Nicholas Petreley Slams Gnome

FreeLinux writes "Mainstream computer rag ComputerWorld, has posted a review of Gnome 2.6 by Nicholas Petreley. This opinion piece review, titled Living Down to a Low Standard, positively lambastes Gnome 2.6 over the new spatial Nautilus and Gnome's design choices. The review is quite the opposite to a previously reported review from PCWorld, last month. While this latest review is bound to be a polarizing and heavily debated issue (read flamebait), it is important in that this review will be seen by so many mainstream readers and corporate types who may have been considering Gnome."

Vicious

[two_stripe]

Why doesnt he pick on someone his own size?
Those poor gnomes. :(

Re:Vicious

[ThrasherTT]

Shouldn't your sig be:

Dont drink and derive. Alcohol and calculus dont integrate!

Re:Vicious

[identity0]

Obviously, you've never been attacked by a pack of wild Gnomes...

The horror! The horror! They came at me from every direction! There were sidebars everywhere! Pastel-colered icons went flying! When they were through, I was left without my precious KControls or KApps...

...and then a horde of Ximian monkeys showed up...

Re:Vicious

[ksheff]

Petreley is a long time KDE fanboy. It's not surprising he gave GNOME a bad review. It would be a surprise that he DIDN'T give it a bad review.

As a Gnome user

[Nailer]

I think its got a long way to go til it becomes usable. Too much effort is spent on making Gnome a next generation desktop when its not yet up to the standard of a current generation desktop.

Emblems, spatial Nautilus, contextual sidebars etc are great. So are Evo, Gimp 2, XChat Gnome, etc.

But the current Gnome desktop:

* No menu editor
* No way to modify what a launcher points to
* A file manager that acts like it can display web pages, then can't
* A bloody complex file associations menu that doesn't know about either the programs in my Gnome menu, or $PATH.
* No display of emergency messages when your hard disks decide to melt (apparently users have to be proactive and read /dev/console themselves all the time, you know, just in case...)
* No decent looking, comprehensive theme. Minor in comparision to the rest, but still...

Thanks for fixing the File Open dialog though.

Re:Vicious

[DunbarTheInept]

I made that same migration. You might think it's because my preferences have changed so they no longer matches what Gnome does. But what's actually happened is that Gnome has changed so that it no longer matches my preferences, and it does so with misplaced accusations of elitism. It used to be that KDE was less customizable than Gnome. But now Gnome has a manefesto to remove user choices and this is no longer true. The way the project maintainers describe it, there's something aberrant about wanting to customize things in the GUI, and it's a waste of time to use something out of the ordinary. What they are blind to realizing is that *ALL* GUI interfaces are something "out of the ordinary" and are prone to being unproductive if badly set up, and by forcing me to do it their way or not at all, they have not succeeded in making me more productive - they are merely forcing me to use THEIR unproductive interface.

Re:Vicious

[gujo-odori]

I made that migration, too.

My path was FVWM95->Afterstep->Window Maker->Gnome->KDE3.0.

I liked Gnome better than the other things that were around at the time, and steered away from KDE partly because of the licensing issue with Qt that existed at the time, and partly because KDE prior to 3.0 was just so generally ugly and amateurish-looking that I couldn't stand to look at it. Who designed those icons? Blech!

Then KDE 3.0 came out. I tried it out of curiousity and found that it was *worlds* ahead of Gnome. Gnome up to and including 2.4 was nowhere near catching up. Whatever chance they might have had was buried by KDE 3.2.

I will take a look at Gnome 2.6, just to see how they've done, but I have my doubts. I read some of the ideas that were going into the design for Gnome 2.6 and all I could think was "That sounds really stupid."

So, while his review of Gnome 2.6 (or more accurately, of Nautilus in Gnome 2.6) may be written in rather inflamatory language, it should not be dismissed outright as being crap. Even if it's not as bad as he says, the idea of having every double-click open a new window and be so difficult to override is criminally stupid.

People tend to dis KDE by claiming it works too much like the Windows UI, but you can customize that any way you want, and so I do. It's something I like a lot about KDE.

If it has behaviors that are much like Windows by default, so what? That can help new users make the transition. Is that a bad thing? We also need to keep in mind that Microsoft does know a thing or two about UI design. Unlike most open source projects, MS does have UI specialists. Lots of them.

I have a laundry list of things I hate about Windows, but only two things on that list are UI-related:

1) You can't customize the UI much. It just works the way it works;

2) This is the bigger one: you get only one desktop. On my notebook, I have 8 virtual desktops. On my desktop machine, I have 10. This allows me to organize my work by assigning different types of tasks to different desktops, and I have a set pattern of where I put different types of things. Ctrl-F[1-10] takes me to the desktop I need. I cannot do this with Windows and it's a major PITA.

That's it. Those are the only two points of MS UI design that bother me, and the first one is pretry minor, really. If KDE copies some of their ideas from Windows (but don't forget that KDE has a lot of capabilities that the Windows GUI does not have), it could be that KDE developers just know how to recognize a good decision when they see it.

Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Allen Zadr]

Sadly, the article brings up some very good points, albeit in a very inflammatory way.

The most damaging part of the "review" is that it says nothing aboout Gnome as a whole. It's just a rant about this user's opinion about how Nautilus was designed ( changed) to work in 2.6.

This sort of rant, if done constructively could certainly help the developers make better choices, but to put it directly to mass media as a review just sucks.

Well, as a Pointy Haired type myself, I can assure you, these mags hit the coffee table in the lobby - and very few people actually read the articles... However, if this review makes the front page, Gnome is toast.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Curunir_wolf]

Petreley is not a reviewer, he writes an editorial (opinion) peices. His articles are always inflamatory, by design.

Seeing as a reference to his column has been posted on /., he seems to have gotten his point across. He must have gotten tired of ranting about SCO and blasting Microsoft.

And he has a good point. Why, when Windows users typically change that default behavior for explorer, would the Gnome folks break Nautilas, then obfuscate the setting to change it? It was a dumb move, as he says.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[justsomebody]

Actualy, I said the same thing.

And after that I tried spatial Nautilus.

What now? I love it. First File manager that got better than OS9 Finder (I was considering this one as the best approach so far).

There's one only thing that I miss, some gconf key to swap middle and left click for my notebook. I don't have middle button and clicking both is a bit painfull. But then again there's still Close parents shortcut.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[ImpTech]

Ok, I'm not sure how the GNOME folks have 'broken' Nautilus. It seems to do precisely what they designed it to do. And frankly, I don't see why they should follow the Windows trend in this case. I read the case for spatial when 2.6 came out, and frankly it makes a lot of sense. For one, it makes drag-and-drop useful for file management again. Its also kind of nice that windows open exactly where you saw them last time. And as far as screen clutter, as long as you're pretty much living in your home directory, whats the big deal? Looking quickly I can't find many directories more than 4-deep in my home dir, and I'm more organized than most. Seems like people are always complaining that GNOME and KDE don't innovate, and when they do everybody gets upset.

The only valid criticism in the article is that its a bit tricky to go back to browser behavior by default, in that you have to get into Gconf (which by the way is no where near as massive and convoluted as the Windows registry). IMO, it would have made sense to put a checkbox for it in File Management Preferences. But come on, dismiss an entire desktop because of the lack of one checkbox? Outrageous!

