Giving GNOME 3 a GNOME 2 Look 181
nanday writes "GNOME Shell Extensions have done more than any other set of features to make GNOME 3 usable. Nearly 270 in number, they provide a degree of customization that was missing in the first GNOME 3 releases. In fact, if you choose, you can use the extensions to go far beyond Classic GNOME and re-create almost exactly the look and feel of GNOME 2 while taking advantage of the latest GNOME 3 code."
As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont understand the problems that people have with it. I spent an hours learning it, I kept an open mind and ended up really liking it.
That said - 90% of what I do requires a shell so maybe Im missing something....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally must say the same, it gave me a lot less problems than gnome2. All in all, it just worked. I didn't feel the need to configure much, if anything (made middle mouse click be minimize windows).
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering.
Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.
Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane.
(Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)
Re: (Score:3)
What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering.
Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.
Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane.
(Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)
The original Gnome 3 theme did have a large title bar and extra padding, but that was resolved long ago. Besides, there are a myriad of themes with different sized title bars and widgets to choose from.
As for dynamic workspaces, you can turn those off and use fixed ones, if you like and you can even add back the maximize/minimize buttons. In reality, Gnome 3 is pretty flexible. It's a shame it was released when it was because of outside pressure. If it had matured a little longer so more of the pieces were
Re: (Score:2)
1) KDE4's issues over KDE3 were fewer and smaller than those of Gnome3, and they still drove me to Gnome2.
2) KDE4 is still not as good as KDE3 was, but I'm now using KDE4 to avoid Gnome3.
3) Given the problems I have with both of them, I'd prefer to be using xfce, but my wife doesn't like it as well. (I'd really prefer KDE3.)
4) I don't really like fidding with my machine. I have other things I want to be doing. And Gnome3 gratuitously breaks adaptations between versions, so I would need to WANT to be cons
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2013/07/08/fedora-19-review-schrodingers-cat/2/ [linuxbsdos.com]
Based on the pictures of GNOME 3 on that page of that Fedora 19 review, it looks like GNOME 3's GUI is still fat. It looks pretty much exactly the same as it looked a long time ago... ugly and with tons of wasted screen space. I still see that "title bar and extra padding" you mentioned that's supposedly been fixed.
GNOME 3 is a disaster. Hell, KDE4 was too for that matter, but I'm pretty sure after this much time of it being officia
Re: (Score:2)
GNOME 3 is a disaster. Hell, KDE4 was too for that matter
And Windows 8.
I think our planet is passing through a cloud of gas or region of space that makes developers want to crank up the stupid in user interfaces.
Middle-click other than in a text input (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most window managers have middle-click *lower* the window. I don't know why he thought this conflicted with pasting.
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, it took me ages to get back the spacebar heating feature. :P
(But yeah, random UI redesigns can be annoying as hell. Personally, I kind of like the gnome-shell desktop - and at least it's better than freaking Unity - but on the other hand I'm not over gnome-terminal losing transparency. Currently I'm holding on to the old version as long as possible.)
Re: (Score:3)
Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.
That's strange, because apt-get install xfce or its equivalent usually only takes about 10 minutes unless you have a really slow connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow.
So you're one of those old fashioned types who thinks computers are supposed to be useful for something?
Re: (Score:3)
For starters, the quality of the extensions is lower than Gnome 2 applets - specially the system monitoring extension. When a single extension crashes in Gnome 3, the whole panel goes MIA, unlike Gnome 2.
Re: (Score:3)
What finally did it for me was the "you shouldn't even be allowed to have widgets or themes" attitude of the Gnome devs. I'd tolerated Gnome shell despite its flaws up until then. With that kind of vision, we're eventually going to be very much at odds eventually, as I think Linux is all about options, and I like configuring my desktop to look and work the way *I* want. It's the same as iOS. If you think you'll be always be happy with someone elses' design, then by all means, stick with it, otherwise, get o
Re: (Score:2)
What finally did it for me was the "you shouldn't even be allowed to have widgets or themes" attitude of the Gnome devs. I'd tolerated Gnome shell despite its flaws up until then. With that kind of vision, we're eventually going to be very much at odds eventually, as I think Linux is all about options, and I like configuring my desktop to look and work the way *I* want. It's the same as iOS. If you think you'll be always be happy with someone elses' design, then by all means, stick with it, otherwise, get out as soon as you can.
