GNOME 3.8 To Scrap Fallback Mode 378
An anonymous reader writes "Via LXer, an article at Phoronix tells of GNOME's plans to eliminate 'fallback mode' (GNOME classic) in the 3.8 release."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
GNOME 3.8 To Scrap Fallback Mode
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Heisengberg might have been here.
And that will also mark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Interesting)
my permanent move away from GNOME. I am learning to like XFCE!
I tried GNOME a few times in the 2.x series but found that it was going downhill.
In the meantime my old fvwm configuration still works.
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Informative)
You might be interested in this GNOME 2 fork [mate-desktop.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Grr...meant "Informative", cursor moved to "Funny" just as I released the mouse button. I've been satisfied with MATE, having been introduced to it by Linux Mint.
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been satisfied with MATE, having been introduced to it by Linux Mint.
Yes, Linux Mint with Mate is the most usable Linux distro I have found at the moment (ie: user friendly, community supported, easily recognizable), so it's what the family uses, but for productivity I have settled with KDE especially since it now has proper color management. I can actually understand where Gnome is going with its user interface. Hands-on displays are probably going to become the norm which does require a rethink and general overhaul of the interface, and the mouse will gradually become redunant. People (like me) who are used to the mouse and keyboard might find it hard to see how productivity can improve without the two, but if you imagine that in a year or two there will be large (A4 or even A3 size), high resolution displays that sit horizontally on a desk or a lectern, which have multi-touch interfaces plus pressure sensitive pen devices, then a mouse is totally redundant and a keyboard an optional extra. At that point we could finally say that computers are a true paper replacement.
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Insightful)
People (like me) who are used to the mouse and keyboard might find it hard to see how productivity can improve without the two, but if you imagine that in a year or two there will be large (A4 or even A3 size), high resolution displays that sit horizontally on a desk or a lectern, which have multi-touch interfaces plus pressure sensitive pen devices, then a mouse is totally redundant and a keyboard an optional extra.
Yeah, because we're all going to sit hunched over a huge touchscreen lying flat on our desks, pressing on the screen to create Excel spreadsheets.
Tech like this has been available for years (I had an interview for a company producing large touchscreen panels like that in the early 90s) and it's never taken off because, outside specialist uses and TV shows, it's simply retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically I updated my FC17 install today on a VM and it wouldn't boot. Which was ok, but it caused Gnome 3 to enable fallback mode when I booted the old kernel. Which also would have been ok, if the system settings didn't segfault when run so I couldn't switch it back.
(and yes, I tried screwing with dconf manually to enable it - holy hell another Gnome disaster of an idea! - but ended up restoring the VM image... upgrades are overrated...)
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, there are a lot of bitter people on /. If you don't like Gnome, you'll be using XFCE or KDE or Mate or Cinnamon or something - we already know. Quit complaining about something you don't even use anymore. Every time 'Gnome' is in a post topic, we get all the same people rambling on about the same stuff, and Gnome users like myself barely bother reading anymore.
Linux has a lot of choice for a reason. Just grab the desktop you like and roll with it. If you don't like it anymore, grab a different one.
I actually like the 3.x interface and I've never used it on a touch device. Yes, it is a bold departure, but I find it makes me more productive all in all. I dislike nested menus - always have. I can't think of a bigger waste of time than browsing a nested menu system looking for an app, and if you're using the 'Applications' view in Gnome 3.x, you're definitely doing things the hard way. Hitting the 'Windows' key, typing the first few characters of my target software, and then the 'Enter' key to launch apps makes a lot of sense. The quick gesture of ramming my mouse into the corner to arrange work-spaces works great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Funny)
Aaaaaaaand... we've come full-circle. Look how much more productive you can be with this amazing new thing!
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Insightful)
The complaining stems from the fact that something really genuinely good has been deliberately taken away from us. Gnome 1.x was much better than any of the other options. It did everything we wanted a desktop environment to do. It had all the features we wanted, and every single one of them was fully configurable.
Then someone decided "options are bad" and started taking it all away. At first we thought it was just because of the rewrite (when they rewrote 2.0 to use the new GTK), so we hung in there, thinking we'd eventually get our features back... but then they started taking away more and more and more. By the time we realized what was going on, it was too late to fork 1.x, because it would no longer compile against contemporary libraries. (Gnome has always had eleventy bajillion dependencies.)
Then in the 3.x series they started inserting more and more *unwanted* features. I don't just mean unnecessary features that I personally don't have any need for; it goes beyond that. I'm talking about features that are actively intrusive and cannot be turned off, like the way it now insists on popping up extra windows you don't want while you're in the middle of trying to work on other things, and this behavior cannot be disabled. Gnome has become so horrible, it beggars the imagination to realize that every release they still manage somehow to find a way to make it yet worse.
It's really sad. Gnome used to be something I could not just use but also happily recommend. Now it's so awful, I can't imagine anyone actually liking it.