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[spectre_240sx]

"Seems like people are always complaining that GNOME and KDE don't innovate, and when they do everybody gets upset."

Did you miss the part that OS/2, Win95 and early Mac OS versions worked this way too? How is it inovation if it's already been done before?

The whole idea of the spacial file management system is to bring the metaphor of files and folders closer to what it is in the real world. However, that comes at a loss in usability, and there's no reason to try to do this if people are already comfortable with the way that file managers work at the moment.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Allen Zadr]

Remember, it's not one person's opinion anymore. It's the opinion of a, frankly, well respected publication.

If this makes front page, then a much higher percentage of pointy haired individuals will read it. And -- if on the front page -- the opinion will be taken with even more weight. The article does bring up some good points. If I had never seen Gnome 2.6 myself, I would probably never consider looking at it seriously after reading this article.

After-all, in the opinion of this publication, there's nothing good to say about Gnome 2.6.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[daviddennis]

It's an opinion piece, meaning it will land on the opinion pages, which I think are about in the middle of the magazine.

I doubt that it will have a massive global impact, especially since it only talks about a single characteristic of the product.

D

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[cweditor]

Glad to see so much interest in one of our columns :-)

For the record, this column appeared on page 30 of Computerworld's print edition this week, on the last page of our Technology section. Nicholas Petreley is one of several different columnists who rotate writing for that Tech opinion page. (There is an opinion column on the last page of the print publication's Management section as well.)

Our print readers have seen quite a bit of coverage of Linux and open source in addition to this column. Two weeks ago, for example, one of our cover features was A Sunny Forecast For Open Source [computerworld.com], about how weather.com has cut IT costs by one-third after moving away from proprietary software and hardware. It was one of the most-read stories on our site that week.

Sharon Machlis
Online Managing Editor
Computerworld

Thank you, but who?

[Allen Zadr]

Please excuse while many of us sit back in suspicion, as opening a new account to post one comment to a story is a common Trolling tactic.

Thank you for being informative, and if you are really whom you claim to be, may I be the first to invite you to join the discussion in other ways. Heck, maybe you could coax Nick to join the discussion.

I'm quite happy to hear that this will be a mid-pages article, especially as - well you've read by now - the narrow target of the article has got some folks a bit up-in

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[shatfield]

What is so bad about this article is that the headline says "Review of Gnome 2.6" and then the article only discusses Nautilus -- which is only a single part of Gnome. Imagine someone reviewing "WindowsXP" and only discussing something about the Windows Explorer that they don't like. Not exactly good reporting, eh?

Furthermore, the "reporter" didn't really report anything other than his complete lack of knowledge of what Nautilus is trying to accomplish. There was no mention of spatial filesystems, their pros / cons, nothing. He just spouted his opinion and acted like he was all informed, which he wasn't.

Do us all a favor -- if you know this moron, smack him really, really hard right in the middle of the forehead and tell him next time he doesn't research what he is reporting, you'll move it down a couple of feet.

I've seen people yelling and screaming at the FOSS community to be creative.. to innovate, to come up with something different. Then once they do, I get to read how it's not like how this OS does it, or that OS does it. If you want something that looks and works just like Windows... JUST USE WINDOWS!

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Paladin128]

Although his tone was attrocious, I have to agree with him on some points. GNOME is too damn hard to configure. Yes, simplicity is a good thing, but if that's what you want, keep all of the other options *somewhere*, even if it's buried. The KDE tactic -- throw a billion options at the user on one screen -- isn't good either.

There are plenty of ways of solving the problem. Unfortunately, GNOME took the approach that if the users don't like it, they better learn vi.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Paladin128]

Some people don't like the "spatial" nautilus and would prefer the default behavior to be just like every other damn UI currently used. Some people like to change colors of UI elements because they otherwise like a theme, but can't stand the damn ugly yellow the theme designer chose for the highlight color.

And yes, these are individual preferences. People who fall in the "power user" catagory are important too. And no, "power user" != "ueber-hacker" for all values. Some people just like to get damn work do

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[IntlHarvester]

Another example would be "Team OS/2" -- who had some whackos that would actually make death threats against computer journalists. And they wondered why nobody covered OS/2...

(Even today, you hear people talk about "Steve Bartko", some MS employee that posted a handful of times on a compuserve board 12 years ago. Sorta a legend in the OS/2 and Anti-Microsoft Zealot community.)

Back in the 1990s, there was a real effort among the Linux Community to encourage "good advocacy". Flamers were pointed to a Advocacy HOWTO document and there was a real effort to keep discourse polite in the Usenet tradition. It seemed like they might have learned the lesson of Team OS/2 & Macinsitas. However, now days with a proliferation of web forums, and Linux accumulating all of the OS/2, Amiga, and M$ Hater wackos, things have degenerated.

The thing to realize, in the real world of IT Dept Politics, zealous advocacy often hurts one's cause more than it helps. People tend to think "This guy is not objective, I don't like him, therefore I disagree with whatever he says." Yes, that's not logical like Mr Spock, but its how the real world works outside of internet boards. God forbid people have to work with a lot of you folks.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Frizzle Fry]

Why do you think Mac people became/are percieved as being so fanatical? Years of bad publicity

I don't think this is why.

God forbid anyone *ever* cast any aspersions toward Apple or pointed out any imperfections in Apple hardware or software. They would get tons of hate-mail, really ridiculous over-the-top stuff.

Ah, there we go. I think that this is why they were perceived as fanatical. Because of the actions and attitudes of lots of individuals. Not because of any "publicity" from the newsmedia.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[CoolVibe]

Mac fanatics are pussies. You haven't met a real fanatic until you've debated with an Amiga fanatic.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[0racle]

Except that this one persons opinion was dead on. I had used Gnome 2.2 and 2.4 as my main DE after using KDE for a while there. I liked 2.4 and was looking forward to seeing what was new in 2.6, but when it came, it was the biggest steaming pile of an almost useless environment since Gnome 1, which I also didn't like using. Obviously its just my opinion, but the way Nautilus browses the file system is backwards compared to 2.4, and the removal of the tree in a left hand pane was a very bad decision. That ch

Does it really matter that much?

[Allen Zadr]

I admitted hearly that I'm a bit of a pointy hair, but I consider myself a very HANDS-ON type. Like I said earlier, the article made some good points.

However, my favorite file manager for Linux is still the command line, closely followed by Midnight Commander (yeah, command line). I've never gotten used to Konqueror (KDE), I've never gotten used to Nautilus. That's to say... I think the both suck.

However, my choice of Desktop (I run KDE at work, and Gnome at home) is pretty undecided. They both have features that I like ... at the functionaltiy level. My main problem with the article is that it didn't touch on the things that make it a desktop. Icons, Menus, Task-bars, Desktop switching, key bindings, etc.

Re:Does it really matter that much?

[AndyElf]

Right on, brother! On average I tend to be switching back and forth between GNOME and KDE every 8-10 weeks. Both are making big strides in improving overall user experience, but it is not always 100% on the money.

For one I hate almost *all* of KDE themese -- most of them waste more screen realestate than loosely spaced icons in MacOS X Finder. Plastik seems to be nearly getting there, but still not fully.

I agree with lots of posts and the article that such "bridge burning" as done by GNOME team w.r.t.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Wylfing]

Obviously its just my opinion, but the way Nautilus browses the file system is backwards compared to 2.4, and the removal of the tree in a left hand pane was a very bad decision. That change alone made me go back to KDE.

