If you think that microsoft are going to make you life easier, then you've been ignoring what MS has been doing for a few years now. The Office 2007 'ribbon', and whats happening to windows 8 (and now there is talk of 'metroising' office now as well.......)

Wow, nobody told you go go install XFce/Lxde/one of the *box desktops? What a shame. That is what I was telling people when they complained about early KDE 4.X versions.

Car manufacturers have a bit more competition than desktop enviroments. If you dont like the new chevy 'snot' you can always go buy a ford 'booger' or toyota 'goober', or a mitsubishi 'nose goblin'.

Gnome seems to feel that the 'customer' has so few choices that they will take what they are given, and if you dont like it.....you just arent trying hard enough. Same with canonical/ubuntu/unity, or even KDE 4.X (vs KDE 3.X).

Sure, there is also talk of 'progress', but if the person behind the mouse, keyboard and monitor doesnt feel that the new version is as easy to use, or as productive, then its a failure. At least as far as that person goes.

BTW, I do have to point out that its interesting that gnome 3, unity and windows 8 are all moving towards same 'touchscreen'/mobile device style interface. Its a mistake IMO, but I'm not running a corporation (canoncail/microsoft), or an open source desktop enviroment (gnome).

2 members found this post helpful.

I have been puzzled by all the trends you mention. Although, we all know MS. We know Apple. We know that KDE always wanted to be more modern or sophisticated, whatever that really means. But the Gnome move shocked me. I loved Gnome for being clean, usable and robust, not minding that some considered it less impressive (again whatever that means). I hope Gnome's loss of identity is temporary.

Meantime I moved to Lubuntu. I like it. It reminds me earlier days and how Gnome and Ubuntu spoiled me :-) It is quick. Maybe these folks will seize the opportunity and define LXDE as not just a system for low-end machines but also a system that emphasizes reason, simplicity and stability over fashion, complexity and distraction.

Yesterday I installed all the DEs that I could on my system and gave each one a go in all the options that are available. Gnome 3's fallback mode is virtually Gnome 2.x by its look and feel. I think as long as Gnome has the fallback option people like me can use G-S and others who don't like G-S can use Gnome3 looking and feeling like Gnome 2.x

I must admit KDE (in Sid/Experimental) looks good and is quite usable but I prefer Gnomes applications. Out of all of them I like the simplicity of Flux/Openbox but to me they are not as user friendly as Gnome.

Actually, when KDE4 came out, I had spent many months customizing fluxbox to work with KDE applications, especially Konqueror. It was a beautiful desktop, and I was just about to release it on my own homemade live CD. It's never been quite as good with KDE4. The biggest problem was the loss of Kpager, replaced with plasmoidviewer. Also the fact that Konqueror no longer mounts removable media.

While I agree that GNOME 3 is definitely *much* more of a massive change over GNOME 2 than KDE 4 is over KDE 3, what I don't get is why so many Linux power users seem to bash progress. Sure, it may be almost a complete rewrite of GNOME, but what makes that different from the change that was Android 3.x over Android 2.x? Or how about the massive blunder that was Mac OS X Lion (i.e. "iPadification") over Snow Leopard or even Leopard (with its addition of just about as many new features to OS X that Vista added to Windows) over Tiger? It seems almost all of the Linux power users don't care nearly at all about what the average user wants. Which is why Linux will never gain more than 2 percent market share unless it accepts innovation such as from GNOME 3 or other modernized desktops.

I don't know anything about android or mac os, but I've seen the exact same argument made against Gnome 3, as in Gnome 3 being an example of how Linux doesn't care about what average users want. The average user, it seems, is an elusive creature.

I'm a KDE user now (both 3 and 4), but when a technophobic friend wanted to start using Linux, I set her up with Gnome 2. It was impressive and familiar at the same time. It was the perfect starter desktop. I don't think we've got anything to take its place. I've already spent more time trying to figure out Gnome 3 than I spent learning the command line. and I'm not getting past the ability to open applications. For all practical purposes my Gnome 3 experience might as well be fluxbox, except I can configure fluxbox. Apparently, it's just too easy for me to be able to wrap my head around.

It's been three years now, and KDE 3 still works better for me than KDE4. The larger question is: can we trust developers not to break a perfectly usable paradigm just so that they can keep developing? It's not the Gnome 3 desktop that I object to, it's the trashing of an established paradigm. If the developers have an idea for a better Desktop, they should go create a better Desktop, call it something else, and let the millions of Gnome users decide for themselves whether they want to jump ship.