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Informative)
Gnome 1.x was rather low functionality compared to KDE. And if you wanted functionality KDE was then and is today the more obvious choice. It makes sense for the desktop environments to fork and Gnome to go in a different way with different objectives. KDE was going to be a traditional Unix GUI but better, while Gnome 2 was going to become more like GDI / Aqua. Gnome 3 is and was moving in the direction of supporting new hardware, the same way Windows 8 is.
Re: (Score:3)
Then someone decided "options are bad" and started taking it all away. .
IIC, that would have been the GNOME devs at RedHat/Fedora. The idea was to create a workstation desktop that would be accepted by corporate system admins who hate configurabilty on the part of the end-user.
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Insightful)
The movement against excessive options started with an article by Havoc Pennington that describes why Linux desktops had such bad user interfaces back in the 90s and early 2000s:
http://ometer.com/free-software-ui.html [ometer.com]
You have to read it with the proper historical context in mind. Some examples he gives of the state of the desktop at the time are:
* Emacs having a broken-by-default cut and paste feature, and you had to go into the preferences dialog to make it standards-compliaint
* Gnome 1.x used to have 5 different clock applets, and during usability testing people would asking why are there 5 clocks to choose? More of a problem was that they assumed that there was a good reason for having 5 clocks, and would then spend a lot of time thinking about which of the 5 clocks was right for them.
It wasn't so much an idea that "options are bad" but rather that "options have a cost", and so excessive options are bad and that the default option should be something reasonable. There should never be an option to "unbreak" something like clipboard standards.
You could argue that Gnome 3.x takes it too far (I disagree, but that's just my opinion), but there are good reasons to remove the fallback mode. The fact is, no one uses it. The people who the fallback mode is targetted towards have already (very vocally!) moved to KDE/XFCE. So why bother developing something for users who aren't going to use it anyway?
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Insightful)
Then someone decided "options are bad" and started taking it all away.
The guiding thought is that every option MULTIPLIES code complexity. Options tend to interact with other options, and testing is required to verify that all options work together, or that the system provides a means of preventing options that don't from being used together. The drive to simplify interfaces is intended to reduce the number of bugs present in the system.
As a secondary effect, removing optional behavior forces developers to make sure that the normal behavior is sane and doesn't need dozens of radio buttons on a configuration app.
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Insightful)
Quit complaining about something you don't even use anymore.
You sound very much like someone from the central politburo committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
Luckily the CCP has no say in the Linux Scene, or I would be starting to re-learning to use Microsoft Windoze.
Re: (Score:2)
"I find it makes me more productive all in all"
How do you measure that? I mean, promising "increased productivity" to technical folks has been a marketing gimmick for decades, for new language X, new mouse Y, new chair Z, etc. etc. "comfort", sure, but productivity? How were you convinced?
Re: (Score:2)
Wise words.
Toddlerization of the UI (Score:4, Insightful)
[...] Yes, it is a bold departure, but I find it makes me more productive all in all.[...] The quick gesture of ramming my mouse into the corner to arrange work-spaces works great.
Until someone decides that particular gesture opens your email in the newest, bold departure from convention.
The problem many people have with Gnome 3, KDE 4, Unity, Wayland, Windows Vista, Windows 8 etc. is that people keep changing stuff dramatically. Nobody complains about a new color scheme, we complain in great numbers about removing helpful features we like to use and replacing those with dumbed down stuff (let's call it Toddlerization of the UI) that emulates the latest cool overpriced toy.
I use computers for other stuff than hitting the screen roughly in some spot in a 4x6 coordinate system to start an "app" that is in 97.23% of the cases just another un(sup)portable spyware "website".
Those people taking these decisions are often more concerned about what they'd like to do or what they find Kooool. Rather than considering what is easy and agreeable to use for the actual user. It's their prerogative to do so, but don't complain when users start complaining and then start leaving in droves...
I'm aware that in FOSS you can always express your discontent with a fork (instead of a knive). I'll probably turn away from Ubuntu
Re: (Score:2)
Man, there are a lot of bitter people on /. If you don't like Gnome, you'll be using XFCE or KDE or Mate or Cinnamon or something - we already know. Quit complaining about something you don't even use anymore. Every time 'Gnome' is in a post topic, we get all the same people rambling on about the same stuff, and Gnome users like myself barely bother reading anymore.
Some of us aren't willing to write off Gnome entirely. We just hate the direction it has been going.