I've already foregone my mod points for this topic, so I might as well get out the battle gear. The way Gnome works now is what made me switch to it from KDE. I fully enjoy all of KDE's eye candy and wonderful flexibility, but when it comes down to using it to do real work, doing basic task

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[andyross]

Obviously its just my opinion, but the way Nautilus browses the file system is backwards compared to 2.4, and the removal of the tree in a left hand pane was a very bad decision.

The tree has not been removed! Right click on something and select "browse" and you have your old Nautilus back. Not enough? Make a launcher on your desktop and have it run "nautilus --browser". Still not enough? Put it in a menu (FC2 already does). Still not enough? Delete all the spatial icons from your desktop and you will never see it again.

Good grief. You would think that "expert users" who can handle the complexities of a browser-based file interface might be able to, y'know, configure their desktops before whining about it in public.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Frothy Walrus]

They're not monkeys anymore. Novell bought Ximian and replaced all the monkeys with Mormons.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Erratio]

I think the impact of the article will be very esoteric, and it will have basically the same effect as all the other open-source bashing articles before it. Since it's mainstream it may be read by some executive type people and they may acquire a bias, but mostly those people rely on the nerds to make the decisions and any able nerd would read through the article, weighing the perceived bad things about GNOME against the virtues. So, in the end, you're left where you started, with people that like GNOME and people that don't, with no more than usual shift in the numbers.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Allen Zadr]

I didn't say destroy, I said toast.

But don't underestimate the power of a PHB.

• PHBs run commercial distributions, too
• PHBs can dictate what is on the Linux servers within their own department.
• PHBs can mentor their Employees in Linux, and teach a newbie, 'Don't select Gnome, it's not flexible'.

If the mentality spreads, then it becomes truth. It's not death, it's toast. Welcome to the popularity levels of Fluxbox.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[object88]

I didn't say destroy, I said toast.

And toast is good! I mean, nothing like warm, slightly crunchy sourdough or rye, with a little butter and apple-mint jelly. MMMmmm! Gimme toast!

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Minna Kirai]

Frankly, I can't imagine a person considering Gnome/Linux instead of Windows,

Moreover, I can't even imagine people considering Gnome vs Windows.

Computer users may choose "Linux vs Windows", and then they may choose "Redhat vs SUSE", and maybe later they'll think "KDE vs Gnome"...

But at no point does someone have to choose between Gnome and Windows. Folks still using Windows probably don't know what Gnome is (and shouldn't have to). By the time Gnome is even on your radar screen, you've left Windows far behind.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Allen Zadr]

What if I were to tell you that my initial interest in Gnome was to replace the CDE on Solaris?

At that time, I didn't even consider using Linux in my place of business. Since then, a lot has changed, but I will fully admit, that from just the text of the article, the summary I got is: 'Gnome is inflexible' and 'backwards'. That's a strong summary, and I'm educated enough (meaning I used Gnome before reading the article) to know better.

On Solaris it isn't a question of Gnome or KDE, it's a question of Common Desktop or Gnome -- I can fully assure you that Gnome is FAR superior to the Common Desktop Environment. Would this article have given me an informed synopsis? No. Would I have taken it for gospel, no - but I would have had the impression that it's not flexible, and no impression of anything good.

To me it's broader than Windows vs. Linux. It's about taking away the ability to process facts, by centering on something that, to me, is the most insignificant feature of a desktop environment ... the file manager.

Don't RTFA!

[Anonymous Coward]

### Warning! ###
### CATCHPHRASE ALERT ###

Nicholas Petreley uses the tired term "paradigm shift" in his article!
[not that anyone will actually read the article...]

### CATCHPHRASE ALERT ###
### Warning! ###

Re:Don't RTFA!

[eclectro]

Nicholas Petreley uses the tired term "paradigm shift" in his article!

So, it's safe to say that the paradigm shift was embedded in the article??

Re:Don't RTFA!

[SubtleNuance]

Its clear that Mr. Petreley is still thinking outside the box. In these days of Back To Basics strategies, its clear that focusing on the core fundementals of your enterprise' value propisition requires a shift, a shift to thinking Inside The Box.

Thinking OUTSIDE the box is last week's failed methods, all new leaders are clearly embedded Inside The Box(TM).

Tell your friends.

Re:Don't RTFA!

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Yeah -- but that isn't half as scary as the fact that he used the word paradigm correctly is.

Re:Don't RTFA!

[llefler]

Nicholas Petreley uses the tired term "paradigm shift" in his article!

It could be worse, he could have used "wake-up call".

No big surprise

[stephenb]

No big surprise here as Petreley has always been a KDE rulez, GNOME sux0rs guy. The piece isn't even well written or accurate. Here [whiprush.org] is a decent rebuttal. Petreley hasn't quite figured out that the GNOME v. KDE flamewars are dead yet.

Re:No big surprise

[Minna Kirai]

Here is a decent rebuttal.

It's a poor rebuttal. Aside from the obligatory accusation of bias, it mainly focuses on attacking Petrely's understanding of "spatial browser".

Problem: he never used the word "spatial".

Also, when Petrley complains that you need to edit GConf to change the default behavior, instead of finding a prominent checkbox, Jorge (a) lists 3 ways to change the current behavior, and (b) attack's Petrely's technical understanding of GConf. He says that aside from GUI, GConf is nothing like the Windows registry. Well guess what? From the end-user's perspective, the GUI all that matters! If you need to use Registry or GConf to alter a setting, then it's impossible to call that setting easy-to-change.

The oped comes down to a very simple position: when a piece of software first gets a radically different, optional interaction mode, common-sense dictates that the new mode should be OFF by default. To do otherwise will scare users who were accustomed to the existing behavior. (Or at minimum, the checkbox to "Act like the older version" should be prominently placed, such as an option at install)

PS. An additional funny part is that both Nick and Jorge manage to mistate what the motiviation for Gnome was: Nick says "freedom from Windows", Jorge says "kickass desktop"... when in reality it was meant for "freedom from KDE" (as is well-documented historically)

Re:Scary

[stephenb]

How do you know this?

What 'this' are you talking about? I assume from your next sentance that you're talking about my claim that Petreley has a pro-KDE/anti-GNOME bias. If that's the case, then the way I know this is I have read his opinion of GNOME and KDE for years. He always criticizes GNOME and always praises KDE. I don't have the time to google all his past articles on them, but you can do it if you don't believe me.

By the way, this is not to say that some of his past GNOME criticism hasn't been justified. But this particular article was pretty bad. Criticising a whole release for a single feature? Come on.

I don't mean this is flamebait, I'm honestly surprised that these paper bloggers get this much 'cred'.

Again, I wish you were more specific. I assume by 'paper bloggers' you are talking about the author of the article I linked to. I probably should have mentioned that he is a well-respected ArsTechnica contributor. I have a lot more respect for ArsTechnica than I do for ComputerWorld. ArsTechnica is very comprehensive and accurate. Your opinion may vary, however.

Re:No big surprise

[Minna Kirai]

"Spatial" means like how real objects in real space work. It means that simple intuitive rules we've learned about how to handle physical objects will still apply.