I moved to KDE and wish I'd done so earlier. It's fantastic, and doesn't get the attention it deserves from the Linux community.
I've heard that complaint about the gnome devs, but have yet to find actual evidence of it. It seems that if they really thought that way, they wouldn't have made gnome-shell extensible so that one could change widget and themes. The fact that they didn't build the initial tool to make those changes, while frustrating, is understandable as changing themes was not as high a priority as getting the rest of it working.
As for KDE, yes, it is very good and extensible, too. However, if you had switched earlier, b
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I've tried Gnome3 repeatedly. (Really don't like KDE4 either, and I kept hoping they'd make it usable.) They didn't. They actually kept making it worse.
I'd use xfce, but my wife doesn't like it. I'd prefer to use KDE3. Gnome2 was a good alternative. Now I've got KDE4, which is sufficient, if not good. (KDE3 was good leaning towards excellent.)
I originally assumed that there were underlying technological problems that caused the change, but apparently the designers just decided they didn't
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:5, Informative)
The hate against GNOME 3 has mixed origins. Some are natural, as "they changed now it sucks" reactions; the fact GNOME 2 was/is great also doesn't help at all. Some are because the software is new and nowhere mature. But some are genuine complaints from the users for GNOME 3 not actually improving their experience, but getting in the way to do common tasks - the devs confused "simple" with "simplistic" and are completely deaf for users' requests (some as simple as putting back in 3.7 a background configuration already present in 3.6 [gnome.org].
As for me, I just moved to MATE when the whole thing happened and I'm quite happy with it.
Re: (Score:3)
In all fairness the Gnome 2 userbase was not the desired userbase for Gnome 3. So being "deaf" was part of the design. Gnome wanted to shift its target market.
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:4, Insightful)
So then they shouldn't have called Gnome 3 "Gnome". Just like Microsoft shouldn't have called Windows 8 "Windows".
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on Gnome 3. When you want to shift user bases you should rename the product. The problem is the developers see "Gnome" as not being the desktop but rather the GNU Object Model which has been updated. The users of the GNU Object Model are the developers not the users of the desktop.
Microsoft wants the Windows 7 community to migrate to Windows 8. On the other hand I think there would be a lot less friction if they had called it "Metro OS the successor to Windows" and had made it clear Win
Re: (Score:2)
My second thought was, "Maybe KDE still looks a little like HP's CDE and will actually make sense". When I have a chance I may give it a shot.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want CDE it's open source now....
Re: (Score:2)
So then they shouldn't have called Gnome 3 "Gnome". Just like Microsoft shouldn't have called Windows 8 "Windows".
Not really. After all Gnome 2 is open source. If the the target base for Gnome 3 was different than Gnome 2, there was nothing stopping somebody from picking up the Gnome 2 base and continuing it. Which is what the Mate desktop basically is. The same thing happened with KDE 3 and there is Trinity. However, Trinity has a very small user base compared to the original KDE 3 base and only time will tell if Mate is successful in keeping the Gnome 2 interface alive or not.
Gnome 3 is the third iteration of the Gn
Re: (Score:2)
Gnome 3 is the third iteration of the Gnome Desktop Environment, there is no reason for it not to include the 3.
The statement was never that the "3" should not have been included. The "Gnome" is the misleading bit, since it's apparently intended for an entirely new "market."
Re: (Score:2)
Gnome wanted to shift its target market.
That's a good insight. I wish the governors of the major linux desktop distros would have realized this much earlier (or even today in some cases) and either not gone along with GNOME 3 or relegated it to a niche spin (which it does deserve as an interesting alternative technology).