If we didn't say anything, we'd effectively be endorsing the continued deterioration. If we complain loud enough and long enough, maybe the arrogant bastards will realize that they're not as wonderful as they think they are and actually make a Gnome that's what we want, not what they're trying to shove down our throats.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that moded insightful? In 2012 you don't have a GPU?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a heavy KDE user but I keep switching DEs and WMs every now and then. Currently I'm playing with Enlightenment [enlightenment.org] which is as pretty as it always has been. More importantly, it starts up on my aging laptop in less than 2 seconds, which is years ahead of both Gnome and KDE. As another lightweight but full-fledged alternative to the big two, I recommend it highly.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be a trend. I too moved to XFCE ~1-2 years ago
Re:And that will also mark (Score:5, Interesting)
I may try KDE again, though the last time i tried it, it was a bit "too much"... such HUGE menus were just uncomfortable... For me, it was an overall impression of a bit too much of everything, everywhere.
Now, I can say the only thing I really don't like in XFCE is Thunar... for me it lacks lots of functionality (like, ffs, copy-paste with right button!). But even so, i cant even think of trying to use unity or gnome shell again.
So no, it's not like we have really advanced much. With XFCE sometimes I feel a bit like 1999 again, suffering here and there with stuff that doesn't exactly work as I would like, but also feeling confident and comfortable with it.
Probably KDE will be the desktop of choice for most of the "normal" linux desktop users... until they decide it's time to move to tablet interfaces too!!
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I can say the only thing I really don't like in XFCE is Thunar... for me it lacks lots of functionality (like, ffs, copy-paste with right button!). But even so, i cant even think of trying to use unity or gnome shell again.
Thunar 1.2.3 here and I can copy and paste files and text(when renaming) with the right mouse button. Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:3)
Now, I can say the only thing I really don't like in XFCE is Thunar... for me it lacks lots of functionality (like, ffs, copy-paste with right button!). But even so, i cant even think of trying to use unity or gnome shell again.
Thunar 1.2.3 here and I can copy and paste files and text(when renaming) with the right mouse button. Or am I missing something?
Indeed. The only problem I have with Thunar (which is a minor one) is that I can't paste a file into a directory where the files (in 'Detailed List' view) fill up the entire displayed view. One needs to click on white-space for the 'paste' option to appear (and clicking on white-space to the right of files in Detailed List view selects a file). My solution it to temporarily switch to compact list of icon view. I can live with this.
Strangely in my LMDE XFCE Application Menu, The Nautilus icon is the one u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Works perfectly well for me, and this 3 year old hunk of crap can't even do OpenGL 2.0, sports a measly 1 GB of RAM, and a 1.8 GHz dual core; It was practically rubbish the day I got it.
To be honest, how few resources KDE uses and how efficient it is with them really surprises me.
It's much lighter than GNOME, resource wise, and it's far more gentle than XFCE is on my battery life.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not heavy, it's slow. There's a difference. Kwin performs poorly, but doesn't really tax your machine. RAM usage is pretty ok, about 40% of what Win 7 uses and 20% higher than Gnome 3. Once you deactivate Nepomuk, that is. Here I'm currently using 720Mb, and that's mostly Firefox and its crapload of open tabs. Given that current netbooks have at least 2Gb, KDE will usually run pretty nicely.
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And that will also mark (Score:4, Informative)
Car analogy time. I have a neighbor who drives a BMW. I drive a Honda Accord. We both like our cars for good reasons. He likes the things he can do with this car. I have no desire to do those things, and I appreciate the simple, well thought-out control layout of the Honda. They're both great cars for different reasons, and they both objectively fit our subjective needs better than the other would.
One thing that Linux has made apparent over the last decade is there doesn't have to be One True Desktop that everyone has to use. I've tried KDE and found that the bells and whistles are intriguing but not something that really makes much of a difference to me. I think part of this is that I no longer live in a totally desktop-centric world, spending considerable time on tablets and smartphones so I appreciate the marginal features of KDE less and the simplicity of XFCE more. Others may have different needs.
That's not to say I don't find occasions where I'd rather be using KDE or Gnome, but by in large I'm happy with my day to day use of XFCE as I am driving my boring but functional Accord. The analogy isn't perfect since the Accord is almost without exception well thought out and XFCE has a few rough spots -- someone else mentioned Thunar and I totally agree it should be better. But you have to judge a desktop environment by its overall effect, and I appreciate XFCE's simplicity, responsiveness, and predictability.
Disclaimer: some of the opinions are based on using Ubuntu, and my opinions no doubt have been shaped by the distro's choices of KDE releases -- to say nothing of Gnome! This may well be another virtue of XFCE, that its focus on producing a simple and conventional desktop rather than a "cutting edge" desktop results in fewer distro-introduced hiccups in the user experience.
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, Gnome went out of it's way to make the fallback mode too ugly to use. I've never actually tried Gnome3, as it won't run on my system. (The video board is too old.) But the fallback mode was lousy enough that I switched first to xfce and then to LXDE and finally to KDE4. None were as good as Gnome2, but all were better than Gnome3. The reason I finally selected KDE4 was that I could get electricsheep to run. Generally, though, I prefer xfce or LXDE. They're a bit too simple for my tastes, but KD
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Same...
