GNOME 3.2 Released | Hacker News Reader

GNOME 3.2 Released

library.gnome.org

68 pointsGarbage50 comments

  GNOME core modules now only depend on introspection-based
  Python bindings (pygobject-3) and hence pygtk, gnome-python
  and gnome-python-desktop are not required any more.

Interesting. I have been out of the loop for a while. Does this mean that existing pygtk applications have to be ported to pygobject-3 or is it a simple "import" change?

Yes, API is not the same (although very similar) so all applications have to be ported. Some of this can be automated (using scripts like http://git.gnome.org/browse/pygobject/tree/pygi-convert.sh) but it has to be done.

They will still work, but switching to pygobject-3 requires to port the application. There is a script in the pygobject tarball/module which handles most (not all) of the changes.

Anyone else move away from Gnome recently? I've switched to XFCE and find the workflow better adapted to what I'm used to, I gave gnome-shell a month or two before I couldn't take it anymore.

Really? I've played around with GNOME Shell a few times, but recently I've been seriously considering using it for my laptop because I would like to get the most real-estate-optimized modern GUI possible on there.

Right now I'm running Pantheon (elementary project's DE) on one partition and i3 (tiling WM) on another, and neither quite seem to feel right -- the former likely because it's very WIP (granted I'm optimistically biased being a core developer of the project).

What specifically have you found advantageous to your workflow with XFCE? What did you miss from GNOME-Shell, and what exactly made you switch?

It seems like gnome-shell is trying to do something new with the way I manage running applications. I also miss being able to switch to workstations using the arrow keys and creating and deleting workstations on the fly messes with my workflow anyway, I usually delegate workspaces to different tasks or projects.

XFCE is lightweight and is more in line with how I think. I'm used to a taskbar, application menu, precreated workspaces and icons on the desktop. Could I use gnome-shell for everyday work? Yeah, but I would really be happy with the features above too. I just don't see why I should give up my established workflows.

I was sceptical, but become enthusiastic to the point of not wanting to miss Gnome Shell anymore once I realized how great it works with keyboard shortcuts. For example: hit the windows key, start typing a couple of letters of the desired application or document, hit enter. Fast, convenient, great.

Where does it work? Doesn't work for me in Gnome 2.32.1 on Ubuntu 11.04

It's a Gnome Shell feature. It doesn't work in Gnome 2.

Used gnome-shell on Fedora 15 for a few weeks, loved it but didn't love Fedora.

Moved to Ubuntu 11.04 before giving up on Linux and even though I'm not the biggest Unity look-and-feel fan, it has most of the aspects of gnome-shell I like and worked smoothly on my ThinkPad T60 except for hardware volume buttons which was fixed with [1] and slow wireless due to an older kernel which was fixed with [2].

Overall this idea (inspired by Spotlight and I think perfected in Windows Vista by mapping it to a single key) of mapping the Windows key to an auto-focused, system wide search box is fantastic. I really wouldn't want to go back to a system without that keystroke. Gnome using that same structure and taking you to this nice overview/launch panel is a really slick refinement.

[1] http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=60945#p3793... [2] http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1837729

Me too. I went back to XFCE after a few months in Gnome 3, and functionality-wise I prefer. I miss the sexiness of gnome-shell, XFCE is pretty bare-bones. With the online accounts in 3.2, I'll probably give it another try.

Funny, I can't get enough of it. It's rough around the edges probably because I'm running from the Gnome PPA on Ubuntu Natty, but the way it manages windows on multiple desktops is like nothing I've seen. It makes so much more sense. To each their own I suppose. Isn't there an option to go back to the traditional desktop?

System Settings -> System Information -> Graphics -> Forced Fallback Mode

Because you totally would look there and not Displays or Screen.

I'm using awesome window manager with basic gnome-session (no panel) which still gives me most of the desktop integration (nm-applet, consolekit, policykit, etc)

I moved to an xmonad based environment but I still keep a gnome-panel on screen, so it's kind of a hybrid environment.

I stuck it out with Gnome 2.x on Ubuntu, until I "had" to convert that machine to Windows 7 (for running IAR). Windows 7 is somehow an improvement over Gnome 3.