Re: (Score:2)
On both KDE 4 and GNOME 3 the distributions have done a bad job of communicating with GUI designers on a rollout strategy. At the same time GUI designers have done a bad job being unambiguous enough in their communications to communicate effectively. Both projects suffered horribly for these mistakes and they won't likely be repeated but it would have been a lot better for everyone if they hadn't.
The big issue with GNOME is that RedHat understood the strategy and Ubuntu understood the strategy. But Ubunt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These are the people who think that Win95 was the apex of UI design. Leave them to their retro revelry.
Re: (Score:2)
Initially Apple left off an easy way to manage open applications. I've seen lots of people confused over where their Clarisworks was because it was running but hidden and they didn't know how to switch to it. I've
Before OS X, before Mac OS 9, there was System 2.1 (Score:2)
Windows 95 [...] created an intuitive (albeit clunky underneath) method to handle files as a component of the user interface
"Created" might not be the best word for Windows 95's role in popularizing the sort of file browser that had shipped with Apple computers since the fourth quarter of 1985 when Mac OS 2.1 introduced HFS.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's scheme involved metadata embedded in the file (in the resource fork) that said what program to run when you double-clicked.
This works but has the strange effect that sometimes you cannot predict what program will open, or if the file will open at all. A common example (for me) is that I *always* have to use open-as on pdf and other files to get the nice fast "preview" program to run, rather than launching Adobe's reader.
Microsoft's version just used the filename to go to a central database that said
Application menu in classic Mac OS (Score:2)
Initially Apple left off an easy way to manage open applications.
From System 7 (2Q 1991) through Mac OS 9.x, the application's icon at the top-right corner of the screen was a menu listing open applications. Or was that in some way too hard for users to discover? In any case, it was easier to discover than the hot corners in Windows 8 that hide an invisible Start button at the bottom left and the charms bar at top right.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Windows 95 really did have some innovations that were not in the X desktops at that time. Don't discount them just because they seem obvious now or that Microsoft really did develop them.
1. The "taskbar" contained an item for a window whether or not the window was open. All previous systems (including earlier windows) had "icons" that were only there for "closed" windows (ie a window was either "visible" or "iconized"). The taskbar realizes that users don't keep track of whether they last left a window
Re: (Score:3)
/. has become ultra conservative when it comes to interface changes. Any substantial change of a piece of software is going to involve some things getting worse in exchange for more things getting better. Which means complex existing workflows likely will have to change. They don't like that even though existing workflows usually stifle innovation.
Re: (Score:3)
I may be naive, but I think adapting the workflow to the interface is backward. The interface is there to allow you to work, it should adapt itself to *your* workflow. With Gnome 2, if you wanted a pannel on the right side of the screen, you put a pannel on the right side of the screen. If you wanted a taskbar on the left side, you put a taskbar on the left. If you wanted the notification area in a specific corner, you put it there.
People cling to Gnome 2 because it at least granted them the freedom to
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to modify where things appear like that is an example of the sorts of changes I was talking about. It isn't integrated for the sake of integrated, it is integrated because it is much easier to genuinely engage in design when you can lock things down. Your car would be much more complex if it optionally let you reverse the brake and acceleration pedal or drive from the right front seat. What you get from locking things down is a far better default design.
As for how configurable something shou
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, that conservatism also leaks over into 'vendor' loyalty. Rightly, GNOME 3 should never have been integrated into the major desktop linux distros. The idea that "we like what upstream has done with v2, and now they're going to v3, so we need to go to v3" is a degree of loyalty that ought to be proven, not granted.
It's probably a hard lesson to learn, but perhaps a necessary step for the ecosystem. Given the decision again,
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one thing what the article is about, the fact that the desktop is extensible with Javascript. We now have something for the GUI that can play a similar roleto shell scripts for the command line.
Support for touch
Integrated notification system
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one thing what the article is about, the fact that the desktop is extensible with Javascript. We now have something for the GUI that can play a similar roleto shell scripts for the command line.