I hear Linus had a few nice things to say about KDE...
You should enjoy that while it lasts, apparently Linus saying anything nice a rare event. I hear he moved to the US mainly because his mom kept washing his mouth out with soap.
Re: (Score:2)
What I read years ago was that Linus disliked KDE less than he disliked GNOME. If that is something nice, depends on your optimism.
Re: (Score:2)
Then allow for a blacklist override (Score:5, Interesting)
That way, recompilation/patching isn't needed when a GNOME developer arbitrarily blacklists a chipset and goes out of their way to avoid fixing it (such as with the ATI R100 series).
It's one thing to have llvmpipe, it's another when the developer puts large amounts of effort to keep something broken.
Ubuntu and classic mode (Score:5, Insightful)
Will they fork, or will they stick with the dippy new interface? Because I have to say I tried the new interface. And I find it doesn't help me much. First thing I do on a new system is to "sudo apt-get install gnome-session-fallback" and login under the old system.
Oh, and don't think I'm in curmudgeon mode and simply don't like new things. I really tried to like the new system, I really did. But having to right click on Terminal and select "open new session" to get a second shell up is ANNOYING AS FUCK. Come on guys! You know that's not how we work. If you don't have half a dozen command prompts up you're not busy. Why make it harder to do that?
So for me, this is the end of Gnome. I need something that helps me work, not gets in the way of work. I like the system but if you ditch the "classic" aka "useful" mode, well sorry. Gotta go find something else.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot like the new interface either. I can barely like classic mode since it seems to have removed a lot of shit. The new config system is awful and doesn't expose as many options. Sigh. Has anyone forked it wholesale yet?
Re: (Score:3)
Will they fork, or will they stick with the dippy new interface?
They already did fork. Mate is a continuation of Gnome 2 and Cinnamon is sort of a Gnome 2 / Gnome 3 cross.
Couldn't believe it, had to RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
At first I thought it was creative editing on the part of the submitter, so I did the unthinkable, and RTFA - and it's fucking there, right smack at the beginning:
Matthias Clasen on the behalf of the GNOME Release Team has announced that they have decided to eliminate GNOME's "fallback mode" with the upcoming 3.8 release
Ya know? KDE is looking better every day, thanks to the Gnome developers.
After 5 years' Linux usage, I'm switching to Mac (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been using KDE for about six months now since the Unity fiasco drove me away from Ubuntu (with a year's Debian use on the way, with GNOME 2.3x before the more-recent KDE/openSUSE install).
However, I've reached that point in my life where I just want things to work, and since the Mac OS is not hostile to most of the open-source tools I use every day (and will continue using), switching to a desktop that "just works" means I should get the best of both worlds. I won't have to hunt down special repositories to get essential things installed any more, and I won't have to read lengthy HOWTOs to get some basic things working. I've been using my brother's Late 2011 Mac Mini for a day now and I'm very happy with the polish, the smoothness, the speed, and the complete lack of fuss. I doubt I'll ever really love the Finder, and the Dock has never impressed me much, but everything else will be a joy to use.
Sorry, Linux, but after more than a decade of "Is this the year of Linux on the desktop?" predictions, the old adage about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results applies. Linux is still Balkanised and I still have to fight to get simple things to work. I'll still keep Linux for a LAMP server (bare metal or VM, haven't decided) and you'll have to pry Mythbuntu from my cold, dead, hands in the lounge room, but sadly there is no longer a place for Linux as my main desktop operating system. And now that Microsoft are doing their best to drive away their loyal user base, I see an even brighter future ahead for the Mac ecosystem. I may as well stop fighting it.
Re:After 5 years' Linux usage, I'm switching to Ma (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it "just works" for you, but every time I've tried to use MacOS X, I had to give up in a short time and go back to KDE. This thing is just too infuriatingly dumbed down. For example I need focus follows mouse and absolutely detest the "active window is top window" mode. It always amazes me how "power users" can actually stand the MacOS X desktop, but I guess everybody is different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some users (especially shortcut-heavy users) just want to get the cursor out of the way and focus follows mouse effectively wrecks that.
Re:After 5 years' Linux usage, I'm switching to Ma (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why real OSes allow the user to choose how their UI works, rather than forcing the "best" configuration on them.
Re: (Score:3)
Some users (especially shortcut-heavy users) just want to get the cursor out of the way and focus follows mouse effectively wrecks that.
You know, KDE allows you to turn it back off, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Some users (especially shortcut-heavy users) just want to get the cursor out of the way and focus follows mouse effectively wrecks that.
No, no it doesn't. You can install unclutter, and your mouse pointer will hide when idle, or on keystroke (except in firefox, known bug.)
There's always someone come along to defend the amazing power of the Mac's interface, but that is a fool's game, because various Linux window managers provably have dramatically more functionality to say nothing of configurability, which the Apple lacks almost entirely. OSX does what most users want, but making it do anything else is a nightmare, because those parts of the
Re: (Score:2)
It is a fact that the OSX interface is less capable and less configurable than the typical competition on Linux. You cannot argue this point without being wrong. Stop it.