For example:

• A thing can only be in one place at a time.
• You can't see the same thing more than once; if you see two things, they must be different things.
• Things don't move around on their own. The pencils in your drawer won't move without you touching them.

Making a computer behave "spatially" means having it obey rules like that, which could prevent users from being surprised by behavior different from what they've learned all their lives.

Of course, whether or not making computer software act this way is beneficial is a separate argument. One could say that limiting data objects to act like physical objects is like cutting the wings off birds.

Simple Solution.

[kemapa]

His whole article centers around the difficulty in setting Nautilus to browse files / folders in a single window, which he uses as a basis to bash GNOME 2.6 as a whole.

The only way to change the default behavior of Nautilus is to set an obscure registry key via the command line or the registry editor. Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders. I can only assume that the GNOME developers decided to make Nautilus a worse Windows than Windows. I toast their rousing success.

Also, he says

It was deliberately designed to protect users who are invariably too incompetent to pick their own colors but are smart enough to memorize shift-clicks and keystrokes or edit the registry to get Nautilus to work the way they like.

And Lastly, he says

But it turns out there is no preference setting that tells Nautilus to use a single window to browse folders.


All this is actually kind of funny... because couldn't all of his arguments be fix by simply... adding the option to browse in a single window as a menu option???

Seems like a trivial complaint to bash GNOME as a whole... and one that can be fixed easily.

Re:Simple Solution.

[stratjakt]

How dare he criticize something as trivial as "how you use the fucking thing".

Most people find that clicking-opens-a-new-window behaviour annoying. It makes browsing around your directory as annoying as closing popup ads - its the same experience, pretty much. Your screen clogs with shit you dont wanna see.

He makes the point that no modern desktop OS does that, and for a reason.

Why is everyone so defensive? It's a perfectly valid criticism. It makes the desktop frustrating to the point of unusable for many folks.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Mr. Frilly]

Nautilus in 2.6 by default acts in "spatial" mode. To find a good summary as to why spatial mode is good, check out: About the Finder [arstechnica.com] or Inside the GNOME 2.6 Desktop & Developer Platform [arstechnica.com]

I've had Fedora Core Test 3 installed for about a week now, and I gotta say, I love Gnome 2.6. It's very clean, polished, and the gnome bundled apps are consistent with each other.

That being said, I still haven't decided if I like the spatial file navigation of nautilus, although I'm trying to give it more time. I'm a command line guy, so I tend to think in "browser" mode, and I think most of the people here on /. are probably command line/browser mode entrained people.

For people who started their computer experience on Mac's, they'll probably love the new nautilus, but I started on DOS 2.0, so I might be to old of a dog to teach.

For a better rebuttal of Petreley's article (and how to access "browser" mode in Gnome 2.6), check out: Crack Pipes for Everyone! [whiprush.org]

Nobody gives a good explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing with "spatial navigation" is that it is only effective with a small group of commonly used folders. Back 20 years ago when you were lucky to fit 800k on your Mac floppy, you could justify the spatial finder as making it much easier to navigate your few folders.

The problem is that this thing doesn't scale! As a pathological example, say I have a 800GB volume with 400,000 files (mostly photos I've taken as a professional photgrapher) spread out over 3,000 directories. I'm not going to memorize the screen location of each of those 1000s of photo shoots. Dragging my mouse back and forth across my 24" monitor half-a-dozen times to get to the photo shoot I'm looking for is almost the worst scheme I can imagine. The Windows Explorer 2-paned tree model (as opposed to the MacOS tree where there's only 1 pane) is about the most efficient I can imagine for this scenario.

Now that disks are 1,000,000 times bigger than they were 20 years ago, why is somebody trying to introduce the metaphor that was only appropriate for use back then? Granted, it works fine if a novice user has maybe a dozen commonly used folders, but beyond that it is unwieldy.

I think the best solution is perhaps to use the "spatial" metaphor only for folders created on the user's "desktop". That way your ad hoc folders work the way your real desktop does (spatially), while proper hierarchies are still navigable the way they were intended -- as a tree.

aQazaQa

Re:Simple Solution.

[Knuckles]

If you read the Ars Technica links given, your learn that the Win95 way has nothing to do with a spatial file manager

Re:Simple Solution.

[pavon]

Kind'of like how the Classic Mac OS presented a simple usable interface to the user, with very few preferences? Because we all know how flawed and unusable the Macintosh was.

I haven't had a chance to use Gnome 2.6 yet, but from what I've read the design decisions that they made don't seem all that peculiar. It is basically very simular to the original Mac spacial finder. When you would introduce a normal Windows user to the Mac they would figure out how the finder works and get on with their lives, unlike this guy who turned around and threw a big temper tantrum, and his only argument was that it wasn't like Windows.

nah

[N3wsByt3]

I'm sorry, but I just don't like that kind of argumentation. Mainly because it's a flawed one.

I'm not going into the debate of KDE versus Gnome, since I only tried them out sporadically, but the 'if you don't like it, bugger off' reasoning has always been a very weak one, IMHO.

It's the same sort of thing you get from, say, chauvinistic USA zealots that answer to every sort of criticism of the government or state/country of fellow americans with: "well, if you don't like it, why don't you move to another country?"

Why should criticism be unvalid because of the possibility to go away, not use it, fork, etc? If the critique is valid, it remains valid, even if there are a zillion other things one can do.

Short on Specifics (-1 Troll)

[grendelkhan]

Apart from flaming the spatial Nautilus, there's nothing short of a rant in generalities here. Nothing is mentioned specifically, and it's just the author whining about GNOME's design principles. Are we sure this wasn't written by Rob Enderle?

I don't use Linux

[jlechem]

But man that wasn't much of a review. It was little more then a rant about the way the window manager works. I agree that you should be able to change preferneces like that easily but come on give some more evidence other then that for trashing the system.

Re:I don't use Linux

[stratjakt]

I'm glad you noticed that it wasnt much of a review.

That's because it's NOT A FUCKING REVIEW

Look:

Living Down to a Low Standard
Opinion by Nicholas Petreley

So while the zealots line up to flame him for his "unprofessional review", keep in mind it's an OPINION, and he can have whatever opinion he wants.

Let's talk about slashdots "unprofessional article" that criticizes this guy for being an "unprofessional reviewer" for merely voicing an opinion, which happens to be that $YOUR_PET_PROJECT sucks.

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Living Down to a Low Standard

Opinion by Nicholas Petreley

MAY 10, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - I recently spent the better part of a week working with the latest version of the open-source GNOME graphical desktop environment on Linux. I've decided that the only way to explain the regression of GNOME over the years is that Microsoft and/or SCO moles have infiltrated the GNOME leadership in a covert effort to destroy any possibility that Linux could compete with Windows on the desktop.

To paraphrase the humorist Peter Schickele, who was describing what it was like to discover a new music manuscript by the (fictional) inept composer P.D.Q. Bach, "Each time I get a new version of GNOME, there's this feeling of anticipation and exhilaration -- a feeling that this new version of GNOME can't possibly turn out to be as bad as the last one. But so far, each new version lives down to the same low standards set by the previous one."

By the time a software project gets to Version 2.6, a user might reasonably expect that he wouldn't have to adapt to yet another paradigm shift in basic user-interface design, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as how you navigate through desktop folders. Yet this is precisely what users will have to relearn with this latest version of GNOME.

