I see advantages for both. Also, my first question didn't really get answered, is that really what the shell team is working towards? I'm just a bit curious, and I can't see reason behind some of the changes :-/
-Sean ________________________________ From: Ryan Peters <[email protected]> To: Sean Dunwoody <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Sun, 1 August, 2010 2:07:08 Subject: Re: some thoughts on gnome shell On 07/31/2010 04:52 PM, Sean Dunwoody wrote: "Note that GNOME Shell will look much differentin the future, and the menus you find hard to navigate (in this example, the applications menu) will be much easier to navigate." > > >Is Gnome Shell really going to look like that when it's released? >I >was just starting to appreciate how it works and looks now :-/ > >On a side note that mockup looks a LOT like Unity . . . > >-Sean > > Yeah, it does a bit. I do see quite a few differences though: (Note that this comparison is based on current screenshots/mockups/design information, and things might change in the future). * The Application switcher only appears when you open the overlay in GNOME Shell, while it stays visible in Unity. I prefer GNOME Shell's approach because it saves more horizontal space (crucial for netbooks). * Unity still keeps application indicators in the same area as system indicators, while GNOME Shell has system indicators only on the top panel, reducing application "indicators" to notification/status icons in the notification tray (accessed by moving your mouse to the bottom right corner of the screen). GNOME Shell is much more organized, so I prefer its style again. * Unity uses NotifyOSD for its notifications, while GNOME Shell has its own notification system. GNOME Shell's notifications are small vertically and expand when you move your mouse over them; you can see past notifications by looking in the notification tray. NotifyOSD has semi-transparent notifications in the top-right corner that blur when you move your mouse over them. They are un-clickable and provide no functionality over Shell's notifications; you can't even access a log of your past notifications. * GNOME Shell features an interface switcher that makes it easy to spatially organize your running applications. Unity has no workspace switcher, and instead focuses on the currently running application window. * GNOME Shell's top bar is organized as follows: Activities button, Application menu, Clock (always in the center), Symbolic icons ("System indicators"), user menu. Unity's bar is as follows (this is subject to change, so I'm leaving out what I'm not sure will be there): Ubuntu button/logo, Indicators, Time, MeMenu, Power Menu. GNOME Shell has an advantage here because the clock is always in the center, while for Unity it is awkwardly placed in-between other panel items. * GNOME Shell is easily theme-able, while Unity has not announced any information on theme-ing as far as I know. I hate to sound like I'm bashing Unity, but GNOME Shell (at the very moment, at least) seems like a much better choice for both desktops as well as netbooks and small-screen devices. Shell is also developed by more organizations and companies than Unity and is more "upstream". - Ryan Peters PS: Just thought I should say that I am in no way affiliated with the GNOME Shell development or design team, and I can't speak for them. My emails are my own observations and opinions from what I know so far and should not be taken as the opinions and observations of anybody officially involved with the projects I mention.
_______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