Depends on needs. I personally have a very customized UI through the use of AppleScript (via folder actions, regular scripts and services. The existence of a (mostly) standard way to script all GUI applications is a killer feature I've not found in Windows or Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a fact that the OSX interface is less capable and less configurable than the typical competition on Linux. You cannot argue this point without being wrong. Stop it.
Depends on needs.
See, this is why people assumed people like you couldn't use a mouse with more than one button. Whether you want it to be more configurable has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is more configurable. If you can show where in my comment I said that OSX's relative lack of configurability results in it not suiting your particular needs, I'll give you a dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a case of wanting it to be more configurable. It is configurable to my needs, and I'm a 20 odd years veteren of Macs and various Unix-likes and flavours of Unix. Is KDE more configurable than the Finder? Generally yes. Could I script applications on KDE the way I do on Macs? Definitely not. They simply don't have the same standardized hooks to facilitate the workflows that the Apple Events model provides. Do most Mac users do this? No, because it comes down to personal needs and workflows. One man'
Re: (Score:2)
It is configurable to my needs, and I'm a 20 odd years veteren of Macs and various Unix-likes and flavours of Unix
So because it's good enough for you, it should be good enough for everyone?
it comes down to personal needs and workflows
No, it comes down to Apple's needs and workflow. And god help you if you want to do anything any way other than theirs.
I won't argue there aren't benefits to homogeneity. It's too bad you can't accept that for many, OSX is inadequately configurable, and the fact that it meets your needs does not mitigate that fact at all. It only means that your needs are lesser than those of others. You should be thankful for that fact, not proud of
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you. And while this is a Gnome thread particularly if you start comparing desktops other than Gnome.
That being said you really should be saying "Aqua" here not "OSX". OSX can run a LInux window manager.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said you really should be saying "Aqua" here not "OSX". OSX can run a LInux window manager.
Can the Linux window manager manage the OSX applications, or just the X11 applications? Genuine question, I have no idea. My last OSX box was a G3 with the Rev.1 CMD IDE data corruption flaw running 10.2.
Re:After 5 years' Linux usage, I'm switching to Ma (Score:4, Funny)
My perception of Mac OS X in short: UNIX/Linux with a straight jacket.
Re: (Score:2)
For example I need focus follows mouse and absolutely detest the "active window is top window" mode.
Interestingly enough, back in the '90s when I started using Linux this used to come enabled by default. It was one of the things that I used to find extremely irritating with the system, what with me typing something without looking at the screen to only discover after a minute or two it was all going into the wrong window. I tried very hard to get used to it, even by taking extra pains to be absolutely sure the mouse pointer never ever went even near the borders of the active screen, up to and including tr
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that focus follows mouse works fine in OS X out of the box.
Re:After 5 years' Linux usage, I'm switching to Ma (Score:5, Interesting)
After 15+ years Linux usage I'm sticking with GNOME3 because I also want things to just work, and it gives me what I want, a clean desktop which stays out of my way most of the time. I simply did the GNOME2 to GNOME3 transition without stopping at Unity in between.
If I didn't like GNOME3 then there are so many alternatives that are simply an apt-get install away that I simply can't understand all the whining. I'd likely go back to WindowMaker or fluxbox.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are good reasons for much of the whining. Read this article for more information: GNOME (et al): Rotting In Threes [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The purist's desktop always "just works" in Linux. Instead of drowning in all the clutter, you could just switch to evilwm or something similar. Typing commands instead of selecting them from a menu is faster anyway (and you can install a pop-up menu for that if you're into that sort of thing). I've been using XMonad for years now and I'm happier and more productive than before. What is it with people's work that requires a "desktop" or "windows that are smaller than the screen that block the others so that
Re: (Score:2)
While I respect your decision I can't help noticing that you must have done something wrong.
I switched from the Mac to Ubuntu 5 years ago and I'm definitely not going to switch back. The only problems that I have ever encountered were solely caused by my own tinkering. If you don't start hacking it, Ubuntu works perfectly fine out of the box. (And by 'hacking' I don't mean changing the window manager; I'm using Xubuntu anyway.) Are you sure you haven't just played around with your distro too much? Like when
Re: (Score:2)
I won't have to hunt down special repositories to get essential things installed any more, and I won't have to read lengthy HOWTOs to get some basic things working.
... because it's *just not possible* on the Mac. Well, either it's not possible or you have to go and buy iGizmo X, which probably takes longer time than reading the HOWTO anyway. I have 0 experience with Mac (downloading a VM image to play with), but I know what it's like on Windows, and it's probably the same.