That was in GNOME 1's default WM, Sawfish.
One reason I dread system upgrades is that every change to GNOME makes it harder to get my old hypercustomized desktop back.
Re: (Score:2)
For the window manager yes. For the GUI no.
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont understand the problems that people have with it.[...]
Ergo, you don't understand the way people uses computers. :-)
I *create* things on my computer. Each "task" is done using a Code Editor (for code), an Text Processor (for requirements), a bunch of Browsers (for references, searches when in doubt and task and bug tracking) and sometimes a graphical editor (for, imagine that, graphics processing).
Some tasks need a subset of all above. Some others, need them all. And having a workspace based on applications is the very dumbest idea of all times - producing content is a multi-hole, multi disciplinar, task.
Gnome 3 tried to force down end-user, consumer solutions into professional's throat. Bad idea - not even Microsoft succeed into this (see Windows 8.1).
My solution to the problem? I just switched for Mac OS X. I found it was easier to work there than to wait 1 or 2 years until Gnome realize the huge mistake they did.
(And NO, I WILL NOT USE KDE - I don't like Windows-like environments, or I would use Windows at the first place!).
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there is nothing you are missing I don't get the upheaval over Gnome 3 either. Some people just can't stand anything changing and there is a certain small subset that group that likes to kill time by searching for crap to get angry over and make a lot of noise about it. The rest of the Gnome 2 traditionalists have simply realised that there is a growing collection of (how many is it now?) Gnome 2 forks out there and they are only a yum/apt-get away. Mate for example is now at version 1.6 and there is a Linux Mint LiveDVD that comes preinstalled with it [linuxmint.com].
I'm not someone who froths at the mouth and gnaws my desk every time something changes. Even the perpetual shuffle on Windows only annoys me (OK, so what is the Nitwit Neighborhood called in this release?).
But Gnome3 took away critical desktop assets that I used every day and all day. THAT is what the upheaval is about. It didn't change them, it removed them and left nothing comparable in its place. And that is what had me screaming in rage.
I switched to Cinnamon, which replaces some, though not all of what I lost, and I don't mind the fact that it looks like Gnome3 at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sometime ago, I was reading the mailing list post where the devs discuss removing the minimize button. The lead removes it, tests it on two, just two devs, whom he admits are atypical users. They are not happy about the change, but say they can live with it. So he removes it. Huh?
I thought that the Gnome foundation was big on HCI... and this is what passes for testing radical changes to on one of the most established UI conventions of the universal WIMP interface for the most popular Linux Desktop at the ti
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people just can't stand anything changing
Again, for the 100th time, I must patiently explain that it's not the change itself that's the problem.
The problem is when the change takes away features and functionality, or hides them.
For example, Windows underwent a significant amount of UI design change between 3.1 and WinXP, and almost all of it was an improvement.
But we now have a new generation of UI designers who are operating on the theory that if you hide or remove features and functionality, it will make the interface better. We've seen the dismal results of their work: Canonical Unity, GNOME 3, and Windows 8 -- all resoundingly criticized for the hiding and/or removal of features, and for abandoning the crucial principle of discoverability.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people have work to do and use their computers as tools to get shit done. Not all of us have time to continually waste re-learning the newest fad desktop paradigm pushed by UX designers who need to continually justify the existence of their jobs.
gnome-shell only bad for geeks (Score:2)
I've installed Ubuntu with gnome-shell for 3 computer illiterate friends.
Once I've explained them that they should always work with the super key (on most keyboards windows key) and if they want to start something just type it into the startmenu (I also installed gnome-do on F4, because it's a little faster and I like it better), then they didn't have any problems with it at all.
(One of that friend actually tried out unity too and even liked it!)
