Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds Ditches GNOME 3 For Xfce
kai_hiwatari writes "In Google+, Torvalds criticized the direction that GNOME has taken with GNOME 3. He called GNOME 3 an 'unholy mess' and said that the user experience is unacceptable, adding that because of GNOME 3, he has ditched GNOME for Xfce. He said that Xfce is a step down from GNOME 2 — but a huge step up from GNOME 3."
Maybe Linus somehow didn't install GNOME shell along with it? Other than a few minor issues, which will be fixed with plugins soon enough, I've been rather happy with GNOME 3.
Linus strikes me as the type of guy who would use a tiling window manager, such as xmonad or awesome.
Xfce is a step down from GNOME 2 â" but a huge step up from GNOME 3.
Then why didn't he just stay with GNOME 2?
Of course as a KDE user myself I want to ask why he didn't switch to KDE instead, but I know better than to open that can of worms. It is almost like asking an emacs user why they don't just switch to vi...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
to jump ship to something that actually stays consistent over the years that doesn't try "revolutionizing" for no good reason.
Cause I did the same thing about a month ago. I thought I was alone...
They lost me when they removed the ability to change themes from the default install. I understand the viewpoint of wanting a consistent user interface, but removing basic customisation features is a slap in the face to most Linux users, especially after all the grief that Unity got for not letting you move the dock from the left side.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot! If you're looking for stagnation, look at five years go.
There can be only one.
Holy = Linus uses it.
Unholy = Linus does not use it.
So of course Gnome 3 is unholy, because Linus made it so. :-)
Just so you know, this is a story about a series of comments on a social networking site. I hate to say it, but
In a way, that is progress here. In case you haven't been paying attention, it is rare to go this long between subsequent stories just about facebook or facebook-boy's finances/legal-situation/latest-acquisition/wardrobe
The notion that
Slashdot == stagnated
Is such old news around here you might find yourself down-modded "redundant" for saying it today.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Dude that's nothing, Sports Center has whole stories base on one tweet...
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
It's a disaster. I installed it on a VM. Luckily, I never use the console of that VM for anything and simply bring up windows on the host computer's X server. I have been highly reluctant to install Fedora 15 on anything after experiencing what it looks like and works like on my VM. It's nearly completely broken. I would be significantly less efficient if I actually tried to use it, and I would be constantly frustrated and annoyed by things that didn't work at all, or were stupidly redone to be more obscure and difficult.
And that's with 'forced compatibility mode' because my VM doesn't support 3D acceleration very well.
To be clear, it's the panel, shell and window manager that are broken. The applications that use the toolkit are fine.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Good call, up until recently I was preaching LXDE! and that is a fine desktop but it has a lot of klunk, I put debian on my powermac9600 with XFCE 4.6 and wow its pretty darn good and is now my favorite. A simple desktop that doesn't forget 1984 simple standards, gets the hell out of the way and is extremely fast. How fast? well my powermac 9600 is 300Mhz with 256meg of EDO ram and is upgraded with a PCI ati R7000 card and I use it daily on my electronics bench, 14 years later with debian, thats pretty good.
Yeah.. Gnome 3 is a revolution... for smartphones. We desktop users need serious environments, not the insanity of Gnome 3 nor the broken and hog experience of KDE 4.x (they still insist that you can't open these nice CD's or DVD written with non UTF8 characters on it??). XFCE is not the most serious and good one, but this is what we have nowadays. The Mint XFCE distro is a good example of what sane people with some common sense can do with a minimalistic approach. Heck, even, the Gnome 2.x editions of Mint are a very pleasant experience, compared with the stupidity and insanity that KD/Gnom{e} cursed upon us.
Gnome is dead. Netcraft confirms it.
All these window managers are inferior to Windows. Even after copying each Windows release, they are still behind Windows 95 in usability. Hell, they are getting worse. It is now a punishment to me to use Gnome 2.1x.
For example, you cannot change location in Nautilus without using magic keyboard shortcut such as Ctrl + L. But you can see location just fine, just you can't change it.
Only chance for good Linux desktop is if Google decides to make some professional window manager like they did on Android.
I appreciate work that GNOME/KDE teams are putting out for pro bone, but after so many releases that don't address basic usability issue, I cannot but wonder if they are going in wrong direction.
Earlier GNOMES and KDEs imitated Windows. One thing Windows did right was the Taskbar. It is, in all seriousness, an extremely good metaphor. It separates the acts of launching programs from managing which ones are running, because, dammit, those are different things.
OSX, with its Dock, conflates launching a program with looking at a window that it has opened. The implicit metaphor is that all programs are always "running," and that the messy details of actually starting a process should be wrapped up by the operating system so that we don't need to think about it. Then, multitasking within a program falls to the program itself. Everybody ends up implementing their own tabs.
Android does the same thing as OSX. All "apps" are always "running," more-or-less, from a GUI point of view. Under-the-hood, they obviously are not; they have to restore themselves from saved state. But this varies from program to program, and is one of the reasons Android has an inconsistent user experience. Given an unfamiliar program, you don't know at first when you're quitting it, and when you're leaving it running in the background.
Now, Gnome3 appears also to falling into the OSX camp.
What Torvalds seems to prefer, in KDE3.5, Gnome2, and now XFCE, is a more Windows-like metaphor for multitasking. I'm with him. I think that's one thing Windows did right.
Personally, I think KDE 3.5 was the height of full-featured Linux desktop environments, and it's degraded into so much juvenile bullshit ever since. Now, just give me something lightweight that uses a reasonable multitasking paradigm and gets out of the way. XFCE fits the bill.
Steve Jobs says "BOO!"
Linus Torvalds says "WOO!"
Mark Zuckerberg says "POO!"
This is TMZ for nerds. Swap Kardashians for Zuckerberg. Snookie for Torvalds. And Lohan for Jobs. Or whatever.
I care more what my friends or coworkers suggest for tools, distros, sites, etc., than I really care about the opinions of these guys. Even then, I just check it out for myself.
I've worked as a sysadmin in academic HPC for 10+ years. 1000+ Linux servers. I've worked with Gnome for years, since the 1.x days.
Gnome 3 is so bad I've switched to using Windows 7. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot were the Gnome3 developers "thinking"?
Want to refactor a crap ton of code? I understand completely. Want to completely trash the most usable Linux UI? Go die in a fire. Seriously.
Start listening to your user base, or you'll quickly cease to have one.
I, like most knowledgeable people, already switched to XFCE years ago. Good to see Linus is finally getting with the program.
I tested out Gnome 3 on Arch for about a week before I decided it was time to abandon it. I also ended up at Xfce. It gets the job done.
This is a serious question: Got any ideas on what slashdot should be replaced with?
Have social networking sites made slashdot and its ilk irrelevant? Is there a better slashdot replacement out there? Technocrat.net was pretty good, until it got shutdown, though it did get pretty intense at times. kuro5hin sounded like a good idea, but didn't work out.
I'm unhappy with slashdot, and would LOVE to move on. I can't imagine I'm alone there. So where to?
For a long time it's been possible to use a mix of different environments to make up for things you don't like in any single environment. For example I've got users in my workplace using Gnome2 but with Kwin as the window manager becuase of the way the window manager with gnome badly stuffed up handling windows of some applications that run on clusters. That mixed environment was set up with three mouse clicks on Fedora (via compizfusion-icon).
I disagree. User Interfaces are very important, and even a Linux luminary like Linus speaking up that Gnome, KDE and Unity are past unusable is both sad and a good thing, and in any case it's major. Hopefully someone will rein in the developpers and make them produce stuff that people actually can/want/re happy to use, not wank-off material for nerds.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I'm using evilwm since 2003, it's a great window manager and it hasn't needed an update since then.
Also what are some worthwile people to follow on google+?
"Linus Torvalds farts today's Taco Bell Burrito Grande". News on /. at 11.
- T. Roll
It's funny but should be modded insightful.
Why do people care what Linus' opinion is with regard to window managers?
#DeleteChrome
In Soviet Russia, stagnation slashdots yuo!
I agree linux is an unholy mess, i'm on windows 7
Which was one of the reasons I switched from windows in the first place. I now run enlightenment at the moment. Does everything I need it to, looks good and doesn't use a lot of memory.
When did Linus stop using KDE and start using GNOME? Did I miss a memo? Damn, nobody tells me anything anymore. I'll be in the basement typing startx and tweaking my .Xinitrc, if anyone needs me.
I started using Linux full-time in 1994, wrote a number of Linux books, did a whole bunch of server and desktop installations and was a huge fan of Linux+KDE beginning with KDE pre-1.0 releases. I was religiously all-Linux, all-KDE, all the time until KDE 4 on Fedora 9.
I stuck with KDE4 for several months; at first, I couldn't imagine changing the desktop environment I'd had for so long.
Eventually, however, I realized I spent far too much time trying to configure and reconfigure my KDE4 desktop to behave and appear in ways that were acceptable to me. It seemed like I was always spending time configuring my desktop, yet never getting it quite right. I'd be in the middle of a real task and something would annoy the hell out of me and the next thing you know I'd be knee-deep in configuration and kludging and after a couple hours I'd determinedly force myself to give up and live with it (frown, frown) only to find myself configuring once again before the day was out.
After about three months of that, I switched to GNOME 2 on Fedora. It worked well for me and I decided I actually rather liked GNOME. Once again I settled into an environment, developed a workflow and keyboard and mouse habits and figured out how to do all of the little tweaks I wanted to do each time I did a new distro install to support new hardware, etc.
But when GNOME3 details came out and as the KDE4/GNOME3/Unity trifecta started to overtake the Linux world, I got really frustrated. I switched to Xfce for a while, but like Linus, found it not quite where I wanted to be. I tried to return to Windowmaker, which I'd used back in the day before KDE-1pre releases. But all these years later and no native file manager? No drag-and-drop? Yes, I *can* use the command line, but sometimes I'd like to have a working desktop metaphor as well.
