Shared publicly  - 
 
For a better GNOME user experience we'll need a GNOME OS. I agree with +Lionel Dricot
 
Last week, I've tested Unity (see https://plus.google.com/u/0/118165493193465533929/posts/BhGGou53cSx ). Unity has some good ideas but I realized that Unity was, in the end, only trying to patch the good old desktop in what I call "a bottom-top approach" (see http://ploum.net/post/love-the-shell ).

On the other end, GNOME shell is trying to reinvent the way we use our desktop. What you are currently seeing is only the beginning and there are some very ambitious ideas in the pipeline (like https://live.gnome.org/Design/Proposals/NoMoreSaving ).

But we should be honest with ourselves: GNOME 3 has received a lot of bad critics and is not that popular (see, for example http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fedora-16-gnome-3-review,3155-27.html ).

I've identified two main problems that are currently hurting the GNOME image: lack of communication about design choices and lack of good integration with the OS.

Improving communications about design

Let's take one unfamous example: the fact that shutting down your computer is hidden behind an ALT press. Most of the users complain about this. But none of them took the time to understand why it is like that and why it is not fixed if it is so trivial to fix.

Is that an user's fault? Of course not. The fault lies on the GNOME project itself which lacked a clear communication about that.

I decided to help on my small scale and I took for granted that people were complaining about a lot of things which, in the end, could be reduced to a very small list of annoyances.

I created a wiki page for that:
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Annoyances

The goal of that page is simple: if something is really annoying for you in GNOME shell, instead of being alone in the dark or trying to understand tenths of bug reports, so simply go to this page. Chances are that your annoyance is already listed and, with it, the reasons behind this annoyance, the currently proposed solutions, etc.

Experience showed that people will accept a lot more the hassle if they understand why they need to. Typical example: you are locked in a train which stopped for no apparent reason. After two hours, people will become completely mad. But a simple announcement is done saying "There was an accident on the line in front of us. We will have to wait until the line is free to continue", people will become patient and calm down for a couple of hours.

If you are cursing GNOME dev for the lack of Shutdown in the menu, the answer is there ;-)


OS integration

As I noted in http://ploum.net/post/best-gnome3-distribution , on of the biggest problem of GNOME 3 is that there is none user friendly/wide audience distribution with a well integrated GNOME.

It goes beyond that: GNOME 3 is so ambitious that it doesn't make sense to just drop it on top of an existing OS. GNOME has to become the OS just like Unity is now the face of Ubuntu ( http://ploum.net/post/what-if-ubuntu-were-right ).

That's why some GNOMErs had the idea of GnomeOS: https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOS/Design/Whiteboards

All my blog posts gave me the opportunity to read a lot of different opinions. And I must admit that mine is now crystal clear: we need GnomeOS: GNOME cannot exist longer in its current form without GnomeOS.

The question is: who volunteer to work on this project? How do we start such a project? How do we take the first decisions (like deciding if it will be DEB or RPM based)? How do you think that GnomeOS could happen?
1
Bruno Willemaers's profile photoGregoire de Hemptinne's profile photo
3 comments
 
I don't really see the point... Yet Another Linux Distro? Why would it succeed where Gnome3 already failed? The desktop environment is already the biggest (almost entirely) part of the UI experience for the lambda end user. What difference would it make?
 
I invite you to have a look at the initial discussion on +Lionel Dricot 's post. In fact the problem is that Gnome3 in itself is a good environment, but it is not well integrated on any distro. The idea of GnomeOS goes further than creating a new distro. that's not the point. The point is more to create a new OS with the Gnome paradigm from start to end.

I'm convinced that Gnome3 did not failed. What I think is indeed that the linux environments are very morcelated and that creating something new will be hard and could be redondant. That's why GnomeOS, if it become true, have to be something new, totally new.
 
Well, you assume that's the problem. From my point of view, the problem is the "vanilla" gnome paradigm. But well, that's just a matter of opinion. You can call it marvelous, and Linus an "unholy mess".
However, given the hard time Gnome3 had and the messy first impression he gave, I don't really see how they could achieve better results with a "GnomeOS" distribution. People rarely give a second shot.
I could agree that something really new and completely genious would have some chances, but given that most of the "Gnome experience" is already available on concurrent distributions, I don't really see how they could propose something really new.
Add a comment...