The GNOME developers removed it.(askubuntu.com)
askubuntu.com
The GNOME developers removed it.
http://askubuntu.com/a/286438
17 comments
GNOME is simplifying the desktop in the same way as removing the controls for braking, acceleration, and steering would simplify a car. Maybe Google can pull that off, but GNOME is catering to a made-up audience that doesn't exist. The only reason my parents couldn't use Linux when I installed it on their computer ten years ago was the inability to run Windows software. My younger siblings, however, managed just fine.
Frankly, I don't want my parents using Linux. Windows has tightened its security, and I no longer have to reformat their machine every six months to remove all the malware. I expect Linux participation in the desktop market to grow in the coming years, but only because this market will naturally shrink.
But from reading the mailing lists, the impression I have is that this isn't really the developers' main concern. They aren't removing features to create a more streamlined UX, but because they were horribly implemented, and without this control damage, they would have to reboot the codebase again with a Gnome 4.
But from reading the mailing lists, the impression I have is that this isn't really the developers' main concern. They aren't removing features to create a more streamlined UX, but because they were horribly implemented, and without this control damage, they would have to reboot the codebase again with a Gnome 4.
What _I_ don't get is how removal of type-ahead find, compact view and backspace to parent is making it simpler for users. I consider these the most basic features of any sane file manager. One more confirmation that switching to XFCE was the right thing to do.
I worry that you're still using Nautilus 3.6, which was definitely an interim version of Nautilus. If you check out 3.8, you'll see that type-ahead search is very much there, and better than ever — especially if you happen to have Tracker installed :)
The key difference is it's effectively a file search that is easy to back out of, so it only shows files that match your input. Personally, I find that makes it a lot easier to flip between a bunch of files with similar names, and it's making me really like search — which I had never really used before. It'll search recursively, but the files from the current folder are listed first, so it's harder to get lost among them than it sounds. (And I think there might be something on the roadmap to list files from the current folder and from elsewhere under a separate heading, but I could be mixing that up with something else).
The key difference is it's effectively a file search that is easy to back out of, so it only shows files that match your input. Personally, I find that makes it a lot easier to flip between a bunch of files with similar names, and it's making me really like search — which I had never really used before. It'll search recursively, but the files from the current folder are listed first, so it's harder to get lost among them than it sounds. (And I think there might be something on the roadmap to list files from the current folder and from elsewhere under a separate heading, but I could be mixing that up with something else).
"Personally i never understood the hatred towards change."
i assume if something changes for the worst you enjoy it? your phone can no longer auto dial. do you celebrate? your word processor no longer has spell check. do you pat the developers on the back?
its a bit of fud and tone deaf to say people have hatred for change because gnome3 sucks. this is the same fud that the gnome PR machine keeps trying to spin. no one is that stupid. it's a slap in the face of gnome2 users. it comes off as snobbish and condescending. like a crappy pop band that never makes it and blames the audience because there just not ready for the profound brilliance of there music. honestly the gnome project and its hobby lobby need to get over themselves and learn how to take criticism and learn from there mistakes if they ever want to put the project back on track.
people use gnome2 because it's a quality desktop with the efficiency needed for professional workstation users. that was the goal of the gnome project. they radically changed direction to chase the tablet market and fell flat on there face. if gnome on tables was a success i doubt that we would hear one word from them about the desktop anymore. the desktop was thrown out with the bath water. now that they have failed, the only users they have left are an angry group of desktop users who just want some improvements to gonme2. will the gnome project ever care enough to shift back to the desktop in a serious way and make a quality desktop for these users? i think the answer is no. as long as RedHat keeps paying the bills they will keep dancing. gnome3 has zero chance of taking the place of gnome2 and most organizations have shifted to a new desktop or are in the process of doing so. the gnome project is essentially dead, with no vision for the desktop market they still have and no penetration into the tablet market.