So I tried Enlightenment. Nightmare; a toy project. You spend all of your time just trying to get the install consistent.
Then I realized that I felt really good about the Macs I was encountering at the university where I am faculty. So I committed my first Linux-betrayal since 1994, repartitioned, and installed a Hackintosh partition to "test out" OSX.
Three months later I'd built a brand new Hackintosh desktop and bought all Apple software, the first software I'd bought in decades after decades as a free software user. The Linux partition, while still there, was rarely booted any longer. Six months later I'd ditched the Hackintosh desktop and bought a MacBook Pro and reformatted all of my long-term archival media to be Mac-readable.
There are things that frustrate me about Macs (most notably the spinning beach ball moments and the inadequacy of Mac Ports next to the RedHat and Debian repositories, less notably but still there the cost of the hardware and difficulty of cheap repairs with eBay spare parts), but I am in all honesty more productive than I've been in a very, very long time, and once again rarely have to worry about being pissed off by, or spending time I don't have reconfiguring or trying to kludge apart, my desktop—just like back in the KDE3 and GNOME2 days.
Too bad those days are over, but I fear that free software has lost this padawan to the dark side for life. Once you get used to no configuration, no kludges, everything works to your satisfaction 95 percent of the time, it's really hard to imagine going back to tweaks, hacks, editing configuration files, and new releases that routinely require that all of these be rediscovered and that come down the pipe in regular updates and are required for recent hardware support.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Used to be, GNOME (2) and KDE (3) were the mainstream desktop environments and Xfce was the "light" one.
Now, GNOME (3) and KDE (4) have become more experimental, Xfce has staked its position as a more conservative DE, and LXDE is the new "light" one.
Should be taken as seriously as Gordon Ramsay's opinions about kernel design. When Don Norman, Bruce Tognazzini, or someone else who actually has an informed opinion about user interface comments about GNOME, then I'll consider it to be newsworthy.
I'm starting to dread when programmers say stuff like "unmaintainable" - you know they'll throw everything out and start over. Nothing usable will result for a few years. ie KDE 4, Amarok 2, now gnome 3 and unity. I wonder if linus tried unity?
But when I switched it was because of Ubuntu's Unity. I suspect that's not an issue Torvalds would be likely to have.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Gnome 3 didn't last an hour after I installed Fedora 15. I almost never use a 'desktop' and almost never even see it, and never want to. I have programs that cover over the background and a task bar.
When Windows 95 came out MS said that it was "goodbye to the hated Win3.1 UI'. Well actually I hated Windows 95 and liked having Win3.1 Program Manager just an Alt-Tab away. Digging down to the desktop to find an icon was a waste of time. Never used em, never will.
New monitors are mostly 1920x1080. These give lots of width and lack of height. Having the task bar and menu bar at top and bottom of the screen wastes what height there is.
Gnome 2 or XFCE with the panels on the left (with task bar on autohide) gives me everything I need while having my program windows still visible and using all the height available. I may even switch to KOffice because I can put all the toolbars to left and right leaving maximum height for the document.
I put Ubuntu with Unity on my netbook. Same result - switched to XFCE within an hour.
I'm sticking with CentOS 5 + KDE 3.5 until I can stomach KDE 4 or I force myself onto something else. Just can't beat a plain jane, straight up multitasking desktop for raw productivity.
Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
I have been using xfce since 2001 on debian... Great desktop environment....
No multi-monitor support is one of the main reasons I can't use GNOME Shell or Unity. I run 4 monitors on two video cards.
Even X.org doesn't support them very well and when you couple that with a broken desktop environment, well it's just nasty.
Windows works a lot better unfortunately. I can't run Windows though due to security requirements so I'm kind of stuck. Right now I'm using GNOME3 in "classic" mode but I'm looking for something else. XFCE is looking better but still ugly and it lacks the polish of GNOME. KDE just sucks, I can't stand using it. I have never liked it because it's very clunky and what I call "blurry" (disorganized poor UI design and graphical design; amateur looking).
Linus complains about trying to open a second terminal in GNOME3, but the killer that caused me to switch to Xfce was Crtl-Tab switching windows. It groups my dozen terminals into one item and then I have to use the damn arrow keys to get to the terminal I wanted.
I agree that Linus is a luminary.
I don't agree that his opinion regarding UI is worth a damn.
I would be like taking fashion advice from a textile industry engineer.
His skills are orthogonal to UI, and his decisions were bad in the past (KDE!! WTF!?) .
I understand XFCE might be better suited to him, mainly because he won't need to learn new tricks.
For the general public, Gnome Shell or Unity are great, they are a lot easier to learn from scratch, more discoverable, and suited to actual newbies, a very important audience to take into account when you have a single digit marketshare.
For experts, they are also great, because they reward knowledge, are searchable, and save screen real estate.
Most importantly, they are designed by specialists, with the user in mind, and actual tests, with actual users.
A kernel developers opinion is not that relevant here.
I did the same thing and feel the same way.
Windows.
BAM!
If Xfce is a "step down" from Gnome 2 why not simply stick with it? That's what I did eventually, after trying to live with Unity, then Gnome 3, then KDE 4, then Xfce (+Compiz). While Xfce runs really fast (i.e. standard application startup) it doesn't work well with compiz. In the end I didn't see any worth in "upgrading" to another GUI just because my distro.
I'm in a similar position having recently converted over to Mac OSX. However I think that GNOME's fatal mistake was in not using the GnuStep API years ago. If they had gone that way we would be able to have our systems however we like them. There's a defaults write NSGlobalDomain command that lets you set the interface to Windows95InterfaceStyle, NextStepInterfaceStyle, OR MacintoshInterfaceStyle... basically giving everyone what they want.... You can also set the launch setting to allow multiple instances of an app or single instances. combine it with the linux kernel's hardware support and decent application support and Linux would have been a much better operating system than the alternatives. As it stands now though the UI is a mess. GNUStep needs webkit ported, and things like network configuration etc added to system preferences before it'll be usable.
I quit using gnome when they did away with the option of an analog clock in the tray (by default, not by a hack you have to find and install separately yourself)...KDE and XFCE both still have it by default...Between the two, I find KDE is more stable--XFCE routinely leaves zombie processes running when I logout; KDE doesn't...
Well, there goes Linuxonthedesktop for another year. And you bazaar types wonder why nobody takes you seriously. Since when did Torvalds control what DE I use? He can't seem to control what DE he uses.
Too bad those days are over, but I fear that free software has lost this padawan to the dark side for life. Once you get used to no configuration, no kludges, everything works to your satisfaction 95 percent of the time, it's really hard to imagine going back to tweaks, hacks, editing configuration files, and new releases that routinely require that all of these be rediscovered and that come down the pipe in regular updates and are required for recent hardware support.
Comparing non-free software to the vilan in a movie is a bit over the top. Apple puts a lot of engineering hours into making the best UI they can. No GUI that runs on Linux gets the same amount of effort. Try to use both you can see that the effort makes a huge difference. If you have real work to do, and choose an inferior tool out of devotion to a software-themed ideology, then I strongly encourage you to re-evaluate your priorities.
"Users" of gnome 3 and unity probably welcome the simplified interface. I've worked in IT, but am not a capital-D Developer, for over a decade and I know I like gnome 3 and unity. So does my wife. But we're both users of Linux - not hackers or advocates. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about anyone's choice of windowing environment - just wanted to offer an alternate viewpoint.
Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot! If you're looking for stagnation, look at ten years ago. :)
(p.s., this is not my original UID, the other got lost in a fire).
do() || do_not();
I'm not going to make friends here but so be it...
I think the main issue here, (and with OSS in general) is that the authors will - by definition - follow that which they think is the best way to steer their project(s). And they should. But what if their userbase doesn't agree ?
Then we're in the situation depicted here. Several projects before this have shown the same symptoms (just search the web for "thunderbird tab deactivation" to name just one high profiled OSS project.
OSS projects don't (have to) care about their userbase since its not about the users but the project. And it seems to me that many people seem to forget this very important aspect. Sure; its nice if many people enjoy and respect your work; but that is not the goal here. The goal is the project itself!
As said; not going to make friends but this is why I started using Windows 7 while I was using Ubuntu LTS as my main desktop environment. Now I can be sure that I can use my current environment for at least 7 more years to come before change is forced upon me. Those are numbers unheard of in the OSS world.
Personally I think OSS excels (without comparison; honest) in the server and "tech" markets. But when it comes to desktops and user environments they haven't managed to beat Windows or MacOS by *far*. My personal impression is mostly because of the reasons mentioned above.
From my perspective (I will say up front that I am a KDE user), there are four legitimate contenders in the desktop environment department.
1) KDE
2) LXDE
3) XFCE
4) Enlightenment
I tried XFCE last week and was able to quickly get everything I care about working just as well or better than Gnome. But I had to switch back to Gnome because the power management was not working consistently. I have it set to sleep when I close the lid, but half the time that wouldn't work. (If I opened the power management dialog and hit ok it would work again for that session.) I didn't have time to figure out what the deal was.
Is everyone in the Gnome / KDE / Unity groups a Microsoft mole, engaged in sucking out utility from those desktop environments? Is there no one there who realizes how big a mistake they made?
It's one thing for a single group to screw the pooch, but for all three to get the same brain-dead urge to redesign smacks of conspiracy.
Like many others, I tried using Gnome3. .. Installed Fedora 15 and was off and running... and pissed. Why was my desktop using the same interface approach as a netbook? .. Anyway.. no point in ranting ... So I tried KDE4 .. and honestly kind of liked it .. it allowed me a fair amount of control over the desktop.. yeah I had to tweak somethings here and there, but for the most part it let me do it ... but .. it was still frustrating (compounded by the fact that networkmanager under kde is lacking vpn configuration options that exist under gnome). ... Tried XFCE.. Tried enlightenment (hey.. it was great back in the day)...