I remember when I first upgraded to Ubuntu 11.10 (I think it w
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that was it for me - Unity completely violated my work-flow, multiple documents open on a very large monitor, with focus-follows-mouse. It didn't work for me on MacOS, and it didn't work for me in Unity. Then I got a new laptop and installed 12.10 on it... I don't like how small laptop screens have gotten (4x3 ratios actually give more pixels and more useful vertical space); in this case, I only want one window at a time because of the screen size, and having the launcher on the side (and no app-bar
Re: (Score:3)
Why you think that displaying the mediocrity of your friends on slashdot legitimates GNOME 3 is beyond me.
it's a form of "it's just not for you".
fyi, his friends would have been just as happy if not happier with icewm. it's not like they had any choice. it's a mystery how his friends know what magic to type into the start menu - which gets us to the why a gui was a wonderful addition to pc's, you didn't have to magically know what apps you have for a task.
why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
I know this will invite a flame or three, but the proper response here is Mate [mate-desktop.org].
Mate Cinnamon and Gnome3+Extensions (Score:5, Informative)
I know this will invite a flame or three, but the proper response here is Mate [mate-desktop.org].
Mate http://mate-desktop.org/about/ [mate-desktop.org]
"MATE is a fork of GNOME 2.
It provides an intuitive and attractive desktop to Linux users using traditional metaphors."
Cinnamon (although same as Gnome 3 with extensions) http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/ [linuxmint.com]
"Traditional layout, advanced features, easy to use, powerful, flexible."
Can you not see the difference. The real question is why use Mate.
Cinnamon still missing window previews in pager (Score:3)
Cinnamon and Gnome 3 still are missing one vital feature from Gnome 2 and Mate. That is the key feature of showing window previews in the pager. This is a powerful feature that helps make virtual desktops a bit more easy to use. Seeing a bunch of boxes with numbers in them is far less useful. This sort of thing has been available in old X11 pagers for about 20 years or more. Why can Cinnamon not do it too? I rely on this feature to mind me what apps are running where.
Re: (Score:3)
Cinnamon and Gnome 3 still are missing one vital feature from Gnome 2 and Mate. That is the key feature of showing window previews in the pager. This is a powerful feature that helps make virtual desktops a bit more easy to use.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding... I get this feature with Gnome3/Gnome Shell, although I installed an extension to get a better version of it, called Workspace Navigator. It actually provides a better overview than Gnome2 did for me. If I forget what's where, I just hit the super key and can see what's running on each virtual desktop.
Truthfully, I like the idea of having extensions. I only install the functionality I need. I also like that I don't have to deal with Compiz in Gnome Shell. While it was fine wit
Re: (Score:2)
No that's not what I'm talking about. Workspace Manager does not appear to be related to this at all, if I'm reading its description right. I'm talking about the pager itself. It's the little display that's always on the screen in the tray or menu bar. It's like what Cinnamon has, but instead of just boxes with numbers around to represent the desktops, it has little thumbnails of the running apps, including the app's icon if the window is big enough. Either way this little bit of feedback is essential f
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, Mate is only a short-term solution because the underlying applications are no longer being developed. Cinnamon is the better long-term solution.
Unfortunately, when I've tried either Mate or Cinnamon they've been too unresponsive to continue using. I'm not entirely sure why, but they are much less responsive than Gnome2 was, and are even less responsive than KDE4. Still, either is far better than Gnome3.
My real hope is that xfce will develop a bit. Or possibly LXDE. (I'm not really after Lightweig
Mate and Trinity desktops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TDE ran fantastic when I used it last on an older laptop (P3 1.2GHz, 1GB RAM, Fedora 16). I think the team needs some more manpower, since it's slow to support newer operating systems (F17 is the last supported FC, for example), and needs a lot of documentation (I'd build from source if they had some instructions, but it's a mess).
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you suppose that the Trinity team needs to "support" newer distro versions? The job of the DE team is to develop and maintain the DE code, period. It is the job of the distro to package it and put it in their repo. I would rag on the distros for ignoring Trinity and supporting failed acid-trip experiments like Gnome 3.
Re: (Score:2)
As of right now the project is very geared towards Ubuntu. I just posted on Fedora Projects G+ page about supporting it, but I feel like they're going to say there isn't enough manpower on the TDE team to keep up with newer backend requirements (systemd, firewalld, etc).