i assume if something changes for the worst you enjoy it? your phone can no longer auto dial. do you celebrate? your word processor no longer has spell check. do you pat the developers on the back?
its a bit of fud and tone deaf to say people have hatred for change because gnome3 sucks. this is the same fud that the gnome PR machine keeps trying to spin. no one is that stupid. it's a slap in the face of gnome2 users. it comes off as snobbish and condescending. like a crappy pop band that never makes it and blames the audience because there just not ready for the profound brilliance of there music. honestly the gnome project and its hobby lobby need to get over themselves and learn how to take criticism and learn from there mistakes if they ever want to put the project back on track.
people use gnome2 because it's a quality desktop with the efficiency needed for professional workstation users. that was the goal of the gnome project. they radically changed direction to chase the tablet market and fell flat on there face. if gnome on tables was a success i doubt that we would hear one word from them about the desktop anymore. the desktop was thrown out with the bath water. now that they have failed, the only users they have left are an angry group of desktop users who just want some improvements to gonme2. will the gnome project ever care enough to shift back to the desktop in a serious way and make a quality desktop for these users? i think the answer is no. as long as RedHat keeps paying the bills they will keep dancing. gnome3 has zero chance of taking the place of gnome2 and most organizations have shifted to a new desktop or are in the process of doing so. the gnome project is essentially dead, with no vision for the desktop market they still have and no penetration into the tablet market.
The truth is that I/we don't need a Linux interface my parents can operate. They can get some Apple thing or what ever. I need a workstation user interface with which I can do my work. GNOME 2 was this interface and GNOME 3 simply is not.
It was never about "hatred towards change". I don't think that people have a problem with change itself, as long as it leaves them better off, or where they already were, at worst. People do dislike change that leaves them worse off, however.
Basically every change imposed by the GNOME team has left many, many users much worse off than they were before. Furthermore, it's very doubtful that these changes have actually made any other users better off.
Taking away useful functionality doesn't make a system "simpler" to use. It just makes it impractical at best, but more often than not it makes it outright useless. That's what GNOME has become to a lot of us, and that's why we no longer bother with it.
We want to use software that makes us more efficient, rather than software that's "simple", yet forces us to put in much more effort to do basic and essential tasks.
Basically every change imposed by the GNOME team has left many, many users much worse off than they were before. Furthermore, it's very doubtful that these changes have actually made any other users better off.
Taking away useful functionality doesn't make a system "simpler" to use. It just makes it impractical at best, but more often than not it makes it outright useless. That's what GNOME has become to a lot of us, and that's why we no longer bother with it.
We want to use software that makes us more efficient, rather than software that's "simple", yet forces us to put in much more effort to do basic and essential tasks.
Maybe accustomed or maybe most of them simply switched. In any case Gnome will eventually get users they want.
I would love to see data on this, but my impression is not that it is growing its market share.
I would love to see data on this, but my impression is not that it is growing its market share.
> 2 years after the appearance of Gnome Shell
This is not a new development. They have been moving in this direction since more than a decade ago. Whoever didn't get it when 2.4 came out, probably likes the way Gnome is changing; or just wasn't a Gnome user back then.
This is not a new development. They have been moving in this direction since more than a decade ago. Whoever didn't get it when 2.4 came out, probably likes the way Gnome is changing; or just wasn't a Gnome user back then.
As a non-artist, I can never even hope to understand the complex design choices that the GNOME developers make. http://i.imgur.com/VXwiUdU.png
That appears to be the Unity desktop in Ubuntu. The full Gnome 3 experience is different and does not have the duplication from the global menu.
His point was to show the Nautilus toolbar
Just a few more features to discard and Nautilus will finally reach feature parity with dfm.
http://xfce.org/
It's never too late...
It's never too late...
I'm a fan of Ubuntu Unity and compiz, but everyone is going to yell at me. :(
I rather like Unity (12.04 LTS edition) on a 1080p monitor. I find it difficult on a smaller screen (e.g. 1280/768) so I use Ubuntustudio 13.04 which comes with XFCE4 in a rather nice implementation on my thinkpad.