Ended up going with Gnome "Classic" using CairoDock and Compiz .. I seem to finally have something I can work with again.
Really at this point I'm not sure what exactly I'm getting out of Gnome other then some familiar interfaces (and a fully functional networkmanager) but compiz and cairodock seem better behaved under gnome.
the inadequacy of Mac Ports next to the RedHat and Debian repositories
You should examine the possibility of running NetBSD's pkgsrc on your Mac.
Something people don't appreciate about MS is that they test their UI with users, quite extensively. That doesn't mean they always make the right choice, but it does give them a better chance of it.
This was also something Apple used to be really good at with MacOS Classic. Hell they basically invented the concept. However with OS-X they decided to throw out a bunch of their own findings in favour of a more flashy interface.
I also think another problem is people are going all gaga for smartphones and tablets and seem to forget that they are not normal computers. What works well for them doesn't work well for a desktop necessarily. So an interface that is good on a touch-screen only phone might not be what you want on a keyboard and mouse desktop. However UI designers (at least the ones in the Linux works and Apple world, we'll see what goes on in MS land when Windows 8 hits) want to make their UI more "tablety" without consideration for if that is in fact the right way to do things on the desktop.
There's a sig out there by someone in Slashdot land attributed to Henry Ford: If i'd 've asked my customers what they wanted they'd 've said "a faster horse"...
May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
Good point about Linus not being a UI god. I tend to agree less with some other stuff though:
- There are not that many computer newbies anymore. My take is that unless your approach is clearly superior, you should go with familiar, which Unity is not, and Gnome, a bit.
- Unity has a large amount of issues, both for noobs and advanced users: my parents need shortcuts to several folders, which seems impossible; and i have a dual screen setup with my main screen on the right, ie I need the menu bar on the right too. Apparently, Shuttleworth don't want that.
- Which does lead us to confidence and governance issues. I'm frankly getting the vibe that decision regarding linux features, especially UI, are made by a gang of developpers who want to impress they peers and do fancy stuff, with little-to-no input from actual users. With the compounding difficulty that unfinished stuff gets relased (and NOT as beta).
Experimenting with stuff is fine... up to the point where the experiment takes over the business, resulting in stuff being released that should never have left the lab, because it's both pointless and unfinished. Meanwhile, grub2 still craps half of my installs, dual-screen is flaky...
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I still use it on my Intel Q8200 quad core system on my old Debian box 2005. I also use Compiz over KDE v3.5.10. Does anyone else here using a fast box with old KDE?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Unfortunately:
The specialists are not --"UI Expert" is some made up stuff to lend one persons *opinion* an illusion of authority. The truth is people want what they're used to using. Until we're using something other than a keyboard/mouse/monitor these UI busybodies need to be in "bugfix only" mode.
The stereotypical "newb" that these UI experts say they are designing for are out buying Dells and Apples, not installing gnome or kde.
The real users of the linux desktop are actually smart people that use that environment for *work*. e.g. kernel developers.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
I've used consistently pretty much every popular Desktop OS or environment, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98, etc up to Windows 7. Also used Gnome since 1.0, and survived the troubled transition to 2.0. Used also KDE 3.x when i had to, and of course i have a mac mini too. I always felt pride in the fact i use anything presented at me with the default settings, and never bother too much to customize anything. I'm always good with the default, and learned to adapt to every new Gnome, KDE, Windows and Mac OS version. I even adapted fine to Ubuntu Unity.
But Gnome 3 was too much, and after trying fedora 15 for a few days, i quit and deleted the partition. I seriously don't understand it, i don't see why do I need to pay so much attention to task switching, to the point i have to switch screens and then identify the window I want to switch to.
I can't even tell which apps are open without going to that second screen! and for someone who works with many apps at the same time, moving/editing files, having to go check what is currently open to another screen feels very annoying. Even if there are people who actually like Gnome 3 (as evidenced in some forum posts), why imposing and insisting on a new desktop metaphor that so many other extremely dislike? Where are the studies, research, proof that justify that gnome shell is actually an improvement? how did we users even allow this to happen?
Gene Roddenberry once said something similar: "If we let the fans write the show, it would be crap." (Or some such thing, I'm paraphrasing from memory.
------RM
Would that conclude that Apple engineers is doing better than any of KDE, Gnome, and Canonical guys? Personally, I don't understand why linux power users are so harsh about KDE4-Gnome3-Unity. Is it because of there are nobody out there have a good design of new DE for Linux or the users are refusing to leave the old ones? If Gnome 2 and KDE 3.5 are so good then why there is no body fork it out instead of whining?
I'm with Linus!
XFCE does seem to be heading in the right direction. It has only one panel to rule them all. And you can create several of them. In fact, you can configure them and place them in a way such that you can simulate the general interface functionality of Gnome 2! XFCE has adopted the Gstreamer framework (good thing for browser plugins). And the file manager is very similar to Nautilus. Generally the core applications are solid. As icing on the cake, XFCE is refreshingly fast. So it feels like a lightweight Gnome 2 to me.
But XFCE does have its pitfalls. For example, it's not easy to generate application launchers on the panel by dragging from the application menu if the panel auto-hides. But that's not something you do every day. And there are slim pickings for panel applets and glaring omissions such as an applet for cpu frequency monitoring. I'm sure there are a lot more shortfalls, but I'm probably a typical Gnome 2 user (not a power user), so I don't notice.
Really. what has Linus done to lead anyone to believe he has anything worth while to say about a GUI. Kernel design, sure. But GUI? Really slashdot? Really?
I have been using XFCE for years.
Now Linus has switched, making XFCE suddenly the cool kids' GUI.
Don't I feel special, suddenly.
I am anarch of all I survey.
New study out shows a distinct correlation between desktop preference and IQ.
Preemptive: Looks as though it might have been a hoax.
Not sure what the fuss is, if you do not like your desktop change it, that's the beauty of linux. I use kde plasma on my netbook, laptop and my pc... its brilliant, it looks good and I am 1 click away from launching my favourite apps and 2 clicks from the rest. Linux users are their own worst enemy with all this fighting over desktops. Pick one, show your windows owning friends how good it is.
Jin
* "Linus says/does blah blah blah." I thought cults of personality were an Apple thing?
* Why are people complaining about Gnome 3? Surely, if it's such a step backwards, someone would've forked it? The free mar^H^H^H software never fails, after all.
* Maybe he can switch to a free operating system while he's at it, say, FreeBSD.
Seriously.
KDE 4.0 was a developers release, and KDE said so. KDE has been stable since 4.4, and a fantastic desktop ever since.
Just my .02
Here's the problem... Reading comments here, or anywhere else for that matter, you'll see EVERYONE disagrees with you. Nobody likes the new interfaces, nobody finds them easier to use. etc.
You can spout off on how great they are all you want, but most of the people who are there using it, hate everything about it.
I fail to see your point. I'm not a fan of KDE, but I admit that until KDE4, it was a solid environment, with a control center that allowed you to change damn near any setting you could want to, either in the DE or in the system in general. With 4.x they've sadly regressed into copying the worst aspects of Windows, much as GNOME 3 has copied the worst of OS X.
Appeals to authority are worthless... Experts make stupid decisions all the time. User studies are NOTORIOUS for getting things utterly and totally wrong. People will say they love X during testing, then when it comes to actually using X, find it absolutely horrible.
In short, with Windows having such a large market share, imitating Windows EXACTLY would get great reviews, and the experts will spout about how new and innovative and shiny it is. Yet that doesn't mean the interface isn't a horrible piece of crap.
It's about the same as copying the controls in a car to a helicopter... Sure, everyone will be comfortable with it right away, and say what a great interface it is, but when it comes time to use it for real, day to day work, you'll find it's horribly crippled, and you can't actually do your job with it.
My desktop of choice? Blackbox (with plenty of config changes to make it behave like Openbox 2.x did by default...). I can launch any application in a fraction of a second; shade, iconify; maximize vertically, horizontally, or both; restore, switch to, etc., faster than I can in any other desktop environment. It takes up tiny amount of screen real-estate, while GNOME and KDE are sucking up ever more screen space with each release... It give me instant access to all the menus I need, just about anywhere my cursor happens to be, on-screen.
You want some usability testing? Grab a stopwatch and time a long-time blackbox user against a long-time GNOME user... Who do you think will get slaughtered?
Now, Blackbox has a learning curve, I admit. But Fluxbox, which comes with a menu button and iconified windows on the (tiny) Toolbar, is basically a lightweight and compact mimic of Windows 95, and any idiot can pick it up and run with it, while still having the full power available as soon as they discover it. And when it comes time to configure it, you aren't spending hours in abstracted control-panel rip-offs, which require an exhaustive search to figure out how the hell to add a couple keyboard shortcuts... Hell, you can look through every possible config option in 30 seconds. Now it's of course not a full DE, but it gets you 95% of the way there, without tying you to a cement truck and sapping all productivity. Throw in a couple supporting apps and you're gold.
Like I said... stopwatch. Completely objective measurement of the utility of an interface. Not subjective, PR, "designer" circle-jerk, bullshit flavor-of-the-week, crap. And anybody who uses it day-in and day-out cares a hell of a lot about what the stopwatch has to say. New users would benefit greatly from the stopwatch test as well.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
gnome3 is great. I switched over to fedora 15 because of it. Simple and easy to use interface. Maybe thinking outside the old *nix desktop for a change is best. Look at where ipads, androids are going. Why not make a more simpler interface that can be adapted to smaller systems or vice versa. Apple seems to be wanting to converge their iOS with OSx to have a unified interface. I can see where the gnome devs are going with this and I like it. Using gnome 2 on a netbook is not very convenient at all. Gnome3 on the other hand is very easy to use on a smaller netbook/tablet type device.