Sorry, but where is the progress here? The most rants about Gnome 3 come from people that were using Gnome 2 before, just because Gnome 3 totally destroyed their workflow. I wouldn't call that progress.
My opinion:
1. Although I abandoned it some time ago for different other solutions, Gnome 2 was (and is in the Debian systems I maintain for some friends) a good environment the way it is. It is easy to get the concepts for new users (I have seen that with those mentioned friends) and it is powerful if you get more used to it. There was absolutely no need to change the way it works. If the developers wanted to make something different, OK, then they should make something different, but really different, which means: Don't name it Gnome, don't abandon a perfectly working solution for it.
2. I would think that many enterprise workstations (or simple office computers) that run with Linux will most likely have either Red Hat, Suse or Debian installed. Debian and Red Hat come with Gnome 2 by default for several years now. How will a switch to Gnome 3 with a totally different workflow/way of organization affect the future decisions which software to use? I doubt that this will doing any good thing to Gnome/ the distros that use Gnome 2.
3. What the hell are the developers thinking about the devices there DE is used on? AFAIK, the trend goes to bigger sized monitors on desktop systems. I am using a 22" monitor currently and am thinking about getting a bigger one (and use the old as second monitor). Many people I know have hooked up their computers to their 40" full-HD TVs. Why should anyone with such a setup (or even a simple 19" CRT) should want a DE that is optimized for small screens and mobile devices? This doesn't make sense at all. Why some really insane decisions, like taking away the options for customizing your system? Or better, I read an article about programming apps for the new Windows interface Metro, that aims to the same direction. Guess what? Metro apps lack support for drag&drop and a clipboard. Why?

My conclusion: The developers of the fancy new desktop environments (should we still call them Desktop Environment? They don't seem to be such) don't care at all, neither for power users nor for the so called average user, they just care for their design, regardless if it is good or not.
They don't care about usability. They don't care for a real definition of progress. Progress is not making something that looks new, progress is to make it better (which in a work environment should be: Make work faster/easier to achieve, not better looking).

At least some people seem to recognize that, just have a look how many people are looking for an alternative to Unity and Gnome Shell. Future will show how many users will be left for Gnome Shell/Unity, maybe it will be someday that KDE and XFCE are the number ones in DEs on desktop computers, not Gnome and KDE.

Rant over.

Thought I'd interject my $0.02's worth here. The GNOME (and Unity) developers develop to scratch an itch. If that itch is to make a more tablet/phone-friendly interface at the expense of the traditional desktop interface, so be it. Am I paying them to develop a DE to my liking? No, I'm not. Do I want to use such an interface on my desktop or netbook PCs? No, I do not. Are they actually making progress? Well, I suppose it's debatable. They're moving, and they're not regressing (returning to the old ways of doing things). Perhaps that could be defined as progress.

I stopped recommending Linux to my friends after KDE4. Since we all seem to think we know what everyday users want, I'm going to want to say that I don't think that everyday users want to be subject to major upheaval at the whim of developers.

I don't understand Gnome 3, and so I don't want to criticize it, and I don't think that I need to. I'm sure that it's a smart interface, but the quality of Gnome 3 isn't really the issue; the issue is the impending loss of a perfectly usable interface whether the millions who depend on it like it or not. Developers should be free to explore new directions, and users should be free to choose what works for them. The "P" in GPL stands for all of us.

The answer is pretty simple. A standard should be established for the sake of continuity. A new paradigm should require a new project. Make whatever crazy interface you like, but don't call it Gnome. If you need to take all of Gnome's millions of users hostage in order to make a change, you need to find another way. That should be a tradition, and until it is, I can't recommend Linux to my friends anymore.

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am a human being. Apparently, you've never met one of us before. I like change fine what I get to choose it. When it's chosen for me, it pisses me off.

I disagree with this, I think it does look like it, but it still lacks the customization that gnome 2.x offered, there for lacks in feel.

Can't comment on android as i never used 2.x. As for the Os x thing, mac users generally love there macs and although not always, still very often can't see past there noses to evaluate any negatives in there precious Os x. Slightly contradicting what i just said, but i remember looking at a review of lion from a mac user where they were complaining that Os x is trying to be to much like Windows. I'm all for innovation, and i think it's great gnome took the leap to go gtk3. I'm personally a kde user and not gnome, and wasn't in the linux game a few years back to experience the kde 3.5 to 4 nightmares i've read about. I like to be able to customize my de to an extent which is the entire reason i pretty much gave my mac to my girlfriend; I hate using Os x, and put gnome 3 in that same category. It's not a bad category, just one that doesn't appeal to me, and i don't think it will appeal to many people in the unixlike system community. I personally think gnome 3 looks fantastic, but i want to change things more then it allows. That's a personal issue though. My biggist issue with Gnome 3 is that i can't see where it's goals are. When kde swiched to Qt 4 it was obvious it's goals were still pointing in a similar direction; but i just can't see that with gnome3. It's more like a brand new de, then a rewrite.

