I don't run Gnome now (since I have more fun hacking on Sway), but I really don't think that the characterization of it being a "tablet desktop" is actually very fair. I found Gnome to be very productive, and actually extremely keyboard focused. Outside of a tiling window manager like Sway or i3, I actually have found it more keyboard-centric than any other desktop I've used.
The reason I am harping on keyboard is because to me the keyboard is the signature differentiator between "desktop" and "tablet".
I feel like everyone hated on Gnome because it was different. They tried it for ten minutes, didn't bother trying to actually learn how to use it, declared it as "shit", and moved on. I was one of those people.
It wasn't until I decided to stick with Gnome for a few weeks (using the Antergos distro of Arch) that I came around, and now I find it to be the most productive of the "normie" desktops on Linux.
> I feel like everyone hated on Gnome because it was different. They tried it for ten minutes, didn't bother trying to actually learn how to use it, declared it as "shit", and moved on. I was one of those people.
I don't want to learn how to use my computer. I know how I want my computer to work. I just want to adjust my desktop environment to match my vision (which doesn't really match the default of any window manager)
This is where gnome fails for me because it's opinionated software: they have a vision of how it should work and everything is forced that way. Similar to how Apple does it. Choices and configurations are reduced to a minimum.
So for me KDE with its huge configurability is just what I need and gnome is absolutely not. I did actually try to use it on a touch device (surface pro 3) but I needed so many plugins to make it work my way that I started getting issues with plugins interfering with each other and not supporting the latest updates etc. With KDE I could set it all up my way with built in settings. Opinionated software is just the wrong model for me. Unfortunately it's becoming more common because people still look up to Apple.
Ps in similar ways I also mod websites, I have custom stylesheets for a lot of sites I use that remove pics and make it just a plain old list of content similar to hacker news. People who are UX designers probably frown on this but they are designing for everyone (and often not with the user's wishes in mind but ulterior motives like marketing and engagement!), not for me. I know what works best for me. And I don't let others tell me what I should want.
> I feel like everyone hated on Gnome because it was different. They tried it for ten minutes, didn't bother trying to actually learn how to use it, declared it as "shit", and moved on
Anecdote time.
I was using GNOME for a substantial amount of time, despite all the issues that it was giving me - the regressions, removing functionality, breaking extensions every so often; but the final straw that broke the camel's back was a tablet thing. At some point I think the ability to resize the left panel in Nautilus went away? Or maybe was never there to begin with. In any case, I found a discussion about the exact issue where the outlook was that resizing the left panel will not be added, as there's no way to signal the ability to resize it on touch screens.
At this point I decided that enough is enough and moved to KDE.
You're not the people I have an issue with, sorry for the ambiguous use of the word "everyone" there.
If you gave it the good college try and made an effort to actually learn how to use it and came around not liking it, then that's totally fine. It just didn't gel with you and that's ok.
> outlook was that resizing the left panel will not be added, as there's no way to signal the ability to resize it on touch screens.
Interesting. I hadn't heard that; maybe tablets are holding back Gnome a bit, though I still think it's fine as a desktop overall.
I think I just wanted to vent an old personal frustration here. And perhaps to give a bit more substantiated subtle hint about how things are in GNOME. I feel like anyone using it will run into quite bad issues eventually.
Just now I remembered a second straw - the issue where scrolling down in a big folder with thumbnails on would repeatedly scroll you back to the top. I am not confident this has been solved until now either.
I vaguely recall the desperate feeling of "this DE does so little, and yet in the few things it does, it's still borderline unusable".
GNOME’s design philosophy apparently amounts to one developer (with no training or experience in design) saying “I don’t personally consider this feature to be important, and so it’s gone.”
Thanks for formulating this, as I’m too lazy to even start the conversation with the folks who’d like to have a lot of everything on their screens, with myriads of distractions and just ugly little everything. Otherwise ‘that’s tablet,’ and it’s ‘the Gnome team pushing their nonsense,’ not the particular user being used to something completely wrong from the UI/UX perspective. I’m having no issues with teaching Gnome anyone. It’s simple. Yet powerful, I can use it no issues, and it’s my second favourite after Sway. I feel those of us who actually appreciate Gnome should be more vocal about it, otherwise these weirdos with 2 mins of Gnome experience yelling too loud.
As one of these folks who want a lot of everything on my screen, I'm baffled by your declarations that my workflow is somehow objectively "wrong". Go convince Airbus that the cockpit can only have two gauges, and needs a lot of blank space.