I've been using linux everyday for nearly a decade now and must say that gnome 3 is a huge change, but give it some time. I've been using it since beta and it's grown on me. It's still a little buggy, but if you prefer to use your keyboard, it's the best OS out there.
So lets find out which toilet roll he uses.
Just because he is smart in one area doesn't make *all* of his opinions good or even ok.
Kind of nice to not worry about fonts or being able to suspend immediately? Gosh I wish those kernel and X guys would just get on the ball and DEs on Linux could do the same thing.
The stupidest part about all this seems to be that the devs of both major Linux UIs are constantly redesigning their software for a hypothetical group of users that very likely does not exist- and in doing so are shitting on their actual users by constant frustrating redesigns that disempower users. Why do you think someone is USING Linux to begin with? There's several reasons. None of them are "wants a new GUI every 2 years, that takes away usability".
These clowns are hurting the community. They might argue that it's better, or more intuitive, or more appealing to a bunch of people who will never know what a "linux" is, but at the end of the day, if their arguments were not empty, then all this new stuff would be but one of a few ways to configure a GNOME or KDE, instead of the ONLY way. They could even make it default. Hell, at this point, even Windows 7 can have the same start menu as Windows 95 with like four clicks. If they were serious about helping the community instead of stroking their peen, the old UIs would be fully supported and able to be switched to from within the GUI.
to use one of the strongest powers of open source development. it is the symbol of Poseidon's power. The Power of the Fork! Now who wants to fork Gnome2 and KDE3? the olde openoffice guys did it!
...GNOME/KDE decided to become the DEs for the rest of us: environments that are more suitable to entertainment than actual work.
This is one thing I've never understood about Linux.
I've been in the sciences for a couple years and I use Linux for a lot of things. Even before that, I have dabbled with Linux on and off over the years. Mostly I use Windows for my personal desktop; it's not 100% stable, but neither is XFCE which I use on my work laptop (which is not a beefy laptop, so I wanted something lighter than Gnome or KDE).
It seems to be, though, that the hardcore Linux base obsesses over customization and work. That's great. But apparently, "customization" means that you have to edit simple things in obscure config files deep in system directions, and "work" means that it has to look like a desktop from 1991.
What is wrong with a desktop environment where everything is controllable with a GUI, and that GUI edits some config files in a system directory? What is wrong with a pretty desktop environment? If all we care about is "work", we might as well go back to using 256 colors.
Its amazing that you can talk when you have Linus' cock in your mouth. How did you manage to learn that skill?
I've used OS X for years now, but god does that BSD kernel suck balls. It'll fucking hang the whole machine while rereading & rereading one bad sector. I've been planning on switching back to Linux for over one year now, but it's waiting till I buy another desktop.
I'm happy trying various desktop environments like Unity and xmonad (or other tiling Window managers), just spare me this broken kernel.
The one thing he points out "unable to open a new terminal when clicking on the terminal icon" - is EXACTLY the same as Windows 7 and Mac OSX. People didn't jump up and down when they changed their bahaviour.
So I am definitely in the minority here but I like it. I like it a lot. I got used to it and after a couple of days was humming along. I had to go back to Gnome 2 however because I ran into a few "crash the world" bugs and I needed by desktop environment to be stable. I plan on trying it again after their next big point release.
When I want to take advice from the creator of a Kernel will be the day I take advice from a UI Designer on how to design a Kernel.
Still not using on my main machine though.
Initially I was thrown because it is so different; personally I think it looks like unification with phone/tablet OS is the source of the changes (not copying MacOS as much as converging with iOS and Android).
But issues like launching a terminal window as mentioned in TFA when I actually took a hard look at how to solve them turned out to have simple solutions. eg type windows key to activate launcher, then type "terminal" (focus is automatically in search) - then enter - you can launch the terminal with out even having to use the mouse (or the multi-modifier gymnastics of ctl-shift-n), and I have to admit better than my gnome2 solution of of having the launcher in the panel. If I can get all my launching working this way (keyword conflicts may make for more typing that I like) then I would consider it a gain over navigating menus.
I'm still not entirely happy (what is with the giant title bars?! can be fixed with config hacking, but why have them at all?; what is that stupid dock/favourites thing good for, and no doubt many issues that will come when I upgrade my main box), but in view the above example I will reserve judgement until I have really tried it out. The issue that annoys me the most is actually the task switching that stacks up same app windows together (but I am aware that ballooning window counts is an issue that needs a solution).
I'm just glad that someone agrees with me. I don't see the ship steering in the other direction now, but one can hope...
Bye!
It's too bad there's no way to switch off global menu on macs, or I would switch too.
This is basically what we see at Google day in and day out. More and more people are just giving up on desktop Linux and using something that "just works." OS X is easily the most popular desktop here now, and Linux's desktop market share has been on a steady decline for years. I know this is just anecdotal data, but almost none of the *nix nerds and great programmers I know are running Linux on the desktop anymore.
Yeah, I thought you were high: I started using Linux in 1992 and ran X apps over a 14.4k baud modem over SLIP because I got tired of walking through the winter cold in Minnesota to the U of M's EE building from the dorms. I was happy to have twm as a window manager for quite some time, and the KDE history page verifies this: KDE started as a development project in Oct. 1996, meaning that pre-1.0 releases probably didn't turn up until 1997, so you used something else besides KDE before then.
I remember because I was running on a 486/33 at the time, and there's no way in hell I would have waited for Qt to compile in order to build KDE on a 486. It was a slow enough build on the subsequent Pentium/166 I had.
But KDE/Gnome3/Unity STOLE the bad parts of OSX. You are now using the sad originator of these shitty ideas. OS9 was worse than windows 95. They are behind the curve on general purpose computing. Their weight in the appliance industry is causing people to blindly copy bad ideas to "compete".
I've only used IceWM and then Xfce. A couple of versions back Xfce was perfect, but then they removed the possibility to manually sort the windows in the "taskbar", due to "people not needing that feature". So I fear that Xfce is going to the same direction as all these stupid "desktops" (changing things on a whim).
I don't need a desktop, I just need a good functional WM.
He is right. I have had multiple freezes that are related to Gnome. Had to set up a button with killall gnome-panel. Use it all the time when I see glitches. Sometimes it is so horrible that only the alt+F2 and killall gnome-panel works to resolve the freezes.
When I started using Linux, way back around the time of Fedora 3 I did so because I had just stopped using OpenVMS on Alpha, I needed a native terminal based system that just worked, Linux did what I said on the can and it just worked,
I was used to having multiple screens on VMS that I could switch between of course I used the facilities on my VT terminal to do that but there was also the functionality in VMS as well, Linux gave me that same functionality, I used KDE as my window manager so I could run multiple terminal sessions, but that's mainly what I used the window manager for, I'm happier at a console prompt than holding a mouse.
KDE 3 was great, it was straightforward, just worked and most important of all it didn't get in my way.
KDE 4 was a cluster f**k in comparison, I played with it for a couple of weeks, got frustrated by it and switched to Gnome.
Gnome 2 felt like a step back, it didnt feel as polished as KDE3 but it was a lot better than KDE4 in terms of usability.
When Gnome 3 came out I realised it was going the same route as KDE 4 and at that point made the switch to XFCE.
I think for people that have spare time - KDE 4 or Gnome 3 are fine, they can play with them to their hearts content until they get them working how they want, I on the other hand work for myself, the money that goes into my bank account only does so if I work so I don't have time or patience for things that get in my way or make my life difficult, Gnome 3 and KDE 4 get in my way and both waste my time and my patience.
On a minor tangential note the distro's will do themselves a lot of favours when they make sure it connect's to the intarweb out of the box, booting a live CD to find that all the network interfaces are disabled by default is just plain dumb, your average bloke in the street has no way of figuring that one out, usability is priority number one, not gadgets or flashy desktop animation or any other whistles and bells, "I must make my software usable", repeat it 1000 times, if you get usability nailed then people who are not uber tech's will use your software.... Microsoft have it nailed, Apple have it nailed, KDE and Gnome are so far out of the park in terms of usability they are lost...
I used KDE 3.5 until problems with the early versions of 4 necessitated a switch to Gnome 2. I liked Gnome 2 quiet a lot and recently upgraded to Gnome 3 with Fedora 15 which has been my primary system for over two months now. I have to say, I love it. It's fast, work well and looks great. I've been able to configure it to my liking with tools such as the gnome-tweak-tool and gconfeditor, and other minor annoyances have been resolved by reading the documentation and learning how drive the new application panel properly. I've used Gnome 2 on a couple of systems since the upgrade and it's made me realise that I can't go back.
I started out with Linux back at the 0.99 release time. I've been using it ever since, until after the updates for Gnome and KDE sucked.
It's pretty bad when someone that hates Windows actually purchases a oem version and installs it on a new build. Honestly I don't know what the hell they were thinking when they did all this UI fubar.
Thankfully Bodhi Linux http://www.bodhilinux.com/ came around. It's still a bit rough around the edges, but I can live with it. E17 based, and just a user that is happy.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
You could have gotten all that for free/cheap by installing Debian stable.
I don't see them going away from Gnome 2 any time soon.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
In fact, I find that Gnome-Shell is a much more natural way to interact with virtual desktop and window management. Having installed it on my main work laptop, I will use it to replace Gnome 2 on my desktop to see how multi-monitor support performs.
Over the past few years, I have a lot of fellow Linux users move to OSX in particular due to the fact they appreciate the user experience that Apple designed into it. Gnome-shell brings the Gnome desktop up to that level, and exceeds it in many areas.
It's not a finished product, and there are things that you can't do with Gnome-Shell. However, I think it's a move in the right direction. All that remains is fine-tuning and building upon the framework. That should solve 99% of user complaints right now.
