Good point. Perhaps it's time to another try - the occasion could not be better, as I'm changing job and I need to setup a new development box (I need a notebook, and I have no need to another MacOS machine in house - I own a Mac Mini).

Since I *REALLY* backuped that last Gnome 2 installation, I will compare my current workflow on MacOS X to that installation (since it's still be best development box I have memory), and also to Gnome 3.

Multiple monitors acting as a single, large and asymmetric one.

The best setup for me would be 3 monitors: 2 in landscape for code, monitoring, debugging and some GIMPing (and emailing and video), and a third, smaller one on portrait for issue tracking, browsing and documentation. But two monitors in landscape are enough - a bit less comfortable, but that's all.

One of the troubles Gnome 3 caused to me was the default behaviour of one desktop per monitor, so switching desktops would change only one display - again, good for multiple content consumption, but terrible for context switching (content producing).

I know that there's a configuration option on some .conf file. But at that time I was already pissed of, my work was already behind schedule and I just recovered the Gnome 2 installation and gone back to work.

(bug = but)

And there're some others that just need the job done.

You're right on this, however: you just can't satisfy everyone.

Problem is that, as it appears (and I can be wrong), a lot of people you're not satisfying nowadays was people the supported Gnome in the past, and a lot of people you're satisfying nowadays are not supporting you back.

Bug again, I may be wrong.

Time will tell.

(I hope I'm wrong, by the way - I mean no prejudice)

I beg your pardon, but...

You really think that a touch centric look and feel is the best paradigm to a desktop (keyboard and mouse) device? That a content consuming interface should be used by content producing softwares? That changing fonts and putting gadgets on my display worths more than the fluidity of my day to day workflow?

If so, in my humble opinion you're a bad technician (at least, on UX). This is alright (I'm horrible on UX too), as long you don't do decisions on UX. But if your job is exactly this, then someone above you is not doing his job very well.

A non techie at least would have an excuse.

I don't care about the fonts. I care about my workflow, and Mac OS X respected my workflow.

Good thing you mentioned Mission Control. I hate it. I miss Expose very much, it served me fine. Being that one of the reasons I migrated to Gnome 2 - why spend a lot of money on a MacOS machine if Gnome 2 also does exactly what I need (and somewhat faster)?

When Gnome 3 came, the choose I had was jeopardizing my workflow with Gnome 3 or jeopardizing my workflow with something else. So I used Gnome 3 for a week. Then I used Windows 7 for another week. And finally I used Mac OS for a third week - and choose the one that troubled me less.

Problem is that nobody learns a "foreign" language in a day. The same happens with Desktop paradigms.

I think I would like to use Gnome 3 on a tablet, but on my desktop I could not (and I did tried). It simply broke all my day to day workflow practices.

And that sad decision to use the same library names prevented me to have Gnome 2 and 3 at the same time on my machine, what would keep me working productively at the same time I'm probing the "foreign" paradigms without compromising my deadlines.

I remember cursing aloud because the theme I chose had a flaw (the clock's font color became illegible when the clock's window loses the focus - the designer choose a too dark font color), and I took hours to figure out where to find the customization tool (changing font colors on "Advanced Options"?). I didn't get pissed with the color mistake (it happens!). I got totally mad because there wasn't a way to fix that the proper way - and I'm talking about a fscking clock on my desktop!

Another problem is that I don't consume content. I produce it. I don't want and don't need my windows grouped by application, but by context! I need multiple multiheaded desktops so I can switch tasks easily.

In the Desktop 1 with eclipse with my java project, a browser with the issue tracking, a OpenOffice with the Requirements and a PDF or two with specifications. On the Desktop 2, another eclipse for a python project that has a bug I need to fix, with another browser window logged into another issue tracker, and so goes on. Some little urgent task arises? Do it in the Desktop3, and then go back to where you was. And this I could not accomplish (easily) with Gnome 3 when it replaced Gnome 2.

Long story made short, too much hassle and no tangible return.