The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer. You no longer browse with all your options accessible in a single window or a split window with a directory tree on the left and icons on the right. Instead, each double-click on a folder icon opens a new window on the screen. If this sounds familiar, it's because this was the default behavior of Windows 95, OS/2 and early versions of Mac OS. The fact that this isn't the default behavior of any mature desktop operating system might have served as a warning sign to GNOME's developers, but never mind that.

Having used OS/2 for years, I found GNOME's retro approach to be a rather pleasantly nostalgic experience. But now that I'm used to navigating folders the way one does on virtually every other desktop, however, I decided to tell the file manager not to open a new window for every folder. But it turns out there is no preference setting that tells Nautilus to use a single window to browse folders.

The only way to change the default behavior of Nautilus is to set an obscure registry key via the command line or the registry editor. Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders. I can only assume that the GNOME developers decided to make Nautilus a worse Windows than Windows. I toast their rousing success.

Granted, there are myriad unintuitive keystrokes and shift-key/mouse-click operations you can use to make it easier to navigate folders, all of which will mean squat to the daft simpletons the GNOME developers say they are targeting as their users. But GNOME developers have long since abandoned logic when defending their design choices. For example, one GNOME developer says there's a good reason why users can't change individual colors in desktop themes: Someone might accidentally make both the text and background white, thus rendering the text unreadable.

Of course, this flaw has nothing to do with the inflexibility of the primitive graphical tool kit upon which GNOME was based. It was deliberately designed to protect users who are invariably too incompetent to pick their own colors but are smart enough to memorize shift-clicks and keystrokes or edit the registry to get Nautilus to work the way they like.

Of all the criticisms one might lodge against GNOME, it's the hypocrisy of its design philosophy that looms largest. GNOME grew out of the desire to free people from Microsoft's ability to dictate what users can or can't do. Yet GNOME is built on the premise that its developers are so much wiser than users when it comes to navigating folder

Re:Article Text

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer."

jorge [whiprush.org]

Misconception #1.
The standard tree view is available by right clicking on a folder and choosing "Browse Folders", via the menu using "Browse Filesystem", or via the panel icon that looks like a file cabinet (it's there by default). So, three seperate methods to access the old view, one of which is even on the panel by default, yet Nicholas, with his years of Linux experience, can't seem to find it, naturally GNOME has robbed him of this ability.

Unbiased

[Embedded Geek]

Mainstream computer rag ComputerWorld...

I'm glad the author of the slashdot story managed to keep his biases concealed until the third word of the story. If the article had praised Gnome, however, why do I suspect we'd be hearing about "Esteemed technical journal ComputerWorld..."

Re:Unbiased

[Dielectric]

No, you wouldn't, because there really isn't an esteemed technical journal for mainstream computing. The IEEE puts out some good stuff, but no one outside of the engineering community reads it.

I go to the cockfights when I need to make a decision on this sort of thing. I label one chicken Choice A and the other chicken is Choice B, and that has pretty much worked for me. This explains why I'm using a C-64 right now. That was one tough chicken.

Onion Story

[Embedded Geek]

34 Congressmen Arrested In D.C. Cockfighting Crackdown [theonion.com]

Well, at least you're in good company. You pick a computer, they try to balance the budget. ("Get 'im Soybean Subsidies! Th' ayes! Th' ayes! Claw the ayes aught! Whooyah!! Lookee that! Aye tellya boys, they'rell be no raise for the Libraian of Congress this year.")

Reminds me of Bloom County...

[Embedded Geek]

Since we're talking about inflamatory journalism, I remember years ago a Bloom County cartoon where a politician calls up the editor of the local newspaper in a rage:

"Hello!? Bloom Beacon?! This is Senator Bedfellow! What's with this *@#! HEADLINE?"
"Headline?"
"Yes! There's no story ... just a headline!"
"Which headline?"
"THE *BIG* HEADLINE ON THE FRONT PAGE!"
"Read it to me, Senator."
"BEDFELLOW: THE SECRET LIFE OF A WIFE-SWAPPING ATHEIST"
"Oh, that's just a typo."

I'm glad to see that slashdot is hold

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

OMFG these guys are clueless

[sulli]

From Castro's blog:

[PETRELEY:] Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders.

GConf is nothing like the Windows Registry, except for the similar appearance of their respective editors. If Mr. Petreley cares to compare and contrast GConf and the Windows Registry he would know this. In fact Nicholas, I will paypal you $100 US if you can name three architectural similarities between GConf and the Registry.

Ho-ly crap.

Here you have the GNOME fan arguing with a straight face that the user might care about architectural similarities or lack thereof between the Windows Registry and the GNOME equivalent. Earth to Castro: nobody gives a shit. The users just want to be able to configure the OS.

Years of experience with Windows tell us that the Registry is a terrible place to put important config choices. Why not learn from that lesson instead of flaming users because they don't understand the architecture?

I agree...

[perly-king-69]

Whilst writing a 1000 word rant on a single feature is a nice way to earn one's money I can't help but agree with him.

This so-called 'paradigm shift' of spatial browsing should not be enforced on users. We like Linux. We like choice. Stop being fascists and give us a 'turn off spatial browsing' button.

So use it...

[Azureflare]

And use a different filemanager! (Or different WM). Personally, I've fallen in love with XFce [xfce.org] as my Window Manager (I think I just love gtk...) and ROX-Filer [sourceforge.net] as my file manager (Man I love ROX-Filer =)

BTW I thought I read that the new spatial mode could be turned off, and the filemanager could return to normal operation... Ah yes, according to a post on Linux Today [linuxtoday.com]:

I actually have tried spatial mode in Garnome. i don't like the clutter either. But it definitely does make browsing the filesystem easier. A

Ack..

[Azureflare]

Should have read that site a bit more... I pasted the wrong post in. Here's the right one:

You can turn off spatial mode in nautilus in 2.6. There's a GConf setting to revert back to browser mode as default (search the net for it). Also note there is a file browser nautilus app in fedora 2 test in the menu.

Here's a direct link [linuxquestions.org] to the linuxquestions.org page about hacking the gconf (looks pretty simple really).

Yeha, that's *real* usability

[kikta]

The fact that linuxquestions.org or a web search is needed to answer such a question should be your first clue that something is seriously amiss.

Re:I agree...

[Coryoth]

This so-called 'paradigm shift' of spatial browsing should not be enforced on users. We like Linux. We like choice. Stop being fascists and give us a 'turn off spatial browsing' button.

You have choice. Use KDE [kde.org]. Use Rox Filer [sourceforge.net]. Use Evidence [sourceforge.net].

You like GNOME but don't like the new nautilus? You can use Konqueror from inside GNOME no problems. You can use Evidence from inside GNOME.

Dearly love Nautilus but don't like spatial? GConf is far from cryptic. The choice is right there.

Don't want to have spati

Re:I agree...

[Angst Badger]

This so-called 'paradigm shift' of spatial browsing should not be enforced on users. We like Linux. We like choice. Stop being fascists and give us a 'turn off spatial browsing' button.

It's questionable whether it should be offered, much less enforced. If you're so close to your code that twiddling the interface of a fnarking file browser strikes you as a paradigm shift, you really need to get out more.