In short, the problem with Gnome-shell isn't the design direction, but with an implementation that is only 90% complete before release.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
That off screen task bar thing is severely silly. I don't think GNOME 3 is unfixable but it has to realise that it needs some measure of customisation and it does need to offer functional equivalents of some of the things other modern GUIs offer.
As a Xfce user, I'm not happy with the recent developments with it. I fear they are going the KDE/GNOME way of suck, which we all seem to be in a consensus sucks big time.
Maybe this publicity by Linus will get someone to maybe fork Xfce, or just the Xfce developers to realize:
1. Make a good functional desktop
2. Don't change it!
So make a stable version that will never change, and if you want to go the other direction, fork it.
How much time did Linux have under development before it was released? What were the comparitive team sizes? GNU Hurd had a LOT of planning and a well established environment to be developed in, the team did the GNU tool set after all already. But they could do a kernel. Or do you think Linux spend years in pre-release development with hundreds of volunteers?
And 20 years of even slow development should show something.
Stop making excuses for Hurd, it is a turd. Sometimes that just happens, just because group X can produce Y doesn't mean they can produce Z.
Part of the problem is BSD itself, the GPL was instrumental in making Linux happen. After all, BSD was around long before and failed to attract the same attention.
When you come first with a large team and are over taken by a single fin, you fouled up. Just admit it and move on.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Is anyone here aware of the fact that KDE 3.5 still exists under the name Trinity Desktop Environment?
So here it is ...
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=121162
Someone is doing that, it's called "Mate"
I'll give you a counter proposal: Ubuntu minimal. If you hit f4 and choose command line, you'll get a base install, afterwards you can simply apt-get install xfce4 or whatever.
Whats the point? PPAs, The single thing Debian is sorely missing. PPAs in a Debian distro are like addons in a Mozilla browser, simply addicting.
The minimal installer is just 22MiB, and will save you from downloading a large ISO and then updates, so you can do more in less time.
The idea of a sudoer instead of root + user is an (expert) option of the Debian Installer, say no when it asks you if you want a root account. You might hate it, but others find it useful.
There are no "Ubuntu's wizards", It is called Network Manager and can be installed in Debian as well, or uninstalled/ignored in Ubuntu. Network Manager will not manage any device you define in /etc/network/interfaces by default, so you can go back to ifup/ifdown or direct ifconfig. Network Manager is very good with 3g modems so i don't agree with you in getting rid of it. Some people prefer wicd for wifi, its an option as well.
Like Linus, I also switched to XFCE. Sure it needs more polishing, but the more of us using it will make sure this happens. XFCE is actually better than gnome in some aspects: Window buttons to the right or left? You choose it with a drag and drop gui, not a cryptic gconf thing. How could gnome miss simple things like that?
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
Why not stick with Gnome 2? I have Ubuntu LTS with Gnome 2. If they don't get it right until the next LTS I'll switch to KDE/another distro altogether again. For now it does the job.
If Linus Torvalds were the founder of Taco Bell, that probably would be news.
But Linus is the founder of something slighly more on-topic.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
He just won't admit it. Amateur hour is all well and good, but a GUI that sucks is just a waste of time.
Seriously.......I gave up on the bloatware of KDE/Gnome along time ago. Sort it out developers, people want something that gets things done - not wasting memory on drawing windows and flashy GUIs that look like Mac OS X (which SUCKS big time anyway!)
http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
I don't think anything qualifies as unfixable, and at least in 3.0 they can be forgiven for getting a few things wrongs. But now the devs really need to step back and think. Some of the workflow doesn't work very well and needs to be fixed in 3.2. I don't believe these things are insurmountable but it's a question of whether the devs, or the UI designers are listening which is of more concern. If you're going to change a UI, then you have to supply something as analogous and usable as what came before.
There are too many DE projects, so the already scarce human resources are scattered among them. The final result is the slowness in bug fixing, where not in the development itself.
Then there's a lot of focus on "user experience" which I translate with "eye candies" and "cosmetic features" and not enough focus on "real user experience" which I translate with "real life use" and "meat".
Try reading the latest release notes for KDE and GNOME (both core and apps).
A few examples.
NetworkManager GNOME's front end is quite usable. KDE's is not working properly, especially with system wide connections.
CD/DVD burning KDE's (K3B) can do almost anything you need, while GNOME's (brasero) is too basic.
Then you have a number of GTK+ (GNOME) pieces of software with no real competition in QT (KDE) and vice versa, And a few which don't use either and are real leaders like Mozilla Firefox 5.
And, finally, the bloatware is spreading everywhere. It's almost impossible to run KDE without running MySQL at the same time (bacause of the Akonadi PIM)!
In the end, XFCE still needs bits from GNOME for full functionality. LXDE and friends are either too embryonal or are actually toys.
The same seems to happen with Linux distributuions.
The only thing to fear is that the whole Linux world will be exiled to servers and not spread on desktops and portables, where the DE is among the main components.
DE developers, unite!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
The GNOME team have destroyed a wonderful desktop and created a rubbish tablet-friendly monster which is of almost zero use for the majority of Linux desktop users.
I switched to XFCE and it is wonderful.
Wmii (or xmonad) + well behaved X applications will bring you much more happiness than any (bloated mouse-heavy) desktop environment would
There's a sig out there by someone in Slashdot land attributed to Henry Ford: If i'd 've asked my customers what they wanted they'd 've said "a faster horse"...
Bad comparison. Henry Ford had the advantage of being able to offer something that no one else could, a cheap car. Gnome on the other hand is replaced as easy as typing "apt-get install xfce"
The userbase knows exactly what it wants and with Gnome 3.0 being so different from other options the user base has the ability to vote with its fingers.
I think the low-level stuff in gnome3, including the 3D acceleration and composite stuff that already found use in Compiz, are interesting. However, the user interface (gnome-shell) is so different and experimental that it probably shouldn't have been called gnome3 at all. If it were called something like Sugar/Enlightenment or even Compiz, which is meant to be used by interested users expecting something completely new and different, I guess it would be much better received.
Being a gnome2 user for almost 10 years who has used it as if it were WindowMaker (never used nautilus, file management done with mc, windows grouped into 10 workspaces, Alt+1..Alt+0 are used to switch among them), the out-of-the-box experience of gnome-shell in Fedora 15 isn't nice at all, even though there is hardly any 3D acceleration issues with my open source r600 3D driver. However, after a bit of investigation and a few patches, it is working acceptably again. Not better than gnome2, but hardly any worse, either.
1. I need distinct Meta and Alt keys in Emacs, so I configured the Windows key to be Meta (somehow this ends up in the language settings). Now the Windows key no longer brings up the Activities menu, but since Alt+F1 has the same function, it is okay.
2. I need to use Meta+P in e.g. Emacs, and it no longer works. A bit of googling shows that gnome-settings-daemon somehow uses it to switch display outputs in order to accommodate some braindead hardware. Well, since I don't have this need (and even if I do, an xrandr command will likely do the job), I just patched out the relevant code in gnome-settings-daemon's plugin/media-keys/acme.h.
3. The gnome2 icons used to quickly launch some frequently-used applications are gone. But Alt+F1 and typing the name works just as well for me...except that I use a Chinese locale and typing the Chinese name is slower (and ibus still doesn't work well in the Activities window for some reason). However, I found that the non-localized name of the application is also usable there, although in some cases I have to take a look at the .desktop file in order to see that the disk/mount manager is called palimpsest.
4. The system monitor applet is gone, but system-monitor@paradoxxx.zero.gmail.com seems to work.
5. gnome-shell tends to delete empty workspaces automatically, which messes up their numbering and making it impossible to switch to the desired workspace with a shortcut key. Well, it is easy to modify the _checkWorkspaces() function in gnome-shell's main.js so that 10 persistent workspaces exist (and shortcut keys can then be configured for all of them); actually this meant deleting almost all the code in this function Thankfully gnome-shell can be restarted without stopping the applications with a simple Alt+F2 r.
6. I find most of the new window animations acceptable, but I switch workspaces very frequently, and the default animations are not only slow but sometimes even nausea-inducing. Well, the animation delays are in windowManager.js's _switchWorkspace() function, and a simple patch fixes the problem.
7. I don't like having to remember when to use Alt+Tab and when to use Alt+`, and I don't really need to see the windows in other workspaces---when I use workspaces I am sure to be able to keep track of them. Well, when this gets annoying enough I'd see how I could change this behavior, but for now this isn't a big problem since I don't usually have so many windows in one workspace anyway.
8. It now takes a bit of clicking to open a separate gnome-terminal window, but since Ctrl+Shift+N works, and I always keep some terminal windows open in specific workspaces so that this has to be done only once per session, I don't find this a big deal.
So what's the verdict? I'm not sure if gnome-shell will work well at all for new users, since some important functionalities seem to be very undiscoverable, but for "power-users" with established habits like myself, even though the defaults are unacceptable, forking the
I wrote the parent comment, so I reply here so that I can find it later...
I had been using gnome since the 1.x days. By the time they hit 2.20 or something I was completely happy with it. Very simple and elegant but easily customizable in the things that actually matter. The default interface was so obvious thas even my parents could use it, yet powerful enough to be my main desktop at work.
I really really miss Gnome 2.32.
Then I tried the early betas of 3.0 on Arch linux. It sucked. I waited until the official release. I sucked even more. I still have version 3.0.2 installed and I give it a try from time to time, but I always end up using XFCE, which will stay my default desktop until I buy my first Mac.
Linus is actually a pretty good UI designer for kernel developers like him. For example, even though git has a fairly steep learning curve, it has a number of really helpful convenience features as well.
