Introduction
This is my first published review of a piece of software, so I may not adhere to the typical formats most other software reviewers do. Instead, I will focus more on my thoughts and impressions after a week of using the software.
On a personal note, it's been a while since my last update, hasn't it? I have a few reviews I intend to have finished by the time class starts. When that happens, reviews will become sporadic - but then again, I never intended this blog to be something people check daily. Subscribe to the RSS feed and be notified of when I do post updates - that's what I hope visitors do currently, as content is sparse. I also have two projects I'm working on - the CSRPGE mentioned briefly on the Software page and an entrepreneur project I may begin with a friend in hopes of earning some money. With class and these projects, I may have very little time to write reviews!
But no one is reading this to read about me, are they? So without further delay, here is my impressions of Gnome3 after a week of use.
On a personal note, it's been a while since my last update, hasn't it? I have a few reviews I intend to have finished by the time class starts. When that happens, reviews will become sporadic - but then again, I never intended this blog to be something people check daily. Subscribe to the RSS feed and be notified of when I do post updates - that's what I hope visitors do currently, as content is sparse. I also have two projects I'm working on - the CSRPGE mentioned briefly on the Software page and an entrepreneur project I may begin with a friend in hopes of earning some money. With class and these projects, I may have very little time to write reviews!
But no one is reading this to read about me, are they? So without further delay, here is my impressions of Gnome3 after a week of use.
Click Read More to continue reading this review!
A Brief Overview of Gnome3
For those unfamiliar with Linux, you may be unaware of what terms such as "Desktop Environment" or "Window Manager" means. If you have some experience with computing, you may be able to piece together an idea, but for everyone else, allow me to briefly explain.
In Windows and Mac operating systems, you also have "desktop environments" - these aren't just Linux-specific terms! However, you're given no choice as to what you want to use as your desktop manager or window manager in these operating systems, due to their proprietary nature. This provides an almost uniform environment amongst all computers running the operating system, but doesn't allow for any creativity in the community outside of Microsoft or Apple themselves. It doesn't allow for user choice.
A desktop manager is a suite of software that, to be overly simplistic, provides the entire GUI (Graphical User Interface) that the user interacts with if using a system more complex than a command line. The panel in Mac OSX is part of its desktop manager; the desktop manager and the window manager in Windows are, on the surface, somewhat intertwined (which is also why if explorer.exe - the Windows file browser - crashes, your desktop and taskbar goes along with it). A windows manager is software that handles the drawing of windows - what allows you to move windows around on your screen and resize them, for example. One could go into much further detail, but on the surface, this isn't as complicated as you'd expect, no? After all, an operating system is just the sum of the software you use to interface with your computer.
In Linux, however, there are many, many different window managers and desktop managers. Most popular "noobie-friendly" distributions, such as Ubuntu, come stock with certain window and desktop managers. You can change them if you wish, but for the sake of simplicity towards the end-user, a default decision is already made for you. The advantage to this is personal choice - what if I don't like the way KDE (a Linux desktop manager) runs and feels? Well, I can use something else. Furthermore, you have intense customization; for example, a power user, such as a programmer, may love the advantages a tiling window manager, such as xmonad or awesome, brings to the table - so much so that they begin to despise so-called "floating" window managers, such as metacity (Gnome2's default window manager) or Windows' window manager. However, they may wish to have the benefits a panel, such as the Gnome2 panel, as well. In Linux, that user has the power of choice - he can easily replace metacity, if using Gnome2, with an alternative window manager such as xmonad. Try doing that with your Windows or Mac!
Gnome3 is one of several desktop managers available on Linux. It is the latest edition of the immensely popular (in no short part due to the popularity of Ubuntu) Gnome2 desktop manager. So, is it worth the upgrade?
In Windows and Mac operating systems, you also have "desktop environments" - these aren't just Linux-specific terms! However, you're given no choice as to what you want to use as your desktop manager or window manager in these operating systems, due to their proprietary nature. This provides an almost uniform environment amongst all computers running the operating system, but doesn't allow for any creativity in the community outside of Microsoft or Apple themselves. It doesn't allow for user choice.
