believe that if applets were ported to 3.0 before release time that it would > be considered. Note: I was hoping/expecting someone would port gnome-applets around GNOME 3.2 timeframe. No guarantee at all :) Developers welcome and so on (though prefer people focussing on the shell and related) People have the freedom to hack on gnome-applets. But from a 'marketing' standpoint, gnome-shell is the future. Hopefully this explanation is better understood. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > On Tuesday 04 January 2011 04:56:32 you wrote: >> On 01/03/11 19:33, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: >> > ... above you said GNOME is about freedom, so now you differ between >> > *this* and *that* freedom, that's not a very straight-line king to >> > argue, if you ask me. >> >> You're talking about your denied freedom for you as a user to enslave the >> GNOME developers, aren't you? > No, about that no user can see the reason why you are taking *their* freedom > (or in your words: you first took our freedom, period). GNOME was always > modular, so there's no point in demodularizing it, just because you want the > user to be forced to use something. Tell you what: I'm not thrilled about Shell either. I don't like some of the technology choices, I don't like some of the design concepts. But unless you're going to provide code patches, better designs and other resources, please stop complaining. It's like standing in the middle of the street and yelling "we should all be rich". Saying so won't make it happen. -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