It probably will not fit the overall theme of this thread, but after using Unity for a few months now I actually got to like it a lot. There are two things that helped in the transition: 1. Using the unity-shortcuts wallpaper for the first few weeks, to get a few of the more useful shortcuts into my head 2. Accepting&embracing the concept of changing my ways every now and then; I'm trying to do this anyways for all that pertains to my habits, because there's few things I hate more than people resisting change simply because "they've always been doing it this way"/"they've never been doing things that way" Actually, after abandoning a few of the long-standing behavioral patterns that were formed by the more classic DEs, I found that Unity offers a few new ways to do things that actually are at least as good/usable as the concepts they replace. Taking up a specific complaint if Linus: if you want a new shell window in Unity, you Ctrl-mouse click the icon. Simple... plus, the fact that normal-clicking gets you to an already running instance can be useful in a multi-workspace environment, doing away with keyboard or screen edge navigation if one allows a few days to get used to it and exploit the benefits. I've been talking about Unity, but I'd assume the same applies to Gnome. And I've written this post because most of my business depends on people accepting change (e.g. imposed by my company's system replacing predecessor systems within our customers), which I think is probably true for the majority of people working in the tech industry today. Without change, we'd all be out of jobs sooner than later. So why not give a few things that we ourselves rely on in our daily work opportunities to change and experiment as well, without imposing the "they've always been doing it this way"/"they've never been doing things that way" paradigm that we despise so much when it's coming from our customers?
intoxicated, adj.: When you feel sophisticated without being able to pronounce it.
I have Arch installed on my laptop (I use linux only on mobile devices, my desktop is Windows 7) and I sympathize with Linus on this, I can't imagine using Gnome 3. I tested it and I can say that from common user's (for example my fathers) point of view, I think it's quite good rehash of what Gnome used to be. It's easy to learn, it does it's job and it's clean and simple. But I just can think of myself using it on my workstation.
Since my fist installation of linux, I never used KDE. I tried it, but didn't like the way how the beast works. Then I switched to Gnome2, it was better then KDE, but still far from what I could call good desktop environment. Anyway I stayed with Gnome for few years, then when I bought new laptop I asked myself: "Are you really going to use classic desktop environment on your laptop? Dude, you're not going to carry mouse (and such optional devices) all around, just so you'll be able to use your laptop anywhere." The problem was, what should I use instead of Gnome, what's going to be usable without mouse? I tried Xfce, KDE once again and many more. Nothing suited my tastes, because everything was too mousey for me, just like Windows and as sysadmin I work mostly in terminals.
Then friend of mine suggested wmii, so I installed it, toyed few days with configuration and stuff (it's only downside, you have to do everything manually, because nothing is pre-configured) and then I started to realize, that this is exactly what I wanted all the time. Now I don't bother with mouse anymore, I can do nearly everything just using my keyboard. Now I'm planning to switch to i3, because it actually has multi screen support, which might come handy from time to time.
So to sum it up: I think Gnome 3 is good desktop for home users, but I can't see anyone who do more then usual home user stuff using Gnome 3, it's just horrible.
The Linux desktop seems to remain eternally locked into BETA quality. The only applications that are truly top-notch are developer tools and system-administration stuff. The actual desktop applications remain indeed eternally in beta.
What I think it happened is that there was a generation of people who like me got into the "Linux" wave of the 90s. Most people I know with this background (myself included) now have a lot of disposable income, and little spare time. Everybody I know with this background has either moved to OSX or is considering the move to OSX. Younger people have no nostalgia for Linux and are not even considering using it, if they can afford they just get a Macintosh.
[...]
I mean it is fucking 2011, and my desktop crashes because of fancy graphical effects I have no use for. It is fucking 2011 and I still don't have a decent(!) photo organizer that doesn't crash once every 2 days. I have a quad-core desktop with 8G RAM, the whole thing locks every now and then for 10 seconds for no apparent reason.
Gnome is probably the biggest reason that Linux on the desktop never happens. KDE is a much better alternative. People who are used to Windows learn KDE in no time.
Really, you find that OSX works as you want 95% of the time. I've recently been forced to use a mac mini for work and when I first started using it, I honestly really liked it and wanted to make it work for me. I'm now fighting to go back to my enlightenment on gentoo install cause I'm 95% of the time frustrated as hell with the thing; where's the home/end keys, page up/down. What's with insisting things are done with cmd+{x} where as every other operating system I've ever used ALL use +{x}
Apple seems to have gone totally out of its way to make things work differently than everything else before it and all the fanbois lap up this bullshit with avid enthusiasm.
Try running it with two or more screens, the dock/menu bar have to be on the same screen, so for me, I have my browser and stuff on my left display and my IDE on the right, very annoying to HAVE to move to the left screen for the menu, it's total fucking bullshit. What's with only having a menu bar for the current focused app anyway?
Oh and for kicks, try putting firefox into the background, then hover over a tab and I just __LOVE__ the way the title popup stays persistent, it's a toy OS and that's it, my productivity has dropped 90% since moving and I want my enlightenment back!
About 10 years I bought my first Mac. At the time I was having trouble getting my sound card and printer to work with linux, tired of reinstalling windows every six months and wanted something that worked. OSX gave me my unix environment that worked, stayed out of my way, and let me get stuff done.
Considering I get paid to make other people's tech stuff work, I've made up the increased initial price over the fact that I've not had to "fix" stuff over the years. And I've gotten an average of 4 years out of the laptops I've bought so far. (3 the first, 6 out of the second, on the third).
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I just love how everyone stops and listens when Torvalds speaks. I didn't realize it was GNOME 3 that was bad though. In my busy life, when Fedora 15 was released, I didn't just buy a new HDD and install it like I have with previous releases. (I have found that to get the best "as intended" user experience, I should just install fresh and pull my data in from the old HDD. Upgrades tend to bring in enough of your old stuff that you might miss something new.) And then one day I replaced my laptop and thought "well? time to try F15..."
Holy crap! I had no idea what to expect and it blew me away. "Change for the sake of change" was exactly what I was thinking. I was completely disoriented. But I blamed the Fedora project for what I experienced, not GNOME3. Why? Well, for starters, they packaged screensavers but provided no way to access them. The top and bottom panels were not configurable except in "fallback mode" which was not a readily accessible mode to get into and I was already pretty frustrated by the time I had learned it even existed. (my previous laptop enjoyed a 1920x1200 display and now the best I can get is 1920x1080. I lost 120 pixels!!! Don't waste my screen real estate with panels when one will do!) But I gave it a full day, F15, before going back to F14 the next morning.
Despite all the trouble, frustration, disorientation and lack of completeness, GNOME3 was growing on me. It was feeling very modern and extremely consumer oriented. (I know, "consumer oriented" means instant rejection by others and usually by myself as well) I kind of regret leaving GNOME3 but I expect it to still be there with F16... and I expect completeness too.
But when F16 comes out and if I am sorely disappointed again, I may move over to CentOS6. CentOS is slow to change because RHEL is slow to change. I'm appreciating that more and more. Some will say it's a sign of age and maybe it is. But I actually use things... okay, not always -- I love my wobbly windows and semi-transparency of windows I get when I have Compiz running is kinda useful... sometimes I watch movies/TV shows while playing solitaire with the game window nearly 90% transparent... I wouldn't call that productivity at all.
Yeah, GNOME3 pissed me off a bit, but before I dumped F15, I was actually starting to get into it. So, I'm not done with GNOME3 or Fedora just yet.
you people are morons. what the hell do you expect from a desktop environment? why don't you stop fucking around with settings and get back to doing what you're paid for (which for 99% of people has nothing to do with the "operating system"). if you were really working you would be bitching more about OpenOffice Write or Microsoft Word, IE, Firefox, gcc, vim, Delphi, whatever your work entails. Who the hell gets paid to use an operating system? You turn the machine on, wait a bit, click the icon and start work. What the fuck does that have to do with "configuration"? Too many people are concerned with things they shouldn't be concerned about (menu colors, icon transparency, etc). No wonder everything is getting more expensive; the professional world is losing productivity to pointless bullshit.
Whaddya need root for? To emulate the usual su-to-root behavior, you can always use sudo -i for an interactive, type any destructive command session (vs. the sudo one-command-at-a-time).
... who cares!? I mean we all have our own PERSONAL preferences, why make such a big deal about someone (yes even if it's Mr Gat... I mean Linus) publicly stating said preference. Slashdot, with this "news item" you're being removed from my "big corporate customized homepage". Thanks for the great time I had here while you where actually publishing news.
Does somebody have an idea why a hardcore Linux guy would ever like to use a Windows/OSX lookalike? I think a plain window manager like Fluxbox makes much more sense. No panels to take up space and attention, just the application windows. Programs themselves can be launched from the command line, which I think is more convenient than managing a graphical menu, and I only have menu items for terminals and browsers.
To me, the great thing about computers is that they can handle much more data than what can be visible at a time. The problem with Windows/OSX style is trying to cram everything into one screen, while I prefer one virtual screen per task for better concentration.
I've been using Fluxbox for about 9 years, after first using Gnome and then Enlightenment for a while, so I've probably been after more minimalism all the time. Of course, there are still more minimal window managers, but none of them has really caught my attention. For example, tiling WMs are probably great for large screens, but I generally use a laptop and other smaller screens (again, one task per virtual screen for better concentration).
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I have a proposition for the Xfce community: let's send a cake to everyone who is responsible for forcing GNOME3 in their distros for helping us gain users.
insert the cake phrase here
Seriously, just discard that desktop metaphor.
it's the taking apart that counts
Thats the reason MacOS usage has been steadily increasing while the Linux share of the desktop is stagnant.