A desktop manager is a suite of software that, to be overly simplistic, provides the entire GUI (Graphical User Interface) that the user interacts with if using a system more complex than a command line. The panel in Mac OSX is part of its desktop manager; the desktop manager and the window manager in Windows are, on the surface, somewhat intertwined (which is also why if explorer.exe - the Windows file browser - crashes, your desktop and taskbar goes along with it). A windows manager is software that handles the drawing of windows - what allows you to move windows around on your screen and resize them, for example. One could go into much further detail, but on the surface, this isn't as complicated as you'd expect, no? After all, an operating system is just the sum of the software you use to interface with your computer.
In Linux, however, there are many, many different window managers and desktop managers. Most popular "noobie-friendly" distributions, such as Ubuntu, come stock with certain window and desktop managers. You can change them if you wish, but for the sake of simplicity towards the end-user, a default decision is already made for you. The advantage to this is personal choice - what if I don't like the way KDE (a Linux desktop manager) runs and feels? Well, I can use something else. Furthermore, you have intense customization; for example, a power user, such as a programmer, may love the advantages a tiling window manager, such as xmonad or awesome, brings to the table - so much so that they begin to despise so-called "floating" window managers, such as metacity (Gnome2's default window manager) or Windows' window manager. However, they may wish to have the benefits a panel, such as the Gnome2 panel, as well. In Linux, that user has the power of choice - he can easily replace metacity, if using Gnome2, with an alternative window manager such as xmonad. Try doing that with your Windows or Mac!
Gnome3 is one of several desktop managers available on Linux. It is the latest edition of the immensely popular (in no short part due to the popularity of Ubuntu) Gnome2 desktop manager. So, is it worth the upgrade?
The Claim? "Made of Easy"
As most things Linux, the upgrade is free; it's damn near impossible to beat that price. However, in the world of Linux, there's usually much more to consider than just price.
The Gnome3 website, as of the time of writing, proclaims the slogan "made of easy." They detail many of the changes made in this version, as well as the new features. Gnome3 features a radical shift from the typical paradigm of computer use, where one works with the software on their PC in a supremely different way.
For the most part, the changes introduced in Gnome3 are a controversial point amongst the Linux community. No longer do minimize and maximize buttons exist - it's not needed, says the Gnome development team. No longer can user control what is displayed on their panel - it's stuck like it is, like it or not. No longer is the user given a taskbar which displays all of their open applications. There's no start menu - unless you consider the Applications menu to be a start menu of sorts, but it integrates so many different features besides merely opening applications that one can hardly designate it a "start menu."
The Gnome development team claims that features like this are no longer necessary. They say it's no longer needed to minimize windows - after all, modern computers are so powerful that applications launch almost instantly, so why minimize things that aren't in use, when you can just close the program and then start it afresh later when it is needed? They claim the radical shift in application management is due to appealing to a more simplistic audience - the audience who doesn't want to touch a terminal, that doesn't need anything overly complex to get their work done; a web browser and an office suite is all they need.
Are all these changes for the better?
In short, this is not an easy question to answer. On one hand, one must applaud the Gnome team for attempting to innovate, even if the innovation fails. On the other hand, it's easy to deride the Gnome team for making such radical shifts in a such a short period of time. Whether these changes work really depends on the end user.
I no longer believe that the target audience for Gnome are users who use their computer for work (especially users who understand Linux). The new structure introduced (and rigorously enforced) makes it exceedingly difficult to get anything done. Need to have multiple windows open, on two screens, and be able to quickly rearrange them on your desktop without using a mouse? Too bad. Want to have an environment that stays out of your way so you can switch between applications to work on a project? Too bad.
On the other hand, after a week of use, I find Gnome3 exceedingly enjoyable when I use my computer for play. Firefox open on one workspace, evolution (for email) open on another, Empathy (for instant messaging) open on another, and just browsing the Internet and occasionally chatting with friends? Gnome3 honestly works perfectly for that - more so than any other desktop environment, Linux-based or otherwise, that I have ever used.
In theory, this would be a great environment to give to someone new to Linux. Someone who merely uses their computer for a web browser to check Facebook and an email application, perhaps an office suite for the occasional English essay. The problem resides in one simple factoid that I believe the Gnome team are overlooking:
Everyone understands Windows.