I'm sitting out 13.04 Unity because of the LibreOffice menu highlighting and shortcut bugs.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/7...
I'm sitting out 13.04 Unity because of the LibreOffice menu highlighting and shortcut bugs.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/7...
I used to run GNOME on my workstations and XCFE on my first netbook (Asus Eee 701) before switching everything over to openbox... the latter has gotten me so used to right-click-for-everything that using GNOME or Windows requires a minute of concerted effort to remember how most of the rest of the world does things.
[edit: However, I still use Nautilus, and thanks to the article this thread discusses I'll likely now have to switch that out... oh well. I was switching from barebones Ubuntu to Debian anyway thanks to Canonical's growing nuttery.]
[edit: However, I still use Nautilus, and thanks to the article this thread discusses I'll likely now have to switch that out... oh well. I was switching from barebones Ubuntu to Debian anyway thanks to Canonical's growing nuttery.]
I think you mean http://mate-desktop.org/
No, you're both adding too much bloat:
http://dwm.suckless.org/
http://dwm.suckless.org/
Actually, I've been using Xmonad+Gnome for almost a year now and am super happy with it.
If you're willing to leave the false abstraction of stackable "windows" behind in the quest for maximum productivity, I suggest you give it a shot.
If you're willing to leave the false abstraction of stackable "windows" behind in the quest for maximum productivity, I suggest you give it a shot.
In all seriousness, I find it much nicer to use a lightweight WM and install/configure exactly what I need, than have something generic that I don't understand as well (i.e., "desktop environment").
Not exactly, given that Mate is not packaged with Debian.
But yes, if your distribution ships it, then it's a good choice.
But yes, if your distribution ships it, then it's a good choice.
Genuine question:
Why is the GNOME project still dominant, when they consistently make arbitrary changes and refuse to listen to their users?
Why is the GNOME project still dominant, when they consistently make arbitrary changes and refuse to listen to their users?
because contrary to the opinion of all the linux bloggers, most of the gnome team's design decisions are actually pretty good. they've been progressing towards a stripped down simple UI that fades into the background and lets you focus on your application and your work for a while now.
if gnome were a new project to make linux pretty, everybody would be talking about how awesome it is. it's only a problem because they're taking the old gnome that people were used to and changing it. and people are afraid of change.
if gnome were a new project to make linux pretty, everybody would be talking about how awesome it is. it's only a problem because they're taking the old gnome that people were used to and changing it. and people are afraid of change.
I don't dispute Gnome's decisions since I don't use it. What bothers me though is this idea that people complain only or mainly because they are afraid of change.
Sure, sometimes it's just this, but often times such removal actually break person's workflow or ability to (easily) do something. Just because it may be better for majority does not mean it can't actually suck for some.
I am sorry to pick your post. It just happened to be the one where I finally felt the need to respond to this view.
Sure, sometimes it's just this, but often times such removal actually break person's workflow or ability to (easily) do something. Just because it may be better for majority does not mean it can't actually suck for some.
I am sorry to pick your post. It just happened to be the one where I finally felt the need to respond to this view.
No, definitely. Some of the changes that gnome is making really do suck for some people. but those are only a few people, and you can't make a well-designed piece of software that caters to everybody's workflow. that just isn't possible.
and none of the critics ever say "this broke my workflow, but i can see how it's a niche feature", the complaint is always "the gnome devs removed this obscure feature that only me and three other people use, because they're fucking idiots and are trying to make the software useless". if you're complaining about a change that is better for the majority, it means you're being selfish. and nobody ever seems to acknowledge that. all the armchair critics of UI changes always insist that they are complaining on behalf of everybody.
and none of the critics ever say "this broke my workflow, but i can see how it's a niche feature", the complaint is always "the gnome devs removed this obscure feature that only me and three other people use, because they're fucking idiots and are trying to make the software useless". if you're complaining about a change that is better for the majority, it means you're being selfish. and nobody ever seems to acknowledge that. all the armchair critics of UI changes always insist that they are complaining on behalf of everybody.
