Why I left GNOME
There's a heated discussion going on over on Planet Debian currently about how Galeon 1.3.x dropped a lot of configuration items as compared to Galeon 1.2.x, and how this is disappointing some of the more advanced users. The claim is that by dropping some of the more advanced features, you won't scare off novice or casual users who don't know what all those thing actualy mean.
This is all backed by usability test such as one done by Sun, in which people who've never used the system before are put in front of a GNOME desktop, are being asked to do a few things with the system, and their progress on that is monitored; also, they're being interviewed afterwards, so that they can give their opinion.
While such work is probably tremendously important to make sure the system is useful for those who don't use it all that often, it's horribly important that you don't forget that such people do not make up the majority of your users. Creating a system that's tremendously useful for people who only use it for ten minutes in their whole life but tells advanced users to go fuck themselves and delve into some obscure and hardly documented gconf-tool frobnitz if they want their email program to stop making sound if they get new mail is horrible. Having a website that links to all sorts of community and developer information, but doesn't even have a fucking 'documentation' link on the front page (or on any of the pages linked to from that page, except the 'Developers' one which contains links to developer documentation) is completely and utterly useless. Someone once pointed me towards where the users' documentation is, but I forgot to bookmark it, and have lost the link.
Contrast to ion. Granted, I could start using GNOME a few minutes after I'd logged on (two minutes for GNOME to start up, five seconds for me to have a look at everything there and to start clicking away), and the same wasn't actually true for ion3. However, ion does point me towards its documentation with its very first message, and while I needed more than a few minutes to read it, I already had everything I needed: the manpage is concise, clear, and to-the-point; and down the bottom, there's a link to the ion website, which contains a 'Documentation' link in the second paragraph—the first paragraph being a short and concise explanation of what ion is.
Of all the bad things I've got to say about Windows, there's one thing I'll have to give them: at least they got it right that you shouldn't fucking mess with the registry. I don't know how gconf is supposed to work (even after googling for the documentation, and studying it as well as I could a while back), and I wouldn't call myself a novice user; so how is such a novice user then supposed to understand all this gconftool and gconf-editor whiz-bang-hoopla?
The main argument seems to be that this is wrong:
Which is a good point. But the solution that the GNOME people seem to push is not, in fact, a solution:
Because it misses at least this:
or, even better, this:
But, well. Since it's utterly clear that the GNOME people are not interested in anyone who's been using their system for more than 10 minutes, I guess the best thing to do is to use something else...
You have a point. But actually, that is the reason I stayed with Gnome, and I think I can consider myself a poweruser. I did some modification (panel on the Left, personal Window-Manager Shortcuts with the CapsLock key), but for the most part I enjoy that Gnome won\'t distract me from the work I want to do. And especially for power users, configuration options are distracting
I do agree that more "Advanced" buttons is a good compromise. Someone said on the planet that everybody will "punish himself" with all available options. In this case, disable the Advance buttons until the Users turns them on using gconf-editor, but after this first hurdle, give him the comfort of Advanced configuration.
Its so true. I wish the GNOME developers would focus on their main users, which aren\'t DAUs.
I disagree on your point that at least Windows got it right that you shouldn\'t mess with the registry. Windows admins have to edit the registry all the time, why not make the interface to it usable?
The configuration options inside Gnome programs has all of the options that I expect to set on a day-to-day basis, things I might want to tweak and change as things go. I quickly pull up gconf-editor and make any advanced changes that I need. It\'s easy because the keys are documented for what they are, and I never have to think about where I might find an option. It\'ll all be in one list, clear as day.
In practice I\'ve found that I might have to go into gconf-edit once every 3 or 4 months at the absolute max, and that other users almost never ask for options that can only be set in there.
Tks, Jeff Bailey
Myself, I dislike tweaking configuration options or preferences. If some program doesn't behave sanely out of the box, I'd rather look for an alternative. Poor defaults are a big hint that other aspects of the program are going to suck as well anyway.
As for GNOME, the defaults mostly work fine for me, I did some tweaking of the look (fonts, background) and I rearranged the panels. I really only did one thing that wasn't provided by the preferences dialogs: enabling the (in)famous 'use your home directory as the desktop' option (BTW, I didn't find gconf-editor to be any more painful than a typical 'advanced options' dialog).
I really don't know what kind of options you feel are missing. I guess you just have some different philosophy of computer usage than the bulk of the GNOME users and developers, in which case it's not really surprising that you're happier with something else.
If some program doesn't behave sanely out of the box, I'd rather look for an alternative.
What does this 'sanely' actually constitute?
I guess you just have some different philosophy of computer usage than the bulk of the GNOME users and developers..
Here is where it becomes clear, you are talking about the Grand Unified Field Theory of Useability that both OSX and Gnome have fallen prey to at the expense of an environment which one can grow into. I don't use KDE, or ion3 for that matter (having switched from ion3 to the superior wmii, but my experiences trying work with either reveal that there are those that cherish adaptating to a given system, and those that enjoy adapting that system to themselves. For the latter species of user, KDE, ion3 and wmii are all fantastically capable DE's, for the former they are not. Gnome however chooses not to recognise that both can be satisfied by the same environment, and it's here (for the non-power user) that KDE makes real headway - sane defaults with the option of configurability where needed.