This is the unfortunate truth. In a hypothetical situation, if one were to sit someone down in front of two computers - one running a Linux distribution such as Fedora 15 that uses Gnome3 and one running Windows 7 - and this person had never used a computer before in their life, I feel Gnome3 would be the system that person was drawn to. It's sleeker and sexier and much easier to figure out. It makes Windows look like complicated,techy-business-user foo-foo by comparison.
That said, how many people like this hypothetical person still exist? Not many, I dare say. Almost everyone is familiar with Windows. Almost everyone at least knows basic Windows procedures - how to open programs, how to switch between currently opened programs, how to navigate and find files on their hard drive. But do they really know Windows? Could they open up the service prompt and disable boot services that they know they don't need? Do they understand what the various files in the system32 folder are for? Can they tell you how Windows works? The answer is no - and these are the users Gnome3 is trying to appeal to. The problem resides in the fact that Gnome3 isn't like Windows. It's about as far away in structure from Windows as one can get. If you want to appeal to these people, you have to design your desktop manager - as unfortunate a truth as this is - to be like Windows. You can't expose them to things that are radically different from their normal environment, or they feel threatened and unsafe, and will run back to the familiar. A more complex desktop environment, such as KDE, ironically is more suitable for users fresh from Windows to experiment with because, by default, it looks almost exactly like Windows. It doesn't ask the user to unlearn something because they've been thrust into an unfamiliar place.
This being the case, I want to pessimistically proclaim Gnome3 is doomed to failure. If their target audience is Linux "noobs," as I feel it is, then Gnome3 will fail. And if I'm incorrect in my assumption that Gnome3 is aimed at new users to Linux, then it will still fail because, for the majority of Linux users (thought to be fair, not all), Gnome3 is not what we want. Not at all.
However, I won't say "Gnome3 will fail - you heard it here first, folks!" After all, Gnome3 is in relative infancy. There are many features planned that just have not been finished yet - it's been released because it's currently stable, but not because it's finished work. Gnome2 took several years to get to where it's at - it's a bit too early for predictions at the moment. Gnome3 has a lot of time to grow and plenty of time to fix its mistakes - but they need to listen to the users, and firmly decide who their target audience really is.
The Gnome3 website, as of the time of writing, proclaims the slogan "made of easy." They detail many of the changes made in this version, as well as the new features. Gnome3 features a radical shift from the typical paradigm of computer use, where one works with the software on their PC in a supremely different way.
For the most part, the changes introduced in Gnome3 are a controversial point amongst the Linux community. No longer do minimize and maximize buttons exist - it's not needed, says the Gnome development team. No longer can user control what is displayed on their panel - it's stuck like it is, like it or not. No longer is the user given a taskbar which displays all of their open applications. There's no start menu - unless you consider the Applications menu to be a start menu of sorts, but it integrates so many different features besides merely opening applications that one can hardly designate it a "start menu."
The Gnome development team claims that features like this are no longer necessary. They say it's no longer needed to minimize windows - after all, modern computers are so powerful that applications launch almost instantly, so why minimize things that aren't in use, when you can just close the program and then start it afresh later when it is needed? They claim the radical shift in application management is due to appealing to a more simplistic audience - the audience who doesn't want to touch a terminal, that doesn't need anything overly complex to get their work done; a web browser and an office suite is all they need.
Are all these changes for the better?
In short, this is not an easy question to answer. On one hand, one must applaud the Gnome team for attempting to innovate, even if the innovation fails. On the other hand, it's easy to deride the Gnome team for making such radical shifts in a such a short period of time. Whether these changes work really depends on the end user.
I no longer believe that the target audience for Gnome are users who use their computer for work (especially users who understand Linux). The new structure introduced (and rigorously enforced) makes it exceedingly difficult to get anything done. Need to have multiple windows open, on two screens, and be able to quickly rearrange them on your desktop without using a mouse? Too bad. Want to have an environment that stays out of your way so you can switch between applications to work on a project? Too bad.
On the other hand, after a week of use, I find Gnome3 exceedingly enjoyable when I use my computer for play. Firefox open on one workspace, evolution (for email) open on another, Empathy (for instant messaging) open on another, and just browsing the Internet and occasionally chatting with friends? Gnome3 honestly works perfectly for that - more so than any other desktop environment, Linux-based or otherwise, that I have ever used.