Why was Microsoft dominant from Windows ME to the release of Win7?
Why: It is hard to break a dominant position when they enjoy 2 order of magnitude more corporate support than their closest rivals.
Why: It is hard to break a dominant position when they enjoy 2 order of magnitude more corporate support than their closest rivals.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying every operating system Microsoft released after Win98SE and before Windows 7 was on the same level as ME? Have you forgotten about 2000 and XP?
Security wise and feature wise, they were. Stability got better, but even KDE2 was better at that point in time. Same goes for IE6 vs. Netscape Navigator/Mozilla Suite. Once they got to the top and locked the corporate lock, it was over. It took years or awesomeness until Firefox got big
I'm sorry, I'm not at all sure how to respond to this comment. It aligns not at all with the world I experienced between 2000 and 2009. From my viewpoint, each non-ME desktop/workstation iteration of Windows during that period -- 2000, XP, and Vista and their service packs -- provided significant advancement in security and features, even if in Vista's case, the total package was arguably undesirable.
The comparison to what has happened with GNOME seems particularly off-base, since Microsoft was not actively seeking to destroy existing workflows and pitch anyone -- power user or not -- overboard. On the contrary, their fanatical devotion to backward compatibility largely remained and paid great dividends, as it has for ~30 years.
I say this not as someone who has any need to defend Microsoft, by the way. My livelihood has never substantially depended on anything Microsoft-related, and my own first choice of productivity OS was Linux by the late 90s, and OS X by 2006.
Your apparent worldview simply cannot be reconciled with my own experiences. It's as if you'd said what a lovely shade of puce the clear blue sky was.
The comparison to what has happened with GNOME seems particularly off-base, since Microsoft was not actively seeking to destroy existing workflows and pitch anyone -- power user or not -- overboard. On the contrary, their fanatical devotion to backward compatibility largely remained and paid great dividends, as it has for ~30 years.
I say this not as someone who has any need to defend Microsoft, by the way. My livelihood has never substantially depended on anything Microsoft-related, and my own first choice of productivity OS was Linux by the late 90s, and OS X by 2006.
Your apparent worldview simply cannot be reconciled with my own experiences. It's as if you'd said what a lovely shade of puce the clear blue sky was.
Well, I don't think that's completely true.
I like the majority of the changes they've made in recent years. I think Gnome Shell is the best desktop around. It's not perfect, and the GNOME people do make the occasional UI blunder, but I'm not sure what else you're expecting. It's basically impossible to have a widely used project like this move forward because every change brings loud angry people who were totally using that.
I think the reason why GNOME is still dominant is because they're willing to ignore their users and make hard choices, not in spite of it.
I like the majority of the changes they've made in recent years. I think Gnome Shell is the best desktop around. It's not perfect, and the GNOME people do make the occasional UI blunder, but I'm not sure what else you're expecting. It's basically impossible to have a widely used project like this move forward because every change brings loud angry people who were totally using that.
I think the reason why GNOME is still dominant is because they're willing to ignore their users and make hard choices, not in spite of it.
You can always go KDE. In file management however, Dolphin is still an awkward kid compared to Konqueror, but hey, it's still there.
Dolphin is probably the best file manager out there. The grouped view and meta data sorting is something that was really missing in the old Konqueror (and every other FM on Linux). The new (4.8+) display engine speed, agility and animations are also quite amazing. Of course, as I developer, I enjoyed more than once Konqueror ability to open everything inline (from remote servers), but this is not missing from Dolphin. You can still use KIO, tabs and (limited) splits. The interface is overall better. Not being able to open files inline is not very relevant (Okular is there for that).