Linus is of course entitled to use any DE, and to criticize any particular piece of GNU/Linux (or anything else under the sun) he pleases. I used xfce for a couple of years mainly for it's alleged, 'lightweight' aspect. Then it turned out it uses nearly as much system resources as Gnome 2 and for that matter, KDE 4x for several common tasks. To be frank, in comparison to Gnome and KDE's current iterations, XFCE feels old, kludgy and primitive (the most recent XFCE release shows some incremental improvements buttressing the same, outdated philosophy and poor underlying design principles). I don't hate XFCE, and I don't wish it didn't exist, I just think there are far better alternatives. For lightweight DE's, look instead at something like Openbox (as implemented e.g. on the Crunchbang debian distro). Gnome 3 can best be described as a work in progress. We don't yet know how it's many shortcomings are going to be addressed. Still, I'm glad it's here, and I think it's a very necessary step for the Gnome project. If you really want to try it, skip the vm nonsense (actually, it ran very well for me in VirtualBox), and keep it updated, because the improvements are coming fast and thick. By tossing off these kind of unreasoning and reactive quips about topics on which he has few valid insights, Linus only diminishes his own stature. Just sayin...
Pay attention; I didn't say I started using KDE in 1994. When i first became a Linux user I was using TWM, then later FVWM, then for a while AfterStep. KDE was, as you say, fall 1997 with the pre3 release, which is where I started using it.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Except the user interface of OS X is downright horrible *and* there is almost no customization possible.
I think my work output drops about 25% everytime I use OS X, having multiple windows open, multiple documents open and it all goes to hell - I need more mouse movement, mouse clicks or keyboard usage in order to switch between windows than in all other window managers.
Also, finder is possibly the worst file manager ever made (and slow as hell).
Give me Windows 7 or linux with XFCE over OS X any day.
seriously, what does network management have to do with GUI?
I'm with Linus all the way, not to put a downer on Gnome, they still do a great job. But, since 3 I have been completely put off. Yes it's a new environment and maybe its the way the world is shifting, but I just felt that it was too USER FRIENDLY, if I wanted that usability I would of gone with Unity.
I vote for XFCE hands down, I've used it for years, on and off and now its my NO.1 though the *Box's are great to.
There seems to be a lot of Unity-bashing around here, but I suspect that very few people have actually used it for an extended period of time. I have and do. It is really not that bad. I do "work" with my system; probably not the intensive coding tasks that many others do, but tasks that require me to be running and switching between multiple applications at the same time. It works. There are bugs, yes, but 11.04 is not an LTS. There needs to be an active user community working with it, so that it gets better. I am confident that 11.10 and 12.04 are going to be major improvements. I am not running it on anything special - a T4300 pentium with 4GB of ram. The performance is fine - much better than Windows 7 on the same machine.
I did switch to Xubuntu and liked a lot of things about Xfce, but went back to Unity because of the great keyboard shortcuts. If I want to run Octave, it's a matter of quickly typing super-o-c and pressing enter. I can also bring up websites pressing the super key, typing the URL, and pressing enter. I realize it would be scandalous for Linus to use Ubuntu, but I won't be surprised if other distributions start offering Unity.
Seems to be a promising project.
i think he's a kde user?
Coming from an engineer pushing half a century old technology just because he doesn't know better. Take your time to read the dabate between the authors of Linux and Minix ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate ). Torvalds is one of the last people in technology today to talk about new tech.
We know you are paid by Apple to spit upon us their filthy marketing. Why don't you go spread this bullshit elsewhere?
Am I the only one who was shocked Linus doesn't use xmonad?
XFCE is simple and mundane, but simple and mundane is exactly what I believe a desktop environment should be. I don't want animations, effects, compositing, or any of that crap. It doesn't help me at all. It just gets in the way. Makes things harder, not easier. Makes things slower, not faster.
Some of the most simple things I used to do with KDE 3 are now a major headache in KDE 4. I like to configure 4 virtual desktops, 2 with 4 terminals each (2 40-line and 2 25-line) and 2 with one "mini" (5-line) terminal. KDE 4 won't let me do it without a major hassle, and even then it's half-assed. You can't even input the number of lines and columns for a terminal anymore. The only option is to resize the window with the mouse, but get this: it doesn't even snap line-by-line. So in the end, I can get my terminals in the right position with the right number of lines and columns, but each window is a slightly different size (off by pixels), because the process of resizing apparently doesn't take into account we are dealing with *terminals*, not MS Paint.
And the fancy new GUI "banner" they want you to use to add launchers to the panel? Takes about 500% longer than it used to with KDE 3. And for what? So I can be wowed by shiny things? Well I'm not. In fact I'm angered by it.
XFCE isn't perfect, but its shortcomings pale in comparison to the flashy shiny crap coming out of the gnome and kde people.
I hear you, I was Linux fanboy for years, KDE all the way.
The I got an MBP to run linux on, tried OSX and am still there.
I just dont have time to keep on getting KDE to work SENSIBLY. Even installed on Aunts laptop. does it remeber the WIFI connection ? NO doe the damn Pulse Audio work reliably with Skype ? NO ended up installing Windows 7 . Since then not one problem.
sigh
"Something people don't appreciate about MS is that they test their UI with users, quite extensively. That doesn't mean they always make the right choice, but it does give them a better chance of it."
And if you want MS users to abandon Windows a similar GUI is needed.
Being the numero uno of the Linux Kernel doesn't give him the right to bad-mouth the efforts of thousands of developers who are working day in day out and sometimes for free to give a stable and 'modern' interface to users all around the world. Mind you he said the same about KDE not too long ago. I like Gnome3, Unity and KDE4.?? it's all a matter of choice and preference and thank God Linux gives users the option to make that choice.
Linus' thoughts reflect mine exactly.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I am in the middle of a transition to a new Macbook Pro and I must say that I think I made a mistake. It seems like OSX fights my workflow at every turn. (Note: I have been living with the machine for over three months now so no need to say "give it a chance".)
What's the difference? I suspect that I use the command line way more than others typically do. The command line is a direct access interface for most of my tasks while the GUI feels like I am insulated from the tools I need to use. I like using keystrokes to switch between applications (which both Linux and OSX do but which is more cumbersome with OSX as the result of the window vs. application dichotomy). I find taking my fingers off the keyboard to use the track pad a time waste. (When I am just web browsing, the track pad is fine. When I am working, it is not.) . I am still on the hate side of the track pad. (I know I am weird... I like a track stick best.) I have gotten used to some of the multi touch features like two finger scrolling. My biggest beef is that the track pad doesn't seem to recognize my finger(s) sometimes. Just dragging to high-light something feels like an impossible task at times. (Suggestions are welcomed, but I have had a Mac guru tweak my settings in hopes of eliminating the problem. Better but no joy.)
Oh and the workspaces thing doesn't work for me due to the way applications and workspaces interact. I use workspaces as a way to segregate the various tasks I do. In X11 when I am developing an application, I have everything I need for that specific role on a workspace. If I get pulled off to some other project, that gets started in another workspace. When I get a chance to go back, everything is the way I left it. I find that 6-8 workspaces are sufficient to handle the number of simultaneous tasks I need to be keeping track of. While in OSX (Snow Leopard for those keeping score) I can move windows to workspaces, there is still only one application running at a time. I really can't segregate my work the same way. Perhaps this is intended to help provide a "seamless" experience but there are times when I really do want to distinguish. I guess one way to summarize is that the Unix philosophy has been to have small tools that do simple things well that can be composed to make powerful things happen while the OSX (and Windows based on what little I have used it) philosophy is to create large monolithic applications that do a bunch of things and as a result have to be integrated. I think I like the Unix way better.
What I like about the machine is the seamless way it sleeps and wakes up. I like how quickly it associates with an access point when it wakes up. It is ready to work before I am. I like the screen (I got the matte finish to reduce glare). The touch of the keyboard is better than I thought it would be; definitely useable. The hardware seems up to Apple's usual quality and I expect it to last quite a while. I also like that I can do OpenCL development on the road.
Not sure I feel better but thanks for letting me vent...
-- Ambivalent
What difference does it make ohoh hoho what difference does it make?
It makes none that you have come
And have you tried Lion yet?
Once you get used to no configuration, no kludges, everything works to your satisfaction 95 percent of the time, it's really hard to imagine going back to tweaks, hacks, editing configuration files,
I'd rather put in a little configuration time up front, and get something that works to my satisfaction 100% of the time. It helps not using a desktop, but just a window manager. All you really need is a way to open and close and switch between apps. Everything else is better done on the CLI, no matter what platform you're on.
I've tried using Macs. I spent more time trying to figure out how to fix things than on Linux. Why? Because when you want to change something on Linux it's easy to do so. If you want to change something on a Mac, it might take half an hour of googling to find out you have to buy third party software to do a simple configuration change. If you're willing to just take whatever's handed to you, then sure a Mac is a good fit. If you actually have your own ideas on how you want to use your computer, it's intolerable.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I've also switched from GNOME 3 (esp. GNOME shell) to XFCE. I didn't know that Torvalds was switching to XFCE, but I made the same decision for similar reasons. I've learned that lots of people are doing this, in fact. For me, it comes down to two issues: (1) GNOME 3’s shell makes it much harder to do simple, common tasks, and (2) GNOME 3 shell often hides how to do tasks (it’s not “discoverable”). See my post for more.
Torvalds says that, to get a second terminal, you have to press Shift-Control-N. Actually, there's another way in GNOME 3 shell: you can press CONTROL when you click on the application. That works for any application, not just Terminal. It's good that there's a way to do it, but this is still stupid. This incantation is not discoverable; you have to read the manual. But why should you press a magical, not-obvious key, just to do the right thing? It's also annoying; it's NOT a reasonable default behavior. If I wanted to reopen a currently in use window, I'd just click on that.
GNOME 3 can be fixed, but it'll take commitment by the GNOME 3 developers to actually fix it.
Isn't that exactly what it's doing? A ton of people are leaving GNOME.
Well, I for one, think gnome 3 is actually pretty cool. I made a commitment to use it for real work for a few weeks, just to make sure I gave it an honest shot. And actually, I went from being dismayed about it, to well.... kind of loving it. After making an honest effort to use gnome-shell, the gnome-shell way, I gotta say it - it feels pretty good.