Personally, I'd like to see at least one fast, tight file browser that mindlessly clones Windows Explor

Nothing new here

[Mars Ultor]

Not too surprising really - here's [linuxworld.com] an earlier article when GNOME 2.2 was still hot. From the article:

KDE is delivering a better version of what GNOME's goal has apparently morphed into: becoming a great component framework that you can write to in multiple languages. Nicholas Petreley rebuffs the common GNOME battle slogans and explains why the window-manager's name needs reworking.

Other than boosting ad views, I'm not sure what continuing a KDE/GNOME flamewar here on /. really contributes to open discussion (pardon the pun)

Not flamebait

[BuddieFox]

There is one fundamental problem in the open source community (and as an occassional open source developer I know what I am talking about):
It's the old "dont you dare critisize my darling project!"-dilemma, it somehow seems that some people think that because a commercial entity is not behind a piece of software it is all of a sudden beyond any criticism.
Open source adoption and progress would be better served by taking criticism more constructively and try to actually address the problems put forward (even those that are put forward undiplomatically), instead of retorting to "no, you are stupid", "why would you want to do that?", "no you are really really stupid"-flamewars in a pathetic attempt att diverting criticism back.

Check the ego at the door and see the community prosper.

and it's right

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for simplification, but there is no reason to go back to kinder and ABC wooden blocks.

The biggest argument against spatial navigation, as produced by gnome 2.6, is that it requires the user to learn TWO different styles of navigation: one for their browser and one for their files.

That is NOT simplification. And they didn't ask the community, and they are going against the gain of EVERY other OS.

If spatial is going to pay dividends when "database" filesystems arrive.... introduce spacial THEN. And even then, have it as an option. Besides won't a database file-system be based on searches? So won't we need "back" and "forward" buttons???????????

I am not going to swear here, but I am MAJORLY pissed at gnome. I am on 2.4 atm because of it. It is at worst elitist insanity, at best a poorly executed jump of the gun.

Re:and it's right

[prockcore]

And they didn't ask the community, and they are going against the gain of EVERY other OS.

Yeah, until Apple switches back to a spacial finder and everyone praises them as visionaries.

Re:Other problems, the insanity continues

[krmt]

So I have to DOUBLE, click with a scrollwheel (not a nice experience)

I haven't switched from 2.4 to 2.6 yet, but I've been told that you can hold down shift key as you left click as well (which mirrors the old MacOS style).

Apple spends more than anyone on UI research and they have abandoned spacial..... are we to believe some hacker, former BeOS lover, is somehow more skilled than Apples UI teams?????? NO.

There's still a lot of UI wisdom from the pre-OSX days, and to simply dismiss it is foolish.

This is the same as saying we need "spacial web-browing" remove the back and forward buttons. Remove all buttons, the address bar EVERYTHING. And people can just navigate by "surfing the links" because it is more "natural".

Spatial webbrowsing is impractical because of the nature of HTML and the infinite space and chaotic organization of the network. In addition, you don't manipulate the web, you view it and interact with it. Spatial concepts become very useful when interacting with files (i.e. drag it to the trash to delete it) but isn't so necessary when all you're doing is looking at data. File browsing has a very different set of requirements and constraints.

Ultimately, what's interesting about the above is that a spatial metaphor encourages the user to interact with their data, where the portal viewing method that Windows and OSX uses is meant more for viewing, like on the web. Perhaps the reason why Apple switched to the portal viewer metaphor for OSX is that there's so much in UNIX that you're not supposed to manipulate, where in the old MacOS you could manipulate anything really.

And one thing that's very much in favor of spatial organization is that it's actually much faster to move files around than the porthole metaphor, at least if you know what you're doing. With the porthole method, you open up windows explorer (which by default is a totally separate icon/interface than starting from My Computer or whatever) and navigate to your file. Then you have to navigate to where you want to move it to on the sidebar. That's the most efficient way to do it, and you still have to bring up the sidebar, which may not expand far enough over to easily see as deep in the file tree as you need.

In contrast, with the one-window per file method, you open up each folder, holding down the shift key on each open so that the previous one is closed, and where the file tree branches off from the current file location and where it's going, you leave that window open, and keep drilling down the file tree. Then, once you get to your file, you go back to that branch point you left open and drill down the other half of the tree. This is much quicker because you rarely have to navigate two full trees, and you don't have to deal with a sidebar that's too small due to the fact that you have all this extra data hanging around. Who needs to see the whole damn file tree at a time on the sidebar? Once again, this sort of thing has no bearing when all you're doing is browsing the file tree and seeing what's there, but when actually manipulating it, it's of huge benefit.

A level headed reply to him.

[Soko]

Jorge "whipirush" Castro, of Ars Technica's Linux.ARS fame, has made a level headed, informative reply to this trol^Warticle on his blog. Here is the text of relevant entry [whiprush.org], to try and save whiprush some bandwidth:

May 10, 2004
Crack Pipes for Everyone!

I stumbled upon this review of GNOME 2.6 by Nicholas Petreley via OSNews. Now, I'm no self-proclaimed Linux desktop expert, but I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable GNOME user, I even wrote up a review or two that were considered pretty decent. Given the longevity of Nick in this community, I was appalled by the utter disrespect shown in this article. Luckily for us, fools choose emotion over straight facts, so in this entry I will simply refute his comments with facts.

Obviously Mr. Petreley has chosen to outright lie about GNOME and its capabilities, so you can call this an open letter, in which I will happily debate in public, or whatever, since most of what he says, just plain ain't true. Sure, not everyone likes GNOME, and surely everyone has strong opinions about the spatial Nautilus, but misdirection is just dishonest.

Let's start off with this gem:

"Each time I get a new version of GNOME, there's this feeling of anticipation and exhilaration -- a feeling that this new version of GNOME can't possibly turn out to be as bad as the last one. But so far, each new version lives down to the same low standards set by the previous one."

Does anyone reading this quote, right off the bat assume that this is going to be a fair review of GNOME whatsoever? I can't even formulate a response to this.

The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer.

Misconception #1. The standard tree view is available by right clicking on a folder and choosing "Browse Folders", via the menu using "Browse Filesystem", or via the panel icon that looks like a file cabinet (it's there by default). So, three seperate methods to access the old view, one of which is even on the panel by default, yet Nicholas, with his years of Linux experience, can't seem to find it, naturally GNOME has robbed him of this ability.

If this sounds familiar, it's because this was the default behavior of Windows 95, OS/2 and early versions of Mac OS.

Windows 95 was never spatial. It was mimicked, poorly. Since Mr. Petreley can't seem to define what spatial is in the first place, and which OS implemented it in which way if at all, we're left with ye olde "Doesn't work like Explorer, it sucks." excuse. There's more to spatial than one folder per window. I'd explain it, but there are plenty of resources available that define this, unfortunately Nicholas failed to comprehend even one of them.

Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders.

GConf is nothing like the Windows Registry, except for the similar appearance of their respective editors. If Mr. Petreley cares to compare and contrast GConf and the Windows Registry he would know this. In fact Nicholas, I will paypal you $100 US if you can name three architectural similarities between GConf and the Registry.

Of course, this flaw has nothing to do with the inflexibility of the primitive graphical tool kit upon which GNOME was based.

This is another passage that I can't even comprehend, and isn't worthy of replying to. I'd like to quote it for the record though. Note the lack of evidence when defining "primitive" and "inflexibility". I don't think anyone that has used GTK's language bindings will use the word "inflexible".