Gnome 3 could be a good thing, but the way it arrives on my desktop prevented me to discover that. I have bills to pay, deadlines to meet. I don't need and don't want a tool that prevents me to do my work the way I'm used to abruptly, without respecting that little human factor called "learning curve".

pressed "submit" too early.

Follows my 3rd paragraph correctly phrased:

"Guess what? When my distro switched to Gnome 3, I made the happy decision to backup my whole machine before upgrading. Thanks God I did that, I couldn't stand using that piece of crap for more than 2 days and reverted everything to the backup."

No problem with that.

My problem is that they took the choice from us. I, me, myself, is the only one that should judge what works for me - but some Bastard Operatorw Decision Maker from Hell decided to use the same library names on Gnome 3, making impossible to me to install Gnome 2 to keep working the way I'm used to, and Gnome 3 to start probing the new paradigm.

Guess what? When my distro switched to Gnome 3, I made the happy decision to backup my whole machine. Thanks God I did that, I couldn't stand using that piece of crap for more than 2 days.

Do you want to take a peek about what was happening at that time?

Here (I'm L.T. on this thread) and here (go to the bottom of the page).

Are you talking about things like this?

https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

Problem is... RMS *is* rude. But he's (almost the time) right too. But he can be wrong sometimes:

https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

Thing is: dealing with RMS *is very hard*. I'm not saying you're lying or whatever, but at least in the mails above, RMS was being... how I can say... RMS was being RMS, defending his points of view without caring about people's feelings. This is not necessarily wrong, but this commonly leads to people getting angry with you.

(I know what I'm talking, I'm a bit like RMS too.)

It would help to understand what you're meaning if you could exemplify with a link.

MATE is being developed, and has ome support from some distros. Even OpenSUSE is offering a MATE package (they took only TWO FSCKING YEARS to do so, but at least they did).

You can donate here - but perhaps we should wait their statement about how the money will be spent. Just in case. :-)

So can you, please, explain what happened? Or at least, give a educated guess?

How the most used Desktop environment on many UNICes (I used to use it on Solaris!) managed to get into this sad situation?

I strongly disagree.

Gnome was what "saved me" to be using WindowMaker or GNUStep until now. :-)

QT is nice, but KDE is, to my tastes - let's make it clear - just horrible. I would stick with Windows if I want a Windows look and feel, bullocks!

Gnome Desktop 2 was also sleek, eating few memory and processor cycles than KDE - what's a good thing when you have some VMs running (simulating the production environment while testing).

Of course Gnome Desktop 2 had it's flaws, but they're not so numerous (or critical) to make it unworthily.

My respects to you! :-)

What can be done to put Gnome back to his tracks? I recognize Gnome Desktop 2 had its flaws, but it's still the best environment I used on a development box to this day.

Because, mind you, they're ignoring the Earth's past.

Did you know that Antarctica was, once, a tropical island? And that almost all North America was, once, a huge iceland?

Guess what: the Antarctica freezing and N.A.'s defreezing was not ou fault, we didn't ever existed.

Earth as a LOT warmer in the past, and also a LOT colder.

Of course it's plausible that THIS TIME we're guilt, but one can't infer that looking *JUST* 500 years in the past.

I'm not. Sadly, this is precisely what happens when non technicians do technical decisions on a tech Foundation.

Gnome Desktop 2 was one of the main reason I jumped ship from Windows and spend 2 excelent years developing on a Linux box. Almost everything just works, and the few that didn't, I managed to tweak it into production with little effort - I'm a tech guy, after all.

And then came Gnome Desktop 3. And I decided that the migration efforts would be better spent on MacOS X - that I'm using since that days. No regrets.

I think the time for a MATE Foundation has come. :-)

This is a screaming message to every Open Source Foundation around (yes, Mozilla, I'm talking to you): do what your users *NEED* you to do, not what your non techies "advisors" *want* you to do.

There's no space on a tech industry for "politically correct" tech solutions that doesn't cut it!

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...