Lubuntu Fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Gnome 3 is why I switched to Lubuntu (LXDE) and I've been very happy with it ever since. But if you have to jump through so many hoops to make your software behave like you want it to behave, then something's fundamentally flawed.
Gnome 1 rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for fun last week I reinstalled one of the first distros that really got me cooking on Linux: SUSE 8.0, running KDE3.0 and Gnome 1. And you know what, I think Gnome 1 is the version that worked for me - sawfish windowmanager,hugely tweakable, some cool themes, and so on. Yes, the apps were in an earlier and less-useful state, but as a desktop, it was pretty cool.
I had a fun time going down nostalgia lane with apps like Balsa and Spruce and even the early versions of Nautilus file manager (long before they went nuts on the "spatial" metaphor etc.) and even early version of the Pan newsreader.
Maybe it's nostalgia, but that was a pretty good desktop. Gnome 2 never really floated my boat. And Gnome 3 can wither and die, as far as I'm concerned. It makes me so unproductive it drives me to turn off the computer and go read a book or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Ive been tempted to try this, i remember early gnome as being really responsive... so how is it on new hardware as far as latency goes (app startup etc) ?
Re: (Score:3)
I installed it in a Virtual Machine, since my modern hardware would be unrecognizable to a distro from 2001. But it's freaking FAST. Imagine all those fat libraries that used to be thin, from the era when your distro came on a set of CDs instead of online repositories, and you accessed the 'net over a telephone line.
To be clear, I like the modern apps better - things like clementine and kontact and I guess even evolution. But as a desktop, Gnome1 was tweakable and useable and interesting and geeky (and g
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't you a KDE user?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on GNOME 2 (Ubuntu 10.x), but I still use Sawfish and Balsa, and I used Galeon until a few years ago when Firefox's plugins finally caught it up (and passed it) in terms of desirable features.
I've upgraded Ubuntu to 12.x LTS on two laptops. One one I installed Mate and got things more or less working like I've had for a decade or more, though I'm not 100% happy with it. On the other the upgrade hosed itself, and I'm going to have to do a complete reinstall. For these reasons I haven't upgraded my mai
GNOME 2 is better for most users (Score:2)
Gnome Shell is small part of Gnome 3 (Score:2)
So the greatest accomplishment of GNOME 3 is to be able to look and feel like GNOME2.
Doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
Yet is does show how *flexible* Gnome 3 is. It also allows those who prefer a Gnome 2 look can have one without installing a replacement, and the pursuit of better interface can continue without punishing users in the transitional period.
Re: (Score:2)
Please mod parent up. God knows I would do it, but I already commented in this post. :-)
Look doesn't matter ... (Score:2)
Better Alternatives Exist (Score:2)
Why not just use gnome3 classic mode? (Score:4, Informative)
It will be default in RHEL 7, so it will be supported going forward. Gnome extensions seem to break with every other release.
TFA doesn't tell the whole truth (Score:2)
Gnome3 is only part of my problem (Score:2)
The Dell is stuck at Fedora 14. Anything newer brings in gnome3 and the system crashes when a 3D operation is done. I've tried Fedora 15 and 17, and could not get it configured to avoid th
Re: (Score:2)
Or something completely different: fvwm2
Stable as stone.
Re: (Score:2)
Why switch?
Haven't you heard of MATE?
Re:a couple years late (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to use ubuntu. Took one look at Unity and switched to xubuntu.
Re: (Score:3)
I used 12.04 for a long time without Unity by installing the gnome-desktop package, which IIRC was Gnome 3.
I've recently switched to Mint 14 on MATE (modified Gnome 2) and have not had any regrets.
I did have to bind ctrl+alt+t to open a terminal, though :)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple stuck in 90's (Score:3)
Since then I've bought a Mac and never been happier.