It’s wrong because it takes too much of attention, which we don’t have a lot these days. Good for you if it works, and you really need that much at once. But it’s just wrong for a newcomer, people are getting lost among options. That’s not a rocket science, really. I won’t object there are interfaces where the most simple way of doing some work / task is to have everything on one screen, without constant switching. But for an average person using general purpose OS, it’s just not the case. My point of view that those folks who really need everything at once, they have no problems with creating an environment they need. Everyone else would benefit with the simple things being the default. I’m really happy about Gnome, I can recommend it to everyone, regardless of the previous experience, Windows or Mac. It’s simple enough to explain to a parent, by using a tablet metaphor. Here is the dock, here is the settings, upper right corner, here is all apps, etc. I even enjoy the no minimise button, you don’t really need it. I used Gnome for over a year on one of my computers, quite often and for prolonged periods of time, and even I’m a Sway user, I enjoyed it a lot. To the point I thought perhaps I should switch from sway. But I stayed with sway, for the simplicity’s sake. And the ability to design my personal environment as I see it.
I use standard GNOME as my desktop environment and nothing about it feels like it was designed for tablets and/or smartphones. Not that it isn’t capable of being used as such, but my desktop usage doesn’t indicate that tablet/smartphone use-cases were the primary goal. Is GNOME even in wide use for those contexts?
ya i was a GNOME hater for a long time after the GNOME 3 transition, switched between Mate and KDE for years. But gave up on those due to persistent video instability and went to vanilla Ubuntu GNOME and it's actually pretty nice. Not sure if it was good originally but I actually prefer it now.
In a bit of fairness to the haters, Gnome 3 used to have a lot of graphical glitches and was unstable in a lot of its early iterations, but I broadly agree with your characterization.
I think if you actually give modern Gnome a chance (and actually make an attempt to learn it), it's actually a pretty slick desktop.
Years of fighting to restore basic features was funny the first time, but gnome 3 was not the first time; I do not blame anyone for not trusting that gnome won't pull the rug again, and soon.
Vanilla Gnome user here. Gnome may look like it was designed for tablets but it has a keyboard shortcut for basically anything. So you don't do much of point and clicks if you know Gnome. You can but you don't have to. It just gets out of your way as they say.
Since I found with searchable app menus / start menus that I don't ever navigate through menus but just start typing, I ditched the menu entirely and have KRunner bound to the Win key. Not only is it fine with any desktop app GTK or not (that packagers have ensured will install with its FreeDesktop metadata file or some such), it supports all the enabled KDE Search plugins. So I don't ever open a calc app again, either..
It really was! I have never even used a tablet, but I was disappointed when they dropped Unity and went back to the old way.
But I was never a Windows user, either, and I've never held the idea that there is one normal and right way to do a computer interface, so I think I was more open to it than many people are.
I stayed on a workable Unity install on 2020.05 LTS for as long as possible, then switched to 2024.05 LTS, at which point Unity, for some reason, no longer functioned (even though I was using the Ubuntu Unity flavor). Tried Gnome for a while but what ultimately lost me was the notifications. To close out a notification without switching focus I had to, very carefully, click right on the X in the upper right corner. Otherwise it would activate the notification and switch focus.
I've got a workable setup with XFCE4, the whisker menu bound to the super key, a few panel plugins to make a maximized app have the same behavior as they did in Unity, and the Plank docking program (along with a brief shell script bound to the dock that kills and relaunches Plank when it starts moving out of place). The notifications work the same as they did on Unity - clicking on them dismisses them unless you click on the "activate" button to switch focus.
I had my directions reversed, so the extra reach doesn't really apply, I suppose, but I think aligned to the right side (when looking into the lens) is even worse. I maybe see what you mean about your hand hitting the body, but i actually want that; my grip has me resting the body along much of my left hand and cradled in my palm. That is really important to stability for me, it gives me an extra stop to work with.
Road throughput doesn't solve congestion when road throughput isn't the issue.
They are trying to widen the NJ Turnpike but the congestion isn't because 6 lanes aren't enough, the congestion is because the three Hudson crossings into Manhattan cannot ingest 6 lanes worth of traffic.
I have a kettle with 5°-settable temperature targets that has transformed my tea drinking.
It also has a function to hold temperature for up to 30 minutes, and because it has actual logic going on inside, when you lift it off the base it knows this and won't turn back on when you put it back.
Maybe "load" includes the heat that comes from the changes forces from the vibrations? But even then, that would be additional heat sources, rather than a change in the temperature where it happens.
Polycarbonate shows little change vs pressure [1]:
"Two samples from the air induction elbow were subjected to testing, using a heat-flux
differential scanning calorimeter, to determine their glass transition temperature. The
measured glass transition temperature for the first sample was 52.8°C, and 54.0°C for the
second sample"
Yeah, they might have used ABS-CF filament, but unless they got it from a good brand that uses good resin and proper printing parameters, the actual Tg will be lower, plus the stress from the vibration/load could have made the part fail if it was not for the heat later in flight.
Polymaker's ABS is dubious too because it is blended with PETG. They are coming out with a Pro version that has a higher Tg and requires way higher chamber temps to print properly.