In theory, this would be a great environment to give to someone new to Linux. Someone who merely uses their computer for a web browser to check Facebook and an email application, perhaps an office suite for the occasional English essay. The problem resides in one simple factoid that I believe the Gnome team are overlooking:
Everyone understands Windows.
This is the unfortunate truth. In a hypothetical situation, if one were to sit someone down in front of two computers - one running a Linux distribution such as Fedora 15 that uses Gnome3 and one running Windows 7 - and this person had never used a computer before in their life, I feel Gnome3 would be the system that person was drawn to. It's sleeker and sexier and much easier to figure out. It makes Windows look like complicated,techy-business-user foo-foo by comparison.
That said, how many people like this hypothetical person still exist? Not many, I dare say. Almost everyone is familiar with Windows. Almost everyone at least knows basic Windows procedures - how to open programs, how to switch between currently opened programs, how to navigate and find files on their hard drive. But do they really know Windows? Could they open up the service prompt and disable boot services that they know they don't need? Do they understand what the various files in the system32 folder are for? Can they tell you how Windows works? The answer is no - and these are the users Gnome3 is trying to appeal to. The problem resides in the fact that Gnome3 isn't like Windows. It's about as far away in structure from Windows as one can get. If you want to appeal to these people, you have to design your desktop manager - as unfortunate a truth as this is - to be like Windows. You can't expose them to things that are radically different from their normal environment, or they feel threatened and unsafe, and will run back to the familiar. A more complex desktop environment, such as KDE, ironically is more suitable for users fresh from Windows to experiment with because, by default, it looks almost exactly like Windows. It doesn't ask the user to unlearn something because they've been thrust into an unfamiliar place.
This being the case, I want to pessimistically proclaim Gnome3 is doomed to failure. If their target audience is Linux "noobs," as I feel it is, then Gnome3 will fail. And if I'm incorrect in my assumption that Gnome3 is aimed at new users to Linux, then it will still fail because, for the majority of Linux users (thought to be fair, not all), Gnome3 is not what we want. Not at all.
However, I won't say "Gnome3 will fail - you heard it here first, folks!" After all, Gnome3 is in relative infancy. There are many features planned that just have not been finished yet - it's been released because it's currently stable, but not because it's finished work. Gnome2 took several years to get to where it's at - it's a bit too early for predictions at the moment. Gnome3 has a lot of time to grow and plenty of time to fix its mistakes - but they need to listen to the users, and firmly decide who their target audience really is.
Summary
I feel you should stick with Gnome2, if possible, for the time being, if you're a Gnome user. If you wish to try something that's still being upgraded but isn't very different from your usual workflow, try out XFCE - most popular Linux distros such as Mint and Ubuntu offer XFCE versions. If you want the Gnome2 style, you may be stuck using XFCE for a while, unless Gnome3 eventually reverts to a more traditional workflow. Alternatively, you can try KDE - as far as large desktop managers go, I'm enjoying the latest KDE on Arch Linux more than I have enjoyed KDE in the past (it's still not as attractive to look at as Gnome2 was, I feel).
Gnome3, though stable and works fine (unless you have an ATI card, of course - isn't that how it always is?) is unusable for the reasons mentioned above. Gnome3 currently doesn't have an audience. The new users it's trying to appeal to won't use it because it's not familiar, and the old users who might give it a chance likely won't like it - as the Gnome3 uproar in the Linux community currently demonstrates. Don't write off Gnome3 yet, though - it's too early. Gnome3 needs some time to mature.
I still recommend holding off on upgrading until that time, however.
Gnome3, though stable and works fine (unless you have an ATI card, of course - isn't that how it always is?) is unusable for the reasons mentioned above. Gnome3 currently doesn't have an audience. The new users it's trying to appeal to won't use it because it's not familiar, and the old users who might give it a chance likely won't like it - as the Gnome3 uproar in the Linux community currently demonstrates. Don't write off Gnome3 yet, though - it's too early. Gnome3 needs some time to mature.
I still recommend holding off on upgrading until that time, however.