For some people it's better to have something be impossible than to require hours of hacking, because they can't help themselves. I'm probably one of those, but I still prefer Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
OSX runs on top of a BSD called Darwin. Linux I think is a better Unix than Darwin but Darwin is a pretty good Unix. Getting Unix stuff up on OSX is is nothing like trying to get stuff to work on Windows. The vast majority of software is installed out of the box with "port install xyz"
Re: (Score:2)
FTFA: "software-accelerated" (Score:5, Funny)
What, were they drawing it by hand before?
Me too (Score:3)
3d desktop is a waste (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a waste of user attention to the things that matter!
How often in a day do you "enjoy" your 3D desktop with 3D rotating/rolling/whatevering windows and gadgets?
Maybe I'm an outsider, but a have no more than 3 windows on the screen: 1 is the web browser, 1 is a local terminal, 1 is a remote terminal on the development server.
I don't see any need for 3D stuff here.
How many windows do you have in use at the same time? How often you switch among them? How much fun you have in waiting for the fancy 3D stuff to complete?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you even tried Gnome 3? There really are no "3D" effects. Just because it's using advanced features of your video card doesn't make it 3D.
The closest thing you'll see is that when you switch from a "Show me all my windows in an overlay" view, the windows will shrink/grow into place, which *in that tiny point of time* helps associate the zoomed-out tile with the window that's there.
Unity has some other plugins for 3D effects if you really want them, but they're hidden away because they're more like tech
Re: (Score:2)
I've never liked KDE, even going right back to the late 90s. I don't really know why, it just doesn't really work for me. One thing that annoys me is that every single control panel seems to have a million fiddly little controls for stuff you never really want or need to touch.
Gnome: I never got the hype or the recent rage (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never understood the Gnome hype to begin with.
I did like the fact that FOSS has two large desktop kits competing each other - that is a neat luxury - but the hype about Gnome I couldn't understand. The only thing Gnome really had going for it, compared to KDE or generic custom WM setups like a WindowMaker environment, in my opinion, was that you could, back then in 2001, with a litte work, get your desktop look totally different and awesome compared to anything else on the planet. But that was a large part to the relatively hassle-free GTK theming, and not on behalf of Gnome. And the people who did that usually did it using Enlightenment as their main environment as the way better choice anyway. And even without E, in my opinion WM or some default Fluxbox setup allways looks better than a bland and somewhat half-assed Gnome UI.
For the better part of the last decade Nautilus was flaky software in beta stage compared to KDEs Konqueror. Konqueror would kick Nautiluses ass up and down the street in terms of features and usability. It was the best FM on the entire plantet, and probably still is ... although I haven't been keeping up with all the details, changes and redos in the FOSS Desktop world since about 2006 so I couldn't really say. FOSS developers have a tendency to break things just to redo entire core-pieces of code or come up with new projects. ... What was that FM thing for KDE a few years back? Dolphin or something? ... Dunno, didn't care. I just remember thinking: "Oh, great, some guy fucking up Konqueror and thinking he can do better than about a decade of FM projekt work. Great." ...
Anyway, I am now using Gnome (2.something) on debian stable because it is the default and it's still way better than windows, but it does bug me with shit I'd expect not to have to put up with in 2012. The Filemanager (still nautilus? couldn't tell) wets its pants when accessing a dir across samba with the svn extension blocking the FM for minutes. Firefox has rendering errors in the tabs, and while the desktop pager works as expected, as far as I can tell it looks very much the same as it did eleven years ago in 2001. And even then E and WM had pagers at least as good, and you could run and customize them with a few lines of easy configging.
With KDE its a simular thing, althoug I'd say they did (and do) way better with the integrated desktop thing. KDE allways had Windows-style performance hog qualities, but they *did* offer the full Desktop experience. I'd bet that to this very day a well configured KDE is the best GUI on the planet, on a machine that can handle the workload. And yes, I know the Mac, I'm typing this on an MB Air with Snow Leopard. However, it wasn't that the KDE team hadn't also been smoking their share of crack while coding. Some dimwhit back in the 90ies had the brilliant Idea to copy the entire Windows KB shortcuts and make them KDE default, thus fucking with the entire userbase of opinion leaders that actually cared about them: The core FOSS unix crowd. As far as I know it has been that way since then. Granted, rare things are as easy to config as KB shortcuts in KDE, but come on! That's, in my book, at least as bad a markting move as Gnome is doing now with v3. Allthough I have to say that ever since Gnome v3 came about posts about gnome on slashdot have at least trippled. ... Maybe not so bad marketing after all. Gnome is refreshing its mindshare with its moves, that's for sure.
Whatever way you put it, the real anoyances with Linux on the desktop are still the same they were 15 years ago when I started using it, and they have nothing to do with wether the Gnome (or any other desktop or WM) crew has decided to make a paradigm shift or not.