> Dolphin is still an awkward kid compared to Konqueror
Are you kidding? Dolphin is probably the best graphical file manager in existence. It's streets ahead of anything on Linux, OS X or Windows.
The only thing I miss on OS X is actually Dolphin.
Are you kidding? Dolphin is probably the best graphical file manager in existence. It's streets ahead of anything on Linux, OS X or Windows.
The only thing I miss on OS X is actually Dolphin.
>It's streets ahead of anything on Linux, OS X or Windows.
I doubt that. If you are running Ubuntu, try running "sudo apt-get install dolphin && dolphin"
I doubt that. If you are running Ubuntu, try running "sudo apt-get install dolphin && dolphin"
Well, it has no menu and I have trouble typing KIO urls into it. Maybe I'm old school?
1. Every kde application has a menu and if it's hidden you can show it with ctrl-m (alright, not the most discoverable shortcut, but it is there)
2. Press the "control" button on the toolbar for a menu when hidden.
3. You're right about KIO urls.
Dolphin is also very fast. Even if you have enabled thumbnails for files and open a folder containing thousands of images it shows all files instantly and loads up the thumbnails in the background. I can't remember Nautilus ever doing it like that, though in fairness I stopped using Gnome when 2.2 took away the "launch terminal" option from the desktop's context menu.
2. Press the "control" button on the toolbar for a menu when hidden.
3. You're right about KIO urls.
Dolphin is also very fast. Even if you have enabled thumbnails for files and open a folder containing thousands of images it shows all files instantly and loads up the thumbnails in the background. I can't remember Nautilus ever doing it like that, though in fairness I stopped using Gnome when 2.2 took away the "launch terminal" option from the desktop's context menu.
In file management however, Dolphin is still an awkward kid compared to Konqueror, but hey, it's still there.
Or use Trinity's KDE3.5 and live the full Konqueror experience.
Or use Trinity's KDE3.5 and live the full Konqueror experience.
As Nautilus has been horribly slow for a long time, I switched to PCManFM, the file manager of LXDE. It integrates well with GNOME, and is pretty much full-featured. There's also a status bar ;-) The only weird thing is that in the "detailed list view", the sort order cannot be changed by clicking the column headers.
Thanks for the pointer, I just switch to PCManFM. Anyway, using the version in Ubuntu 12.10 can sort by clicking on the column headers.
Also, as someone who does not use a full DE, I appreciate the fact that the defualt is not to start managed the desktop when you start PCManFM, as opposed to Nautilus which defaults to managing the desktop when you open it. I still don't get why managing the desktop is always the same program as the file explorer, but Windows does the same thing, so their might be some deeper reason than 'becuase nautilus is doing it'
Also, as someone who does not use a full DE, I appreciate the fact that the defualt is not to start managed the desktop when you start PCManFM, as opposed to Nautilus which defaults to managing the desktop when you open it. I still don't get why managing the desktop is always the same program as the file explorer, but Windows does the same thing, so their might be some deeper reason than 'becuase nautilus is doing it'
That's odd, I'm on a netbook running Lubuntu right now and I can do that. Have you tried filing a bug?
It seems to be a known bug in PCManFM 1.1.0. Ubuntu 12.10 ships with version 1.0.1, which is unaffected.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3583229&...
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3583229&...
What about 13.04, which is what I'm running?
I thought this was interesting and very similar to the situation that's happening here.
http://witchofbontemps.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/an-artist-ha...
http://witchofbontemps.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/an-artist-ha...
I'd love to see what percentage of linux desktop users actually use gnome anymore. It would be especially interesting to see a graph of how that has changed over time.
My intuition is that they went from almost total dominance a few years ago to total irrelevance now (< 2%).
My intuition is that they went from almost total dominance a few years ago to total irrelevance now (< 2%).
Yep, let's find out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5730142
<2% is a little rich. GNOME (not GNOME shell) is still the default in: Ubuntu (although admittedly less as time goes on), Debian, Fedora, Mint. All very big distros.