Are you aware of how incredibly configurable fluxbox is? That menu can be organized exactly as you like by editing a text file, and so can the keyboard shortcuts. Only the most fundamental understanding of the command line is needed. If you can understand this command

firefox http://www.google.com

You can program fluxbox to open any website with a keyboard shortcut. Now, you can actually do this with KDE, GNOME 2, XFCE, and probably Gnome 3, but editing a text file is actually much easier, and it's easier to import your customizations to other distros and computers. You can even create a keybinding or menu item with the command like:

kwrite ~/.fluxbox/menu

and

gedit ~/.fluxbox/keys

to give you instant access to edit your text files.

With Gnome turning itno God knows what, and KDE 5 waiting in the wings, I'm wondering why I ever left fluxbox behind.

Can anyone tell me what parts of Linux are the same today as they were when Linus started Linux? Seriously the Linux we know today has very little, if anything, the same as Linux was years ago. Gnome is nothing like it was back when it started, Gnome 1 was basic, Gnome 2 was the introduction of the "human interface guidelines", Gnome 3 is yet another change.

How did you all cope when tabbed browsing was introduced? It was a new way of doing things yet we all coped, Gnome 3 is another way of doing things. If you don't like it don't use it but don't trash what you don't understand or seem to be incapable, a few frank admissions in this thread, of learning. I myself, even at the age of 43, learn quickly how to adapt to new things, it is a talent humans have.

The statement about new paradigms should have new names is fundamentally flawed. Why? well if human beings are not robots then we shouldn't be forced into a paradigm paralysis. Televisions used to be black and white then colour was introduced, does that mean it was no longer a television? Gnome 3 is not revolution just like colour, or digital, tv was not a revolution. There is no massive paradigm shift but there is a process of paradigm evolution. Check out the internet TVs that are available. You switch from one task to another, e.g TV to video to web browsing to whatever, using a very similar interface. Does this mean these TVs should not be called TVs? Does this mean you refuse to buy one because it is not black and white and have grainy static across the screen?

Methinks some people have way to much time on their hands when they can worry so much, and take so much to heart, when it is just an interface design. If you don't like it don't use it, spend your time designing your own or better still help your local community in a food kitchen or something that is really a matter of importance.

I can't help but to think that the above post was mainly aimed at me. First of all, i don't like gnome3, so like you said, i don't use it; simple. You seem to be particularly influenced by my very last statement . This was an off comment remark, and i personally couldn't care less what it's called, my main objective to gnome is it's goals. Kenny made the comment about innovation, and i just don't think that innovation will be achieved without a clear goal.

@blackbelt_jones. Yes I am aware of fluxbox's configurability. I like it and I use it but I am not the only person on this planet so I prefer that others be given choices. Some people like bling and are happy to give up some things to have it. The only DE I'm not fussed with is KDE although I admit it has its good points however I'm not going to bag it just because I'm not particularly fond of it.

@Knightron. What part of my post did you think was aimed at you? I was influenced by a few posts yours had very little to do with it. As you said you don't like it so you don't use it. If you took offense then please let me apologise but consider what I said and think about your post. Get back to me if you still feel I targeted you as an individual.

Gnome 3 is not a complete re-write. It uses many aspects of Gnome 2.x that have been upgraded using gtk3. The only thing about Gnome3 that is new is Gnome-Shell. Many people like it I am one of them, while others don't and you are one of them. So be it, you have an opinion and are entitled to it.

What's pretty much the same, thank God, is the simple, powerful language of the command line.

What's never changed before now is that Desktop environments like Gnome, KDE, and XFCE (as opposed to Window managers like fluxbox) have always been built around a central organizing principle known as "the Desktop metaphor". KDE4 weakened the Desktop metaphor, and Gnome 3 has completely discarded it. I think it's an unprecedented paradigm shift, and I find it completely baffling. If there's supposed to be some kind of organizing principle to replace the desktop metaphor. I can't figure it out. All I can do so far with Gnome 3 is launch applications, something I could do with nearly any GUI by hitting alt-f2. Apparently I'm going to have to read a tutorial or something. I've never had to do that with a Desktop GUI before.

I don't have a problem with alternatives to the Desktop metaphor, but I don't want to lose it. Most people don't realize just how powerful the desktop metaphor can be.

@k3lt01 If you ever decide to check out KDE, what you should look for is the special power of drag and drop. Drag and drop an object in GNOME or XFCE, and it will move the object if pssoble, copy it if not. In KDE, you get a menu with three choices: move, copy, link. That's three times as powerful.

Also: Konqueror and Dolphin, the KDE window managers, have all the capabilities of the Desktop GUI to host launching icons. I'm not sure if that's clear but believe me, it's awesome.