I've seen the screens of Gnome 3, I've installed the newest Ubuntu with Unity on a netbook for my daughter (yes, yes, odd and dumbed down, but it's not the end of the world there are some neat ideas in Unity and the Terminal works as exp
Re:Gnome: I never got the hype or the recent rage (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish I had mod points. Agree completely. I recently installed Bodhi Linux, based on Ubuntu 12.04, using Enlightenment. So beautiful. But I don't mind Unity or gnome 2, or KDE. Though gnome and KDE are damn resource hogs. After a while you just want to do stuff and not wait to see dancing monkeys around the borders of your terminal window.
FOSS can do some great stuff but they can also just lose their way. Dolphin & konqueror. Bloody friggin Nautilus, what a pile of junk. I used to run a standard test whenever I fired up a new distro with gnome: load it into another partition, run Nautilus and copy/paste my mounted home directory to the new install partition. My home dir had about 150,000 files ... Nautilus always failed (for about 7 years it failed this test every year until I just gave up bothering about it); Konqueror no problems.
Re:Gnome: I never got the hype or the recent rage (Score:5, Informative)
Not much else to do but agree. However, you should really give KDE4 another shot. Ever since KDE4.5 or so, it has been a fully-usable (albeit heavy) desktop environment. It's achieved the level of maturity and configurability I've always associated with the KDE3 line, and has added several features that are genuinely useful (such as window grouping, tiling support, a full semantic desktop, and several powerful UI scripting techniques), as well as the traditional KDE integration technologies. After some early 4.x struggles, I'm once again in love with the full KDE user experience.
I've done my tour of GNOME2, XFCE, KDE3, Enlightenment, xmonad, GNOME3, Unity, and KDE4, and I would, for primary desktop purposes, choose KDE4 without hesitation at the moment. Definitely worth giving it another shot if you haven't already.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that initially annoyed me with E17 but I now love above all else is that the default is that every monitor has independant workspaces. Flip to a different desktop on screen 1 and screen 2 stays put, and you can't simply drag a window from one to the other. Of course that's just the default, and you can change it to the same behaviour as other WMs by having the screens as extensions, but in time I found it
Re: (Score:2)
I did like the fact that FOSS has two large desktop kits competing each other - that is a neat luxury - but the hype about Gnome I couldn't understand. The only thing Gnome really had going for it, compared to KDE or generic custom WM setups like a WindowMaker environment, in my opinion, was that you could, back then in 2001, with a litte work, get your desktop look totally different and awesome compared to anything else on the planet.
It's pretty much the license all the way. First it was LGPL vs QPL (which started the whole thing back in 1996-1997) then LGPL vs GPL + commercial (2000-2009) which may not have mattered much to the open source community but everyone looking to put proprietary software on top of Linux of course preferred LGPL over GPL. Now (2009-) both Qt and GTK+ are LGPL so there's really no difference there but there's also the language divide between C and C++. Writing anything that is a shared component between GNOME a
Reworking and maintaining the fallback mode (Score:3)
FTFA: "too much of a burden"
Because adding completely new features and redesigning the entire system is so much easier not to mention alienating what little user base you have left. Not to mention this is the exact same reason that drives people to hate proprietary software.
Seriously; thanks go out to all the Gnome developers for their efforts over the years but you guys have really been making some boneheaded decisions.
Mistakes? (Score:3)
When reading the posts so far, it looks like that some want their old interface back, which Gnome always had (which is not totally true, the old is also quite new). The main problem is, people have to relearn (a bit) how to use their machine. Some processes they used are no longer possible or useful. This is actually the same thing why other people do not want to go away from Windows on the desktop of their PCs and laptops.
Honestly, some her claim it was a bad move and no one wants the new bad and un-usable interface, while others call the previous group idiots and only a minor group with not much relevance. I am absolutely sure that both side talk bullshit (as in Harry Frankfurts, "On Bullshit"). Both sides cannot backup their claims toward the user basis and the user experience. I wonder why nobody is discussing the technology of the new and old Gnome stuff. Or the development and documentation process, which sucks (like in most OSS projects and even more in close source projects, design and documentation is mostly done after implementation and decisions are not documented. It is most important for other people to understand code to know why it is the way it is. The API is not enough. But, yes that is a general problem), or the choice of development language for gnome-shell etc.
To do a real critique on the UI experience, everyone should ask himself who are the audience of the UI? Which uses cases are incorporated? Which case cases are missing? If only application have to be launched and desktops have to be switched, then there is not much difference between Gnome 2 or Gnome 3, beside some eye candy. Honestly, they failed to make it more task centric which was one idea at the beginning. But the infrastructure for a move in that direction has to be build first. So I am not blaming anyone here.
So as a start: What do you want to do with your desktop shell? What do you want to do with your data navigation tool (aka file manager)?
I scrapped gnome (Score:3)
Re:idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually this is an improvement. Fallback mode was mostly a non-functional imitation of a Gnome 2 interface in the minimal default configuration that no one used.