Ironically I have used Mac regular, and back 8 years ago would recommend them (when the top end where reasonable value and their software shined), today they look and run like overpriced dinosaurs, with gimmicks like cylinder cases with no real innovation. Now I use Gnome or XFCE and both are better, and its lightening fast. In short the MAC is overpriced brand trash.
I'm not even alone Mac sales are being crushed dropping 22% and 2% over last two quarters, yet Linux usage continues to rise.
Your trolling. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Well we have more of your made up statistics. The comparison for a season company is YOY which is mainly flat. That would be like talking about how clothing stores sales are crushed in the 1st quarter because they aren't doing anything like their christmas volumes.
As for abandoning the desktop: Macbook Pro Retina, New iMac form factor, Mac Pro were all this year.
Apple is failing on the Deskop (Score:2)
Well we have more of your made up statistics.
I use Apples Earning Releases for my statistics. You should be able to see them in Firefox.
Q1 2013 Unaudited Summary Data http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q1fy13datasum.pdf [apple.com]
Q2 2013 Unaudited Summary Data http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q2fy13datasum2.pdf [apple.com]
Year on Year Change for Units was down 22% and 2% as previously stated.
No apology necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they were false, I said there were highly misleading and not the way anyone does comparisons in a company with an annual sales cycle.
Apple is fucking its customers again (Score:2)
I didn't say they were false, I said there were highly misleading and not the way anyone does comparisons in a company with an annual sales cycle.
No you called me a serial lair...and I re-quote "we have more of your made up statistics" because the the truth does not reflect the image you want to portray...and then lie about your actions. In reality we notice Apple is making more revenue from less units...which sounds like Apples usual sacrificing market share for profits. Good for them...sucks for its customers, who already pay too much for their mid-range products, better buy a Lenovo...everyone else is.
Seriously though think about your behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a serial liar. "Mac sales are being crushed". That is sort of terminology is not used for a product on an annual cycle.
Mac Units:
2Q2013 3952k
2Q2012 4017k
1Q2013 4061k
1Q2013 4017k
Their sales on Macs are flat. There is no "more revenue from less units" nonsense. If you are reading Apple reports they quote year over year statistics and they do so for a very good reason, their products have 20% deviations between different quarters every year. That means nothing other than their products are cyclica
Re: (Score:2)
type and repeated:
2Q2013 3952k
2Q2012 4017k
2Q2011 3760k
Your an Idiot (Score:2)
You are a serial liar. "Mac sales are being crushed". That is sort of terminology is not used for a product on an annual cycle.
Mac Units:
2Q2013 3952k
2Q2012 4017k
1Q2013 4061k
1Q2013 4017k
Their sales on Macs are flat. There is no "more revenue from less units" nonsense. If you are reading Apple reports they quote year over year statistics and they do so for a very good reason, their products have 20% deviations between different quarters every year. That means nothing other than their products are cyclical. Pretending that's not the case and talking about quarter over quarter numbers is lying.
No looks again
Q1 2013 Unaudited Summary Data http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q1fy13datasum.pdf [apple.com] [apple.com]
Q2 2013 Unaudited Summary Data http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q2fy13datasum2.pdf [apple.com] [apple.com]
Mac Units
5198 Q12012----seriously is this figure for last year so hard to pick out!
4061 Q12013
Hence a drop year on year of about a quarter of its sales of 22%
4017 Q22012
3952 Q2 2013
Hence a drop year on year of a more manageable 2%
You clearly an idiot(or simply lying) you can't even read a Data Sheet...never reply
Re: (Score:2)
Jeeze guys. It's nice to be passionate, but ...
Interesting discussion though.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave up on the Mac when they included that line that read (approximately) "We have the right to add, modify, change, copy, or remove any file on your computer" to a security update.
Prior to that I had used and recommended Apple for 2 decades. (Well, some of the time I used MSWind, due to work constraints, but I *never* recommended it.) Since then I no longer use or recommend Apple. I've still got an old machine, but it needs to be disconnected from the internet, because I can't accept the security upda
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I put in hours and hours trying to make bad software usable? I used Linux for 5 years until 8 months ago when I finally gave up on Linux because GNOME 2.30 was consigned to the dustbin and I got sick of the alternatives.