If you mean GNOME Shell, I still find <2% hard to believe, as its still the default on Debian and Fedora.
If you mean GNOME Shell, I still find <2% hard to believe, as its still the default on Debian and Fedora.
If you are using Ubuntu, here is how to install the Nemo file manager, which is from Linux Mint and based off of Gnome 3.4 before things were removed: http://www.webupd8.org/2012/12/how-to-install-nemo-file-mana...
I've been using standard Ubuntu as my sole OS for over 6 years now. I'm most likely switching to Linux Mint or Xubuntu when I get a chance.
I've been using standard Ubuntu as my sole OS for over 6 years now. I'm most likely switching to Linux Mint or Xubuntu when I get a chance.
In the past I was a rather hardcore kde user, but I've been using gnome shell for almost two years and I actually like it. Initially I used all sorts of extensions to make it behave more like a traditional desktop, but over time I grew fond of the defaults.
And in fairness, they did add something else http://i.stack.imgur.com/NiggU.png (last comment in the parent link).
And in fairness, they did add something else http://i.stack.imgur.com/NiggU.png (last comment in the parent link).
I upgraded my 12.10 Gnome REMIX to 13.04 Ubuntu Gnome when it prompted me during my regular software updates, it f*cked up everything on my system. Figured there would be changes, didn't know it would be this bad.
I never see anybody complaining about removal of features from epiphany (the gnome web browser). That's probably because everybody knows it's intended to be a simple, featureless browser for those who don't need something more powerful. If you need features, you install Chrome or Firefox, and all the other core apps are no different. If gnome-terminal isn't enough for you, install terminator. If nautilus isn't enough, install one of the others mentioned here. If the shell doesn't do something you need it to do, find or write an extension. I actually think the gnome way of doing things is perfect.
I can see where you're coming from and I agree to a certain point. However, I think the file manager is such an important tool; oversimplifying it and making it hard to use is not a good idea. I loved Gnome 2.6; it is probably my favorite desktop environment. It felt like a great balance of simplicity and features that make my life easier. So I find that taking that away bit by bit isn't working for me. I don't really want to have two of every app because Gnome's default is too awkward or lacks some pretty basic features.
Does anyone actually use Epiphany these days, though? I can see people not complaining about changes to it if it isn't really being used by anyone at all.
This has become a joke, luckily we have xfce.
I don't use a file manager, as the command line does what I need without adding a bunch of stuff I don't need nor want.
I feel sorry for the Gnome guys - they get crucified if they do or don't advance the platform, yet look across and see other fruit flavoured platforms pull worse on their user base yet their fan base not only approves of it, but they somehow justify in the most Stockholm syndrome walled garden kind of way.
I think users complained quite a lot for tiny changes in OSX such as inversion-of-scrolling-gesture, new expose behaviour, mission control, and plenty more.
But I don't remember apple removing many features from the finder or changing the menu bar since OSX was launched, so I think your simile is misaimed.
But I don't remember apple removing many features from the finder or changing the menu bar since OSX was launched, so I think your simile is misaimed.
"see other fruit flavoured platforms pull worse on their user base"
No vague assertions, please be more specific
"yet their fan base not only approves of it, but they somehow justify"
Coincidentally their "fan base" is composed of several people with design and user experience knowledge (in various degrees) so I believe their acceptance of things has a basis. (And it doesn't mean they accept everything)
Edit: as an example quoted by the other commenter, inversion of scrolling direction was a big change. But it is configurable, so you can always go back
The natural scrolling makes sense if you're using a trackpad, but for a scroll wheel it's awful
No vague assertions, please be more specific
"yet their fan base not only approves of it, but they somehow justify"
Coincidentally their "fan base" is composed of several people with design and user experience knowledge (in various degrees) so I believe their acceptance of things has a basis. (And it doesn't mean they accept everything)
Edit: as an example quoted by the other commenter, inversion of scrolling direction was a big change. But it is configurable, so you can always go back
The natural scrolling makes sense if you're using a trackpad, but for a scroll wheel it's awful
I've said this before here, but Apple have really concentrated on the laptop experience at the expense of the desktop experience. Which is understandable if you look at their sales figures. I was using a Mac Mini when I first upgraded to Mountain Lion, and really wasn't a big fan. Then I got a Macbook Air, and all of a sudden all of the modifications made sense. Things like the fact that they have optimised the OS for SSDs - which you find in laptops, not desktops. But that optimisation makes hard-drive based Macs much much slower than they were before. Or the fullscreen interface which works really well when you can do a three finger swipe to swap between screens, but not so well if you have a mouse.
