If somebody is coming from a different DE he wants the same interactions that they used to do. It’s easy to hate Gnome because people see that first. And they find:
there’s no tray
what’s that line at the top
where’s the start menu
where are the opened apps
is the app drawer really that ugly
And these are only expectations and you just learn to do things differently.
Just because it has a different workflow that big players implanted in people, Linux needs to match that?
The worst thing you can do is to install a dock extension to make it feel like you are in your previous DE. If you want to get the real Gnome experience, you need to let it be Gnome.
As for the design, it’s indeed subjective, but we can agree that it is modern with balanced spacing. You can feel that a graphic designer worked on it. And if you don’t like it, that’s the same as with other DEs, install a theme. As you can’t change QT apps to use titlebar you can’t change GTK apps to use app menu instead.
And finally the keyboard efficiency: Indeed every major DE is keyboard efficient, but I wasn’t expecting it for Gnome when I was learning it, because I’m videos, you always see clicks, so I mentioned it.
Just because it has a different workflow that big players implanted in people, Linux needs to match that?
For newbies? Yes. SO MUCH YES.
I don’t care if you want to use Gnome on a distro for people who want weird and different. But for any mainstream distro targeted toward newbies, Gnome should not be the default DE. Precisely because it requires a lot of additional learning to use the DE, in addition to learning to use Linux.
Literally any other DE. Throw a dart at a bunch of DE logos pasted to the wall, and you’ll hit one that’s better for newbies than Gnome.
(And no, Gnome is not intuitive. You said yourself that using Gnome requires you “just learn to do things differently”. If it was intuitive, you wouldn’t need to learn it, and it wouldn’t feel ‘different’.)
Since all your examples of how intuitive Gnome is involve the same settings menu in the top right corner … is that settings menu in the top right corner labeled at all? Or is intuition the ONLY way to know it’s the settings menu? You know, maybe I’m starting to understand the disconnect here. When I say something is intuitive, I mean it’s where you’d naturally expect it and does what you expect it to do. But when Gnome people call something “intuitive”, I’m starting to suspect they say that because using intuition is the only way to figure out the interface. You just have to guess what that vague icon does…
Like KDE? It would be a lot more complex. I would fear giving KDE for newcomers. It’s basically windows 98, but with frosty glass themes, fragmented apps.
Or Cinnamon? You upgraded to windows XP. Congratulations.
Deepin? Looks cool until you try to use it.
Xfce? That’s stable and fast. But would you advertise Linux as that outdated?
Cosmic, still early.
Budgie, maybe.
I really think gnome is the best default.
Nevertheless, It’s you mixing intuitive and familiar. Moreover, people who give Linux a trial, they wish for something different. And they really like Gnome from my experience.
Moreover, people who give Linux a trial, they wish for something different.
Says who? I think most people who give Linux a trial, they wish for Windows, but without the all the bullshit.
What I’m afraid of is newbies who get Gnome as the default without knowing any better, without even knowing what a DE is or that there’s more than one. And when they find it weird and difficult to learn, they’re not going to think, “Gnome is weird and difficult to learn, I should try a different DE.” – they’re going to think, “Linux is weird and difficult to learn, I should go back to Windows.”
I think you have to learn, but I don’t think it’s difficult to learn. As I said I find it intuitive. My mum could learn it and she is not techy at all. That’s actually a very good example, because she couldn’t print on Windows and now she can with Linux.
If somebody is coming from a different DE he wants the same interactions that they used to do. It’s easy to hate Gnome because people see that first. And they find:
And these are only expectations and you just learn to do things differently.
Just because it has a different workflow that big players implanted in people, Linux needs to match that?
The worst thing you can do is to install a dock extension to make it feel like you are in your previous DE. If you want to get the real Gnome experience, you need to let it be Gnome.
As for the design, it’s indeed subjective, but we can agree that it is modern with balanced spacing. You can feel that a graphic designer worked on it. And if you don’t like it, that’s the same as with other DEs, install a theme. As you can’t change QT apps to use titlebar you can’t change GTK apps to use app menu instead.
And finally the keyboard efficiency: Indeed every major DE is keyboard efficient, but I wasn’t expecting it for Gnome when I was learning it, because I’m videos, you always see clicks, so I mentioned it.
For newbies? Yes. SO MUCH YES.
I don’t care if you want to use Gnome on a distro for people who want weird and different. But for any mainstream distro targeted toward newbies, Gnome should not be the default DE. Precisely because it requires a lot of additional learning to use the DE, in addition to learning to use Linux.
Not at all. Newcomers want intuitive UI. And gnome is really that.
Examples:
One unified settings app. Containing all the settings that as a average user needs. It’s always at the top right corner.
Change the wallpaper? Top right corner -> settings
Add a network? Top right corner -> settings
Extend display to projector? Top right corner -> settings
It’s not weird at all.
What would be a better starter DE then?
Literally any other DE. Throw a dart at a bunch of DE logos pasted to the wall, and you’ll hit one that’s better for newbies than Gnome.
(And no, Gnome is not intuitive. You said yourself that using Gnome requires you “just learn to do things differently”. If it was intuitive, you wouldn’t need to learn it, and it wouldn’t feel ‘different’.)
Since all your examples of how intuitive Gnome is involve the same settings menu in the top right corner … is that settings menu in the top right corner labeled at all? Or is intuition the ONLY way to know it’s the settings menu? You know, maybe I’m starting to understand the disconnect here. When I say something is intuitive, I mean it’s where you’d naturally expect it and does what you expect it to do. But when Gnome people call something “intuitive”, I’m starting to suspect they say that because using intuition is the only way to figure out the interface. You just have to guess what that vague icon does…
Like KDE? It would be a lot more complex. I would fear giving KDE for newcomers. It’s basically windows 98, but with frosty glass themes, fragmented apps.
Or Cinnamon? You upgraded to windows XP. Congratulations.
Deepin? Looks cool until you try to use it.
Xfce? That’s stable and fast. But would you advertise Linux as that outdated?
Cosmic, still early.
Budgie, maybe.
I really think gnome is the best default.
Nevertheless, It’s you mixing intuitive and familiar. Moreover, people who give Linux a trial, they wish for something different. And they really like Gnome from my experience.
Says who? I think most people who give Linux a trial, they wish for Windows, but without the all the bullshit.
What I’m afraid of is newbies who get Gnome as the default without knowing any better, without even knowing what a DE is or that there’s more than one. And when they find it weird and difficult to learn, they’re not going to think, “Gnome is weird and difficult to learn, I should try a different DE.” – they’re going to think, “Linux is weird and difficult to learn, I should go back to Windows.”
I think you have to learn, but I don’t think it’s difficult to learn. As I said I find it intuitive. My mum could learn it and she is not techy at all. That’s actually a very good example, because she couldn’t print on Windows and now she can with Linux.