8 months ago you could have spend 5 minutes installing MATE, which is really just Gnome 2 (rescued from the dustbin, cleaned up, and now nicely polished). It's not really 'Linux' that's the problem, just the attitude of the Gnome developers (who, to be fair, do seem to be coming to their senses lately).
Re: (Score:2)
I like Gnome 3 and think they did the right thing in terms of the shift. That being said, Gnome developers were incredibly arrogant in 2011. To pick a fight with Canonical, the system for the majority of their users base, was insane. To do it at the same time they were bringing out a major update was incredibly destructive. It is hard to imagine how they could have handled this release worse.
Re: (Score:2)
so.. because a window manager/"desktop environmen" which provides pretty much just a taskbar and a file manager you went to a system that has steaming pile of poo for both? (dock is a taskbar. it's just very shitty at being a taskbar, but fundamentally that's what it is. my personal favorite is the tiny led lights for showing if the app is on or not).
Re: (Score:2)
You make an interesting case. There is also a case to be made that the free Cygwin on Windows 7 gives you a pretty darn good environment. Cygwin has grown to be pretty remarkable, given that it now actually gives you /dev including sda, sr0, null, zero, etc; /proc including /proc/sys and /proc/registry; true hardlinks and symbolic links on NTFS; mapping NT users to *nix UIDs; a single / root with all your drives mounted on it; a really beautiful dynamically resizable bash terminal window; an ssh demon; and
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason that most of the Desktop Environments are popular. GUI *is* important for many use-cases. And many of those that you mention aren't good choices. xfce and LXDE, however, ARE good choices. (WRT trinity, the times that I've tried to use it, it hasn't worked. Others, however, report reasonable to good success. So YMMV.)
Desktop software is a complex ecosystem, and small groups can't keep it working. So I have my doubts about the long-term viability of MATE. Cinnamon, however, seems a wo
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure you realize that which choices are "good" ones is very subjective. I happen to agree with you that Xfce and LXDE are strong candidates, but Enlightenment and others have strong fans. Your point about the extremely modest resources available to many of the projects is well taken. I was very enthusiastic to hear that Xfce is being ported to Qt, if sad that GTK2 is fading as a viable option.
I am not sure what the angst about Qt is; I've heard a lot of it, and it has never been well defined. Qt is not
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry; Xfce -> LXDE of course.
Re:While we are at it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the gnome folks were thinking. I've heard it said that they were enamored with OS-X, don't know. However at work I have a very nice brand new iMac with Lion on it, and it is much easier to use and has a very different orientation then gnome3.
No, they're were enamored with iPad - and thought that they can make *everybody* will like the idea of using Desktops as glorified Pads.
I switched to Mac OS X one week after Gnome 3 was released. At that time, no other usable and equivalent option was available. Since it was some of an investment (Mini Macs are not that expensive, but they aren't cheap nevertheless), it works fine and runs everything I need, I can't find a reason to switch back, no matter what.
Switching platforms was a pain in the arse, but
Re: (Score:2)
A little correction to myself:I switched to Mac OS X one week after OpenSUSE 12.0 with Gnome 3 was released.
I was an OpenSUSE use for years and years. Switching to another disto would be almost a pain as to switching to any other distro without YAST, so I took the jump.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think I believe this, though I recognize it is a completely subjective topic.
See extensive list [slashdot.org]. Most of the listed options were available then.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you misunderstand evolution.
Evolution is lots of different (essentially random) changes. Most of them die off, because they were worse than what preceeded them. Some have niche uses. Only very rarely is one of them globally better. (For very rarely, estimate one out of millions.)
Evolution doesn't mean improvment for any particular purpose. That's progress. (And even there, others may rationally disagree that it's a general improvement. Bigger bombs are an improvement, but not everyone cons