GNOME grew out of the desire to free people from Microsoft's ability to dictate what users can or can't do.

Well someone better tell the GNOME developers, I'm pretty sure that they're out to make a kickass free desktop. I su

Re:A level headed reply to him.

[stratjakt]

The standard tree view is available by right clicking on a folder and choosing "Browse Folders", via the menu using "Browse Filesystem", or via the panel icon that looks like a file cabinet (it's there by default). So, three seperate methods to access the old view, one of which is even on the panel by default, yet Nicholas, with his years of Linux experience, can't seem to find it, naturally GNOME has robbed him of this ability.

I'm not using gnome now, but this sounds like it turns it off for the current window, but there's no easy option to turn it off completely.

And his later point about gconf vs windows registry is irrelevant. He admits the interface is similar. They both accomplish similar things. So hey, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck its a friggin duck. Who cares if one uses an LDAP backend or a flat text file or a dunebuggy full of cockroach asses.

Gnome developers need to relax. It's just one guys opinion and he's entitled to it. If someone says your product stinks on ice, look into it and be man enough to admit if they're right.

I love this passage

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, one GNOME developer says there's a good reason why users can't change individual colors in desktop themes: Someone might accidentally make both the text and background white, thus rendering the text unreadable.


A logical choice would have been to remove the first color selected from the second choice and voila.

The guy has a point...

[ave19]

I agree with this article. (I even read it.) I want to give it mod points. Can we do that?

I used to configure the crap out of gnome, making it do all kinds of weird stuff I liked. Then, version by version, my toys were taken away. I don't get it. If the toys made it unstable, why not fix them? What ever happened to the idea of "advanced" vs. "novice" settings for a UI? Every version that comes out has LESS functionality than the one before, railroading me into a certain way of interacting with a desktop.

In Soviet Russia, the desktop clicks on YOU!

Make it easy by default, but don't take away our toys and call it progress.

-ave

FFS

[theantix]

Look dude... you are acting like it's the responsibility of the Gnome developers to produce a desktop that you like. It sounds to me that you like the design choices of KDE over the design choices of Gnome. Personally, I find the KDE applications and general desktop environment ugly and cluttered, while I enjoy the simple and sleek elegance of Gnome. So it should be apparent to you that I prefer the design choices of Gnome over the design choices of KDE.

Two desktop environments for X11, each optimized f

Cancel - Ok buttons

[GodWasAnAlien]

CANCEL

The reason given (other than being like Next buttons MS Wizard screens) for using Cancel-Ok instead of the Ok-Cancel was that we read from left to right in western countries.

By that logic, shouldn't the Cancel button be at the top left, since we read from top to bottom?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.O K

Our "left-to-right" reading is what makes Cancel-Ok so awkward.

Do you agree with the US being in Iraq?

NO.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.YES

Since we read the choices from left to right, wouldn't skimming through a page and accepting be more efficient if the default choice is on the left?

YES.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.NO

sorry about the x's. slashdot tells me "Please use fewer 'junk' characters when I use ' 's or '.'s "

some random comments

[jd142]

First, I'm not sure I agree with his statement that having folders open in the same window is the better way to do things. If I'm moving or copying a file from one folder to its parent, having two windows open is more efficient for me. It's easier for me to just drag the file between two open windows than to highlight the file, say Cut, then move up a level and say Paste.

The latest version Gnome does seem rather sparse to me. But that can also be a good thing for newbies.

One thing I noticed in the Ars Technica review at http://www.ars-technica.com/reviews/004/software/g nome-2.6/gnome-2.6-2.html, which really praised Gnome, was that when you open a window for the first time, the review said that the scroll bar can be in a random place. "[I]t doesn't know where you left the window last time, so it places them in seemingly random places." Huh? That's just silly. Make the default to select the first file in the window the first time a folder is opened. So there's a lot of work to be done on usability.

If this paraphrase from Petreley is accurate, then the Gnome coders do have a lot to learn about ease of use: "For example, one GNOME developer says there's a good reason why users can't change individual colors in desktop themes: Someone might accidentally make both the text and background white, thus rendering the text unreadable."

Um, if you're concernd about people setting text and background to the same color, just do a simple check before applying the color and prompt the user if the two colors match.

Petreley may have some good points, but he's made them in an unhelpful way. The same way the article submitter showed a lack of objectivity with the comment about pc world being a mainstream rag.

Typical UNIX/Linux problem - configuration sucks

[Animats]

What this guy is really complaining about is that the configuration "system" for UNIX and Linux is lousy. It historically consisted of editing textfiles, with no checking that the values or syntax were meaningful. There's been some progress, but not much.

If you're involved in configuration, go take a look at Susan Kare's original Macintosh control panel. [kare.com] Now think really, really hard about how to get to something that intutive.

At long last!!

[TheLoneCabbage]

"It was deliberately designed to protect users who are invariably too incompetent to pick their own colors but are smart enough to memorize shift-clicks and keystrokes or edit the registry to get Nautilus to work the way they like."

We have achieved GUI parity with the MAC!!

GNOME is the example, the point much bigger

[miketo]

The article spends most of its time on Nautilus, and I'm not going to rehash the debates here. But he makes a valid point, one that I've wrestled with since Day One of Linux:

Engineers design programs that work for them, not for end users.

I've seen this time and again during my work as a software product manager. Everything from base functionality to key UI choices are made by the development team based on what they find useful, or what they think will be useful. It is a very, very rare team that actually conducts any workflow analysis or UI usability studies during the design phase. And, once it's coded, it will cling like a limpet to a rock, difficult if not impossible to change.

I know enough about my own predispositions and biases to know that my judgment about what's best for me isn't always what's best for everyone. While both Microsoft and Apple make poor function / UI choices, with Linux the problem is magnified because each piece is built by a different design team using a different methodology.

Server-side and admin people aren't bothered by this, but your average end user is easily frustrated by applications that don't behave in an expected way, or don't have settings that can be easily changed to adapt to the user. If you give your software to a reasonably knowledgable end user, watch the interaction with your product. Don't argue, or explain why the actions aren't correct. Take notes, and figure out a way to accommodate the user. Don't use the mantra of "Read the man pages, foo!" That only leads to reviews like Petreley's, and the ensuing does not / does too debates on /.

"There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution."

--Mike

He's pretty much right

[arashi no garou]

Flame me if you will, but he's pretty much right on the money. I was ecstatic when 2.4 came out. I think it was a vast improvement over 2.2. I was even more excited when I got a chance to try out 2.6, but it took me only a few hours to decide that I was better off with 2.4.

With 2.6, I felt, as Mr. Petreley did, that I had gone backwards in time. I am back in 2.4 now, and I'm much happier for it. My biggest fear is that I may not be able to upgrade to Slackware 10 because it will surely contain 2.6. I'd love to be able to run 2.4 on Slackware 10, but not if it means installing it without GNOME and then attempting to download and install 2.4, assuming that it would even be possible.

Basically, thanks to GNOME's design decisions, my next GNU/Linux OS desktop will be either KDE (horrors!), XFCE (not bad), or Fluxbox (fast but too minimal).

Gnome slamming?

[lightspawn]

Is that anything like dwarf tossing?

(Oh, I see, the subject should read GNOME in capitals. very misleading.)

Nautilus needs to integrate with file chooser!