I recently installed Windows 7 on a machine after using Gnome 3, so I could give it to my parents. This was the first Windows I'd installed since XP, and Windows 7 is downright primitive by comparison. Gnome 3 supports my workflow very well -- one terminal fullscreened, running screen, one workspace for browsers, and one for mail.

I'm not sure what the complaints are about it, and to me it's preposterous to say that Windows 7 is an improvement.

Yeah, right now I'm running Windows 7 on my desktop which is used only every now and then and my laptop is running Arch with XFCE. Have you taken a look at the fallback mode on Gnome 3? I tried it and it brought back the features I was used to but just the idea that it was a fallback mode was kinda unappealing, what makes the mode any worse off than gnome-shell?

What is IAR?

Probably the IAR microcontroller development software http://www.iar.com/

The window manager in Windows 7 is excellent. Double click a title, make that window maximize. Have a wide screen? Drag one window to the left, one window to the right and you have a split screen. The ALT+TAB on Windows 7 works without using the mouse which is salt in the wounds of GNOME 3 considering you can't do the above mentioned split screening/minimizing. Supposedly alt+` at least does the old GNOME 2 alt+tab behavior but I learned that after converting to XFCE.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic but Gnome 3 can do everything you mentioned by default.

I wonder why their showcase features a picture of a DigiNotar certificate [1]. Could it be that DigiNotar was in the news recently?

From WikiPedia: "On July 10, 2011, a certificate was issued by DigiNotar's systems for Google by an attacker with access to their systems. This certificate was subsequently used by unknown persons in Iran to conduct a man-in-the-middle attack against Google services. On August 28, 2011, certificate problems were observed on multiple Internet service providers in Iran. The fraudulent certificate was posted on pastebin."

..and that was only the start of a whole chain of events...

DigiNotar went bankrupt a few days ago [3].

[1] http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.2/figures/cert...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diginotar

[3] http://www.diginotar.nl/

The screenshot was made when DigiNotar wasn't yet bankcrupt. The reason for using DigiNotar is because of two things: 1) my sense of humour 2) makes it really clear why you might want a certificate viewer. Ok, maybe a 3rd one: Dutch government initially saying they could still be trusted for some certificates.

It is not the only screenshot with my sense of humour though

The "web application" trick is a great idea. I think we may see this idea stolen soon by all major OSes.

This type of functionality is already supported by on Windows, OS X, and, of course Linux-based systems through Chrome, Firefox, and even IE. I believe that the first way to get this type of functionality was to use Mozilla's Prism project, which has been around since 2007 (though that is just the first that I am thinking of off the top of my head). I never end up finding these sorts of things to be very useful, since I always have a browser open anyway.

Anyway, this moves support for web apps into the standard plumbing of the GUI. It's a good thing.

Similar functionality already exists in OS X, in case anyone is curious:

http://ihnatko.com/2011/07/22/making-desktop-webapps-in-lion...

So, what’s with Linux and margins? I thought they had solved that by now but nope, the margins are still all over the place, inconsistent and visually distracting.

I feel this is even more apparent now that they dialed up the margins even more.

Please excuse my question, as I am quite design-inept, and often have no problem with whatever visuals are presented. I'm trying to figure out which margins are worthy of ire or inconsistent, for the sake of my own improvement on such visual matters.

The only difference/inconsistency that leaps out at me is that between the content of a window and its border, in which case there seems to be a clear divide between popup/info windows ("Save a Copy", "Color", "Online Accounts") and the more persistent, full-application windows ("Contacts", "Documents" and the image viewer).

There are differences between the spacing of other UI elements, for sure, but I don't really understand why one element should or should not be placed a consistent distance away from another. E.g. in the "Online Accounts" window, the All Settings button has identical top and bottom margins, but it is a different margin from left margin, as well as different from the margin between the white box in the pane below, and its container. Which of these, if any, would you change and why?

I personally wouldn't cite margins as the biggest visual flaw, but rather alignment in general, followed by contrast.

The very first screenshot on the page is a very awkward dialog: http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.2/figures/gnom...

* "Use this account for" runs uncomfortably close to the account list. It looks bad. Couldn't they just put that whitespace on the right to use?