Yes, agree 100%. Especially with the SSD optimizations (in ML it seems less pronounced, still)
Yes, the 3-finger swipe can be only done if you have an Apple trackpad, either the built-in one or you the separate one (I have one of these and it's nice, having come from a trackball)
Not sure if you can do this with the magic mouse (maybe there's a different way)
Yes, the 3-finger swipe can be only done if you have an Apple trackpad, either the built-in one or you the separate one (I have one of these and it's nice, having come from a trackball)
Not sure if you can do this with the magic mouse (maybe there's a different way)
>> I feel sorry for the Gnome guys - they get crucified if they do or don't advance the platform
I don't think this is true. They get crucified because they're trying to create a desktop experience for a market that doesn't exist.
Their GNOME 2 user base were all workstation users who were using GNOME 2 in their day to day lives get get work done. Instead of making GNOME 2 better (under the hood) the GNOME developers decided to jump onto the tablet UI bandwagon and drastically change the UI. However, their user base simply didn't need this, they just wanted a more stable desktop top rather than a different one.
In my opinion, the crucial mistake the GNOME developers made was forcing this new UI experience through peoples throats by chucking out everything they accomplished with GNOME 2. GNOME 3 should have been a separate project under a different name. If it really was that much better than GNOME 2 then at least people had a choice to switch. But now we can't and everyone is scrambling to find a GNOME 2 replacement..
I don't think this is true. They get crucified because they're trying to create a desktop experience for a market that doesn't exist.
Their GNOME 2 user base were all workstation users who were using GNOME 2 in their day to day lives get get work done. Instead of making GNOME 2 better (under the hood) the GNOME developers decided to jump onto the tablet UI bandwagon and drastically change the UI. However, their user base simply didn't need this, they just wanted a more stable desktop top rather than a different one.
In my opinion, the crucial mistake the GNOME developers made was forcing this new UI experience through peoples throats by chucking out everything they accomplished with GNOME 2. GNOME 3 should have been a separate project under a different name. If it really was that much better than GNOME 2 then at least people had a choice to switch. But now we can't and everyone is scrambling to find a GNOME 2 replacement..
I was astonished that the only way to choose a solid color for the OSX desktop background was to use a transparent PNG as the wallpaper image. If the GNOME team is copying Apple, they're barking up the wrong tree, and doing a poor job of it.
You can select a solid color in OS X as the background.
http://i.imgur.com/oYp2j5n.png
There was no "Custom Color" button in Snow Leopard, the first (and last) version of OS X I ran.
[deleted]
Good thing is you have alternatives from MATE to KDE, Xfce, E17, etc. etc. It's not like you're forced to use Nautilus either.
Personally i never understood the hatred towards change. In the beginning of Gnome 3 it was really extreme and now it's slowly getting better (with the complaints) because people become accustomed to it. It's GOOD that Gnome tries to make it simple, because we all wish for a Linux computer our parents could use. That's just not going to happen with the options-and-complex-information everywhere approach.
After all Gnome Shell isn't that bad and i'm sure a guy posting on HN who uses Linux on his Desktop has the skills to check his available diskspace without the status bar ;)