> An alternative construction method for the air induction elbow, shown in the Cozy Mk IV
plans, is a lamination of four layers of bi-directional glassfibre cloth with epoxy resin. The
epoxy resin specified for the laminate has a glass transition temperature of 84°C, after the
finished part has been post-cured. The aircraft owner stated that as the glass transition
temperature listed for the CF-ABS material was higher than the epoxy resin, he was satisfied
the component was fit for use in this application when it was installed
What a misunderstanding -- glass transition temperature means different things for thermoplastics (i.e. anything that comes out of an FDM printer like the CF-ABS in question) and for thermosetting resins like epoxy that actually undergo molecular cross-linking during the curing phase. Thermoplastics will get soft and can deform without limit, while thermosets get rubbery but still more or less hold their formed shape.
I think an extended quote shows that this was a really bad call:
“ The aircraft owner stated that as the glass transition
temperature listed for the CF-ABS material was higher than the epoxy resin, he was satisfied
the component was fit for use in this application when it was installed.
A review of the design of the laminated induction elbow in the Cozy Mk IV plans showed
that it featured a section of thin-walled aluminium tube at the inlet end of the elbow, where
the air filter is attached. The aluminium tube provides a degree of temperature-insensitive
structural support for the inlet end of the elbow. The 3D-printed induction elbow on G-BYLZ
did not include a similar section of aluminium tube at the inlet end.
Tests and research
Two samples from the air induction elbow were subjected to testing, using a heat-flux
differential scanning calorimeter, to determine their glass transition temperature. The
measured glass transition temperature for the first sample was 52.8°C, and 54.0°C for the
second sample.“
> The epoxy resin specified for the laminate has a glass transition temperature of 84°C
This seems very low for the kinds of epoxy I've used. I wonder if the manufacturer specs are highly conservative? Or maybe the material has a shortened lifespan with even moderate temperatures?
I was thinking about the ABS in the article and wondering if I would have made the same mistake. Close to every car manufactured today has plastic intakes, usually bolted right on top of the engine. The incoming air should help keep it cool, especially on aircraft. Maybe it was the radiant heat from a nearby cylinder that melted it?
There are some incredibly low Tg epoxies out there, such as West Systems 105 where "TG onset" is 54°C and the heat deflection temperature is even lower.
The aircraft owner who installed the modified fuel system stated that the 3D-printed induction
elbow was purchased in the USA at an airshow, and he understood from the vendor that it
was printed from CF-ABS (carbon fibre – acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) filament material,
with a glass transition temperature3
of 105°C.
An alternative construction method for the air induction elbow, shown in the Cozy Mk IV
plans, is a lamination of four layers of bi-directional glassfibre cloth with epoxy resin. The
epoxy resin specified for the laminate has a glass transition temperature of 84°C, after the
finished part has been post-cured. The aircraft owner stated that as the glass transition
temperature listed for the CF-ABS material was higher than the epoxy resin, he was satisfied
the component was fit for use in this application when it was installed.
A review of the design of the laminated induction elbow in the Cozy Mk IV plans showed
that it featured a section of thin-walled aluminium tube at the inlet end of the elbow, where
the air filter is attached. The aluminium tube provides a degree of temperature-insensitive
structural support for the inlet end of the elbow. The 3D-printed induction elbow on G-BYLZ
did not include a similar section of aluminium tube at the inlet end.
It was an intake manifold, so it's continuously under suction. At the temperatures in an engine bay the plastic probably gradually creeped to a point where the restriction increased the suction and suddenly it collapses completely.
I wonder who installed it. Was the pilot home 3D printing mods for their plane? And is that even allowed? Super concerning if there was a company behind the installation.
I'd think any semi competent engineer would know better.
Edit: from the report - "A modification application was made to the LAA in 2019, by
the aircraft owner2
, to replace the engine’s throttle body fuel injector with a mechanical fuel
injection system. This system consisted of a fuel controller, high-pressure engine-driven
fuel pump, electric auxiliary fuel pump, fuel flow transducer and associated fuel hoses,
filters and fittings. Following flight testing, the modified fuel system was approved by the
LAA in 2022. The modified fuel injection system had accumulated 37 hours in service when
the accident occurred."
So the pilot himself and the LAA were incompetent. LAA is an association for amateur pilots though so I'm not sure what level of rigour they "approve" things with.
Nearly anything is allowed for experimental amateur-built aircraft like the one in this incident. Unapproved modifications to certified aircraft are forbidden in most parts of the world.
The LAA classified the proposed modification pf the overall fuel system as minor based on the owner’s description of it, and approved it on that basis. But the owner lied and did not disclose the fact that the induction elbow was modified at all or that it was 3D printed. The report does not discuss any required inspection by a person authorized by the LAA prior to returning the aircraft to service. So it seems like the LAA modification process is a trust-don’t-verify policy.
Another bug: when you adjust altitude scale, it doesn't rescale the existing trails, it simply moves the planes up and down leaving stairsteps in their paths.
reply