* The switch labels (Mail, Calendar...) are aligned with the Email Address label, but the switches themselves aren't aligned with the email value (ovitters@...). The implicit grid is broken.

* Someone was too lazy to style the email address in the selected state of the account list (dark gray on medium blue). There's not enough contrast to easily read it.

http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.2/figures/gnom...

* This is the Contacts app whose sole purpose is to view a person's details. Why are their only details (Away, mail@example.com) the tiniest words on the screen?

* Letter placement in the contacts list (A, C, D) looks reckless and noisy. Horizontally, its margins are not equal. Vertically, it appears arbitrary. It would look better if they were horizontally centered and vertically on the baseline of the contact's name.

* The letters (A, C, D) also have too much contrast; they should be lighter. They're a visual hint, not an area of focus.

http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.2/figures/file...

* Why is the filetype selector only wide enough to show "PDF Docume..."? There is a ton of space.

http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.2/figures/colo...

* None of these buttons have enough padding around the label when compared to the buttons in other dialogs.

* Why are the lower buttons all squished together?

Most of these can't be fixed by theming, because they were caused by the dialog creators themselves. In short, there is a lack of attention to detail. :)

File a bug per issue and it'll be fixed.

I don't use any of this software, I'm just responding to parent's question. But hopefully some GNOME developers are listening.

I appreciate the perspective you've provided.

You know, everything you see on most GUIs (Gnome is not Linux-only, you know) is themable. If you feel inclined to help the designers make a prettier interface, you can easily find information on how to actually help.

Nah, thank you. I think I will rather just continue buying my OS.

I’m not really willing to invest more time than just trying it out from time to time nor do I understand why I should be.

So, to answer your original question, "What's with Linux and margins?":

The people who don't like margins don't want to help. Now you know.

So basically the process of making a free and open OS is – sadly – broken.

Not at all. It works fine for me and for all the people who use it and, eventually, make actual, real, contributions to the product. Your opinion has been noted and, if someone cares enough, the problem will be fixed. If nobody cares, it's your problem and yours only: if you don't solve it, nobody will.

I would still call that broken. Sure, a lot of stuff works but some things just suck.

I still don't care

I switched to gnome 3 and enjoy it so far on my ubuntu. I also like kde4.6....tried other desktops with pleasure too.

... good to see how bold choices created a diversified spectrum of of linux desktop.

Which Linux distributions are going to use it?

Finally anti-aliased window corners.

I'm happy to see 3 shaping up like KDE4. It seems like the rough edges are being ironed out very quickly! I'd love to see the font dialog get more options rather than a simple cosmetic rearrangements. The Mac font chooser dialog is perfect and very compact too.

Down to the "ON-OFF" button/switch it still attempts to look like something it will never be, MacOSX.

Down.

This is indeed an unhealthy trend. The past years nearly all major desktop environments have been adding stuff like window compositing, shadows, translucent windows and other graphics gimmicks which just add bloat, bling-bling and no usability value. In many cases usability even suffered. For example, KDE4 removed a lot of configurability that made KDE3 such a malleable environment. It's fashionable to remove choices from the user and do windowdressing instead.

Ever had to drill down the network settings in Windows Vista control panel? As soon as you're past the initial window and at the TCP/IP settings tab, you're suddenly back in Windows XP land with the @#$% tiny list of interfaces, having to use both vertical and horizontal scrollbars, and no way to resize the window, thank you Microsoft. But at least the Start Menu looks like a glossy magazine, and have you seen the translucent taskbar? Wow! That's what we needed!

No, of course not. Window compositing is a huge usability feature. It made me switch from xmonad to Gnome 3, because it just feels so much faster and responsive. Also, live miniatures are almost necessary (at least for me) while dealing with 5 terminal windows and another 6 emacs frames. And you lose nothing (well, ok, you do, in some cases it can be slower, take few more resources and so on, but that's the case with only some apps, not general). Making compositing and using accelerated video HW the norm is a step forward, not an unhealthy trend.

Actually, I think I saw those first on iOS.

I see every car has a steering wheel. There is nothing wrong with interfaces that appear consistent across manufacturers.

Some developer liked them from iOS, made a widget and then this widget became really popular with other developers. It is actually sometimes used too much, so some stuff might be changed in future again (normal checkbox or something else).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com