You do realize you are criticizing the topmost user interface details of a theme of an extensively themable early release. I think those "spare-time developers" have been focusing their attention on the API changes that the Gnome 2 to 3 transition impose and the new concepts introduced by the shell. The core seems very good. What you complain about is usually addressed in the configuration files for the theme and the names of the shortcuts. Multi-lingual support will bring some additional problems that should be addressed in the coming weeks. There are many dozen different themes that are compatible with Gnome. All those will have to be tweaked to look right.

Have a little more faith, for just about every computer that is responsible for your internet access runs on top of software written by people you would call "part-time programmers".

I'd trust their work over the one from Microsoft's full-time employees anytime.

Furthermore, I have better things to do with my time than spend time mucking around with configuration files and theme settings. Back in high school I had the time and inclination, and in fact I did so; now that I run a business, I'd rather spend that time doing actual development. Not to mention the moms and grandmas of the world who don't even know what a theme is. I, and they, need a UI that just works out of the box.

And finally, just about every computer that is responsible for my internet access runs on top of software written by large corporations who have hired people to develop for open source bodies. Let's not forget that it's for-profit companies with full-time programmers like Red Hat, Canonical, IBM, Intel, etc. that are more than partly responsible for the relatively wide enterprise (and desktop!) adoption of Linux today.

I'm not out to bash Gnome, Linux, or open source; I use Ubuntu on my work laptop every day. I criticize out of the desire to see the open source movement develop something better, and that means not patting everyone on the back just for "working hard." It's precisely that kind of "gold star for effort" attitude that lets crappy software exist.

I am sure this will be a learning experience. It's alpha software, after all, and it is released in order to allow people to learn what works and what doesn't in the real world. As usual, with open-source, if you decide to use Gnome Shell right now, or in April, you'll be running the bleeding edge. I would say that, if you want to run it as stable software, you should wait until October. Open-source is developed in the open, as it invites intelligent criticism and grows stronger with it.

> Furthermore, I have better things to do with my time than spend time mucking around with configuration files and theme settings

Unless you want to design themes, you are not supposed to do that. I rarely do. I think I haven't done that since 2003 or so, and I was really going for a full customized desktop at the time. I did it because I wanted to do it.

> And finally, just about every computer that is responsible for my internet access runs on top of software written by large corporations who have hired people to develop for open source bodies.

I would like to point out a lot of Gnome has also been developed by a lot of full-time employees of for-profit companies too. It was you who called them "spare-time developers". I am not sure how it will play out with Novell's demise, but I trust other companies, like Red Hat and Canonical can chip in if needed.

> I'm not out to bash Gnome, Linux, or open source

I then certainly misread your post. I didn't realize you meant "spare-time developers" as a compliment. My bad. I am sure open-source has a lot to gain from the criticism of a bunch of spare-time experts.

Meant as a compliment, of course.

"The vast majority (70 percent) of contributors work on the project on their spare time, while an additional 20 percent of contributors do so on both a paid and voluntary basis."

Adding the percentages of the top 5 corporate contributors adds up to just over a third of contributions from ostensibly full-time developers.

So it appears to be just a fact that people are developing this in their spare time. That doesn't mean they're less competent than paid developers; of course not. It simply means that compared to a big company, like MS or Apple, they just don't have the same level of cash money resources to hire the right kinds of people--UI design experts--and buy the right kinds of feedback--real-life user testing, focus groups--that big companies do. And that very much shows in these screenshots.

Alpha or not, criticism is essential for furthering the project. If everyone just sat around and said "whew, lots of hard work, good job guys!" to whatever crap any OSS dev produced, OSS would never progress. I want Gnome 3 to be better because I use Gnome every day!

  > If they didn't want to invite criticism,

Focus groups produced the interface overhaul to Windows Vista and 7. Rather than building on an existing, successful interface, they decided to be more mac-like, and managed to make the interface prettier but much yet less usable in the process.

I agree, gnome fonts are yuck. Even in the screenshot on the frontpage the fonts look awful - both in the text document and the dropdown menu headings.

For various reasons, the brightness of an RGB color value is not linear. This means that a checkerboard of white/black pixels will not look the same from afar as solid 50% gray. The correct shade is something like ~75%.

When anti-aliasing crisp details such as letters, this is incredibly important. Without gamma correction, there will be a noticeable change in brightness when a shape lies between pixels vs when it is pixel-aligned.

I think this is why Linux geeks tend to be vehemently opposed to anti-aliasing; they don't realize the rendering method they're using is crap.

Based on what metrics and evidence? I think it does a good job making me more efficient.

I know there are plans for usability testing, but I don't know how they have progressed since this blog post http://mairin.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/gnome-shell-usability...

One thing that concerns me is that they only decided to do usability testing in Feb 2010, but according to the Wiki page Gnome 3 has been in development since Jul 2008.

Shouldn't a huge UI overhaul receive incremental user testing to stamp out bad ideas before significant dev time is invested? After an alpha is delivered, does anyone really think that if one of their big paradigm changes is found to be disliked, that they will go in and remove or significantly change it? Maybe Gnome would, I don't know--but from my experience, once code is delivered in a semi-functioning state, it's very hard to overcome that inertia to make huge directional changes. (And perhaps no big change is needed--but from these screenshots I can say that so far I personally don't like the new direction.)

It looks like Gnome Shell has been in development since late 2008, but only got to a state where it was very usable in late 2009. http://gnomejournal.org/article/85/easy-breezy-beautiful-gno...

This approach seems to requires a monolithic application.

I would imagine it could be more open-source-appropriate to separate out the Windows manager (in charge of the details of font and icons) and the shell (the taskbar, start-menu, explorer-type-application etc).

Caveat: I'm working on a shell-like project myself. I suppose I might feel some satisfaction to see Gnome get it wrong but I don't want to see a monolithic system that freezes out alternatives.

Also, does 'shell' mean something specific to desktop people? What you detail as being the shell, I would call 'desktop'. But I could very well be out of touch with the current lingo.