Re: (Score:2)
Fallback mode was mostly a non-functional imitation of a Gnome 2 interface in the minimal default configuration that no one used
Not no one. Ok, have to admit Unity made some progress since v1. But as long as it requires us the pain to do that [geekyboy.com] to add a simple icon to the launcher, I'll stick to Classic (where a alt-right-click Add to Panel suffices...)
Re:idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
And it was STILL more useful than the full mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is an improvement. Fallback mode was mostly a non-functional imitation of a Gnome 2 interface in the minimal default configuration that no one used.
Fallback mode was in some sense a logical successor to Gnome 2. I'm a happy user of Fallback mode at work, I was delighted that the GPU of the new computer wasn't compatible with Gnome Shell. So it's *not* an improvement to drop it. Aslo, many computers which don't have proper GPU drivers are going to be old ones or not well maintained. Thus Gnome Shell is going to work like crap [Gnome 3 uses a shitload of GPU resources; I had to run my Radeon 6660 in "performance" mode to prevent the sound from stuttering
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using it right now, and so far the only thing I've noticed actually wrong with it is that I can't right-click icons and add them to the panel, or otherwise customize the panel from right-click. Lame, but not horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is remote desktop with no 3d acceleration. I hate fallback mode, but it's better than nothing for (e.g.) x2go or freenx.
Now I'll need to install something like xfce just for the remote desktop use case. It's hardly the end of the world, but it will definitely be missed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fully functional and the most usable GUI on my laptop running Ubuntu 12.04 you insensitive clod! I even tweaked the properties to have fully transparent panels, it looks pretty neat.
Yeah?
Half of applets gone. Panel height does not adjust beyond the size of some arbitrary icon in the theme. Speaking of themes, total of three GTK+ themes actually work consistently, and not ones that anyone likes.
Re:idiots (Score:4, Informative)
And Fedora is their biggest supporter. For christsakes I just found with Fedora 17 they don't even include the Unix man pages in the default installation. Sigh.
Re:idiots (Score:5, Informative)
Er, except that Debian is moving to Gnome 3 with Wheezy.
Tried a test installation prior to planning a site upgrade. WTF? DO NOT LIKE.
Looked around the Debian forums. Replies to "Can we have Gnome 2 back?" are met with "Why don't you help make Gnome 3 better instead?"
DO NOT WANT.
Tried Mate but it isn't ready for prime time yet, too many holes. Ended up with LXDE instead, adequate.
Re: (Score:2)
They long ago decided to switch their user base when they started Gnome 2.
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree with you. Personally I'm not a fan of docks so I used the frippery bottom pannel extension but at the moment I'm not even bothering. Honestly if people would take the week or so to get used to Gnome Shell they'd realize how efficient it is and how great it is at keeping things you don't need out of the way and putting them right where you need them when you do. I find the windows I need faster, I lauch applications faster, and I spend much less time in general dealing with the window mana
Re:GNOME 3 rules, you totally owe them an apology (Score:4, Insightful)
1. it's ok to have an opinion
2. it's ok to express that opinion regardless how it impacts others' feelings.
3. free doesn't exempt something from critique
Re: (Score:2)
You are forgetting that Linux has always ridden on the back of x86 hardware. The Windows 8 hardware has input interfaces that are a tablet / traditional mix.
Re: (Score:2)
The "official" name of the key is the "Super Key". And yeah the whole multi-mode thing and shell view is awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
people like you are common these days. I don't get that. by 'like you' I mean people who define differing opinions or even critical thinking as 'negative' when you don't agree with it and disregard them on that basis. Not only that, but your only defense of gnome3 is a preference for one tiny specific feature? It's sloppy thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a mental illness.. All humans have it to some extent.. Some manage to control it...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's adequate for big-three (Intel, nVidia, AMD) which solves 95% desktop problems. It's passable for ARM-based platforms. So fallback is needed for 1% of real hardware and some percent of virtual machines. Most virtualisation platforms support 3D accel for Linux.
Besides, how much power do you need to display few textured rectangles?
Re: (Score:3)
Define adequate. If the Window Manager is using a resource, then my programs can't. I basically turn off all special effects, because they're ususally hidden, and when they show up, they're either distracting or they actively get in the way. Static images are fine, and I prefer that a button signal that it's changed state while it's being pressed. And I want a visible cursor. Outside of that...
That said, I do like having different types of files have different icons, and it's useful if graphics files p
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's the way how this system works. When people are too impassioned. Its the same feeling when a kid comes by and builds a nicer sandcastle or criticizes yours. Or even takes over your castle, because you had to leave and modifies it. The horror! If you want a more objective answer, you need a different discussion form. On /. people state their opinions. They take them as truth. And if you criticize their position, they start calling names or the start debating. Instead of a real discussion (somethin
Re: (Score:2)
Just browse at -1. They're only being filtered because you left the filter enabled.