[austus]

It's not that nautilus is a spatial file manager because that is actually a good thing. The problem is Nautilus does not integrate with the Gnome file chooser! Essentially Nautilus seems incomplete as a result.

When one edits bookmarks in Nautilus, the gnome file chooser should come up. The directories "added" using the new file chooser should be the directories that make up Nautilus's "bookmarks". This solution removes redundancy. Think about it. People "choose" files from directories their applications use, which incidently happen to be the same files that people tend to manage.

There should be an "open" option under the file menu that invokes the Gnome file chooser. People still want and need to browse the file system. This solution allows that.

In summary, the new gnome file chooser and Nautilus should be inseparable bed buddies. File choosing *is* file management in a practical sense, so why doesn't Nautilus take advantage of the new Gnome file chooser?

Please stop whining.

[Awptimus Prime]

While this latest review is bound to be a polarizing and heavily debated issue (read flamebait), it is important in that this review will be seen by so many mainstream readers and corporate types who may have been considering Gnome."

Does anyone else hear MC Chris's voice when they read that last bit? For real, man. Relax already.

If you hate it so much, why did you submit it? Oh, I know. You wanted to get the link posted so a bunch of /. people will write them bitching and complaining about the "inaccuracy" or "bias" in their article..

How is that going to benefit the Linux/OSS movement? It's not. You are just going to cause an editor to get a lot of nasty mail just because he doesn't agree with your opinion. Perhaps, next time he will just find something besides Linux to write about..

It's great to support the one you love, but why strike out like that? Nobody gains anything from it. Oh, and shame on the moderators for letting this get through. You had to recognize it was soley to irritate the editor.

You can browse files graphically in Gnome???!!!!!

[Lodragandraoidh]

Damn, and all this time I thought you just use it to open emacs and your terminal sessions.

As an aside, I wan't aware that Gnome had a 'registry' (a la Windoze?)...I always thought you could just edit flat files...another shock for my delicate constitution.

read it, weep, rant and then, why not think?

[zpok]

This guy's opinion (yes, it's an opinion piece) is worth solid gold. If you can't see it, you should probably not try to develop software for the masses and stick to making stuff for yourself.

Average user feedback is something rare for Linux, firstly because it's unappreciated and secondly because there's not many average users on Linux.

And if they balk at something, two responses out of three are "read the man pages". As if there's any reason to presume the man pages are actually any good or up to date or written with an average user in mind...

As always, I'm writing for linux people who like the idea of linux desktop.

I dislike Gnome

[Uma Thurman]

Because Windowmaker is all I want. But Free Software gives us a bountiful array of choices. I don't get why Nick P. needs to run down someone else's desktop.

He needs to mind his own business and write about something he DOES like rather than running down something that he doesn't like.

Re:I like Gnome.

[13Echo]

Yeah? Runs great on my test PC with a P3 450, Voodoo 3 (16MB), and 256 MB SDRAM. Hardly high-end by any means. Only about 150 MB of RAM is cached at any given time on the machine... That's cached, not "used". Most people don't understand how Gnome and Linux use memory, therefore they assume that it "uses too much".

Re:Interesting

[pubjames]

however the fact that both exist and compete for resources is in my mind one of the main causes behind the failure of Linux on the desktop.

I agree absolutely. I think we've gone beyond the stage of it being useful having two competing desktops.

In fact I seem to recall that Bill Gates himself (or Ballamer) said that he was very pleased that Linux had two competing desktops. That should be a wake-up call if nothing else.

Re:I don't like either of them...

[rsidd]

K's QT isn't truely OSS since you have to pay out the ass to use it on Windows,

Bullshit. Apparently nothing Troll Tech does is right. I'm sure you guys will find a way to whine if they released Qt into the public domain. The linux version of Qt is GPL'd and you can do whatever you like with it that you can do with other GPL'd software, including porting it to windows. Troll Tech hasn't done that for you, of course, and why should they?

I'll see your flamebait and raise you a kneejerk

[LightStruk]

K's QT isn't truely OSS since you have to pay out the ass to use it on Windows, so I avoid it on principle.

Comments like this really bother me. What, were you planning on running KDE on Windows?
Here's the truth: QT on X11 has been licensed under the GPL [trolltech.com] for almost 4 years. [freshmeat.net] This means that KDE is 100% GPL and 100% Free, and has been for a very long time. No matter what Trolltech decides to do to stay in business, my KDE desktop will ALWAYS be Free.

Spread your FUD somewhere else.

Re:What the Linux desktop needs is very simple

[po8]

X has been a thorn in the side of desktop development for two long. The Y-Windows [y-windows.org] paper describes why, and why they are creating a replacement from scratch. It will also be network-transparent and integrated. This hack of emulating a desktop on top of a library on top of a window manager on top of a graphics server is completely amateur and unprofessional.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine why, in the year since its announcement, no one has made any significant progress on Y. Or not. Maybe deve

Re:Interesting

[vrai]

Choice is a good thing. If you don't want a choice of desktops for your operating system I suggest installing Windows or buying a Mac.

Re:Interesting

[b-baggins]

Choice is a good thing.

No, meaningful choice is a good thing. Just throwing a bunch of crap out there so people can have something to choose from is stupid.

Re:Interesting

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

however the fact that both exist and compete for resources is in my mind one of the main causes behind the failure of Linux on the desktop.

This might (and I say might) be true if they were competing for resources. But they aren't: the reason there are two projects, and both are actively developed, is that there are some programmers who just fundamentally don't like how KDE/Qt works while there are other programmers who don't like how Gnome/GTK work (and then there's the ones who prefer lesstif/bare X, but they're just weird and can be ignored as a statistical fluke ;)). They wouldn't work on the other if they had any choice in the matter, and since this is FOSS, they do have a choice. They aren't competing for resources because if you took away one project most of the programmers wouldn't migrate to the other, they'd just start again.

Enough with the "Kill all but one desktops" please.

Re:Interesting

[dkleinsc]

The problem with calls to unify the Linux desktop is that people on all sides want to unify the Linux desktop around their own. The Gnome people want the KDE folks to port all their apps to Gnome and disappear, while KDE wants Gnome to quit being wierd and help out their project. It makes a certain amount of sense that this would happen, because people on both sides have put an awful lot of time and effort into their respective projects and don't want it to get flushed down the drain. Of course, there may b

Poetry (Freeform, of course...)

[Embedded Geek]

I am the Gnome.
Little tunnels where I live.
Pointy hat. Pointy hat.
Pointy hat hides my secrets.

Damn the garden spade!
Damn the garden spade!

(Nods to the applause of a dozen hipsters snapping their fingers)

Re:He's right...

[SoTuA]

This begs the question.

No, [homestead.com] it [nizkor.org] doesn't. [c2.com]

("Raising the question" != "Begging the question")

(Bored? ME? ;)

Re:The Problem is Nautilus

[pclminion]

Why is griping about something always considered "flamebait?"

Sometimes I think Slashdot readers are too wimpy to handle a real, heated debate on something. They run screaming "Flames, Flames!" at the slightest disagreement. We argue about politics and privacy quite openly on Slashdot. Do people really identify so personally with their computers and software that they literally cannot handle someone with a differing viewpoint?

Are you afraid you can't rebut his points? If you can rebut them, rebut them! The fact that he was a little snarky in expressing his opinion doesn't invalidate it.