Its got some cool technology underneath too. The desktop and windowing environment is tremendously moddable with javascript and CSS. There is at least as much potential for customization in gnome 3, as there was in gnome 2, if not more. Its going to be really interesting to see some of the customizations that people create - seriously, its an exciting time to be a gnome user.
And heck, if you just hate the interface that much, well - there are extensions which can tweak it to look and act more like gnome 2. Throw gnome-do on top of that, and you'll never have to even visit the overlay, ever. Gnome 3 is still definitely rough around some edges still and in some ways incomplete - but time should iron things out. And really... what linux desktop isn't rough around some edges?
Apparently I seem to be the only nerd though who is actually enjoying the new adventurous moves in the desktop user interface space, all around. Gnome 3, OSX... even Windows.
seriously, what does network management have to do with GUI?
Laptops...with wifi. It sure is a whole lot easier to search for and connect to wifi networks when you're out and about via a GUI then doing it with a bunch of 'iwlist scan' and 'iwconfig' commands.
Who gives a fuck?
As much as any other task. IE, GUI's aren't necessary for almost any task you might perform, but it makes virtually all of them faster and easier.
Look, I grew up on the DOS era - had to do tons via command line. I still admin a few systems remotely via SSH and am perfectly capable of using the command line when I have to, but it's naive to think that a GUI isn't a welcomed addition to most stuff that people do daily.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
OK, but just to play devil's advocate here: could it be that the reason you are/feel more productive on OS X precisely the fact that the desktop is not very configurable, and that therefore this source of distraction is removed? I run Ubuntu 11.04 at home but my work machine is a Macbook Pro running OS X.
I found myself in the same situation with previous releases of Ubuntu/Gnome 2, playing around with docks, different configurations of panels, etc, never feeling that the desktop was 'quite right' and feeling unproductive when I was trying to work from the home machine. In comparison, on OS X I just got more done, since moving the dock from left to right to bottom quickly grows unexciting. Whatever nuisances I feel on OS X I just have to live with, and so I move on to other things.
When I upgraded from 10.10 to 11.04 I decided that I would just go with the default Unity configuration. After learning the super key functions and so on, I really don't find Unity too difficult to use to get work done. And I'm not distracting myself trying to reconfigure everything. In short, I have 'learned to live with it' just like I live with OS X.
I have nothing against configurability, but I think that there is sometimes a lack of introspection or honesty in all these debates/flame wars about desktop managers in the Linux world. If you look back on older forums, for example, every Ubuntu release there are people saying 'now Ubuntu is broken, I'm going to X distro' whatever because they moved the maximise button or whatnot.
People used to get work done on first gen Macs, windows 98, whatever just as they can and will on Windows 7/8 Fedora 15 Ubuntu 11.04. Hell, there are even probably people writing their doctoral dissertations on iOS or a Blackberry playbook, or even an old typewriter with a key missing.
In fact, I wrote half my own dissertation on an old laptop with the letter 'q' missing.
If you want to get work done, you will find a way, assuming your computer is not a brick. If you don't, there are all kinds of ways to procrastinate, including writing comments on Slashdot. Most of this stuff just doesn't really matter.
And also, human beings are creatures of habit. When gnome 4.0 comes about, we will get to hear about how the Linux desktop has been ruined, and calls for forking Gnome 3.0. I would put (a lot) of money on it.
Really. I use linux since 1995. The Desktop environments are a mess. Constantly changing. And if serious players (Ubuntu) decide to contribute they usually do not enhance old environments (e.g. gnome) but they start a terribly half cooked approach fitting one purpose.
Copy and past still does not work correctly (strangely enough this effects now also applies to some windows programs) . Good features go missing. Transporting configurations between systems is a mess. Icon positions are not stored in extended attributes.
If if compare the usability experience of the 1993 WPS on OS/2 and *any* modern Desktop Environment in terms of consistency, accessibility and general performance, WPS beats them all.
I'm not really following the logic of changing your OS because you don't like the direction of the window manager (not specific to you, several have mentioned this)... why not stick with Gnome 2? It's nice, it works, it's stable, and it stays out of the way. I'm currently using Ubuntu 10.10 and in no hurry to upgrade because of the Unity mess. But I understand Gnome 2 is still an option for the latest release. If they ditch support for Gnome 2, I may switch back to Debian or another distro that gives the user more WM options. Isn't that the point of having multiple WM's available?
For once I think Linus is speaking CRUD Gnome Shell is finally a nice Linux Desktop departure from the WinX, MacX clones. I finally feel liberated from my mouse. Screw the rats. A keyboard gesture-based fully 3d graphical environment. Fuck him. Hooray for Miguel de Icaza. Ciao
The point of having a desktop environment is to get work done quickly. I spent several years using KDE 2, then 3, and now 4 is counterintuitive & slows me down, so I switched to GNOME 2. Now I'm being told that it's going down the toilet too. This headlong rush for eye candy is probably going to appeal to Windows and Mac users, but longtime & loyal users like myself are being ignored. Someone pointed out that earlier iterations of GNOME and KDE aped Microsoft and the new ones are aping OSX.... As far as DEs go, I think Win2K's was the most efficient, and when I finally installed XP the first thing I did was enable the "classic" look. Does that make me a Luddite? **The purpose of an interface is to enable the user to get his work done as quickly as he can.** Get off my lawn!
And it's currently slashdotted into oblivion because of the hordes of /. users who hate all of the current desktop options.
fencepost
just a little off
...and the inadequacy of Mac Ports...
A bit off topic, but since you bring it up, you might want to have a look at Homebrew, which bills itself as the "missing package manager for OS X". I just started using it myself, but so far, so good.
Linux is the way it is because configuration, kludges, tweaks, hacks, editing configuration files, frequent new releases and rediscovery are thrillingly enjoyable to the average Linux deveveloper nerd. To make an OS usable for the other 99% of the population would mean doing the exact opposite of what the average *nix programmer's personality gravitates towards.
This is why you should never ask what someone wants. Ask what they want _to do_.
In that case, Mr. Ford might hear the answer, "Get from New York to Philadelphia in less than 3 days."
And for some of us, the "desktop environment" is "so we can have a bunch of xterms open and check Slashdot in a browser at the same time! Try that with screen! hahahaha!"
I've still got the OpenMotif source around somewhere, I can opt out of this mess....
What's with insisting things are done with cmd+{x} where as every other operating system I've ever used ALL use +{x}. Apple seems to have gone totally out of its way to make things work differently than everything else before it and all the fanbois lap up this bullshit with avid enthusiasm.
Honestly it's generally not so much that Apple has arbitrarily chosen to do things differently, but that Apple is still kicking from the days where *everyone* did lots of things differently. Once upon a time, every computer manufacturer basically had different and completely incompatible operating systems, and each one had different methods of doing things. In the 80s, everyone standardized on doing things the IBM/Microsoft way, and so people assume that Microsoft UI conventions and IBM keyboard layouts are "normal", and everything else is "weird". However, for at least part of Apple's "weirdness", it's just Apple doing it the same way they've always done it, from before there was a "standard" way of doing it.
A GUI (Graphical User Interface) is what a lot of people have decided is an easier way to convey information and accept user requests than a command line interface. If you want to be a 'purest' and always go with the CCL that's fine but some of us like taking advantage of trends in computer technology and have opted to use GUI's to configure and use our computers.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
I mean, it could be that Linus is a stick in the mud, lacking imagination and afraid of change. MAYBE he just doesn't want to learn a new UI paradigm.
But more likely, as has always been, KDE and GNOME are plagued by a complete lack of usability engineering. That isn't to say that they have no usability engineers, but the politics is such that they're never listened to. Instead, we get a mish-mash of inconsistent components. Every component has its own philosophy, usually based around the needs of some particular geek with no sense of how anyone else might want to function. And there's no unifying theme. There are no usability studies, and no one pays attention to the many decades of usability studies that have been already done. (Did you know that most KDE themes have a single-pixel gap between a scrollbar and the edge of the screen? WHY?!?!)
That's a bit harsh, actually. I'm not fan of Linux desktops, but KDE 4.x, unlike the GNOME crowd, at least TRIED to be creative. Amazingly, they actually innovated, with their plasma desktop. They broke a lot of old ideas and actually worked towards creating something that was both attractive and usable. I'll have to check out KDE 4.7 to see where they've gone since I last looked at it (around 4.5, I think). I'm just afraid that geek politics is going to eventually stall all that progress. Too many people wanting to do things the old way, not understanding the vision of the leadership, therefore not working towards that ultimate goal.
The only way to fix Free Software usability problems would be to develop a more cathedral-like model. There needs to be solid leadership from someone who is seriously accomplished in the area of UI design, and then most of the rest of the team needs to be experts in usability, while maybe 30% of the people are actual coding experts, whose job is to just do engineering to implement the designs from the top.
I'm afraid this will never happen.
As the thread parent, I've got to say that astounding "we know what the user wants better than the user" arrogance displayed above is just what I've come to expect from watching the Gnome 3 development process.
Again, 10 years in HPC as the lead sysadmin. Odds are I've worked with more computers before lunch than you have in your entire career. I know exactly what works for me in terms of work flow.
Saying "Well the user just doesn't know what they want" really means "We're going to pretend to care about user input, then totally ignore it and do our own thing and tell the user that they should have wanted that in the first place."
I'm rather pleased that Linus came to the same conclusion I did.
On Ubuntu:
Bottom line: until Ubuntu 11.04, I was suggesting Ubuntu to my n00b relatives. It worked, it was reasonably fast, and someone could sit down in front of it coming from Windows and know how to do work.
This is now only true of Xubuntu. K/Ubuntu is not fast and in the case of Unity or Gnome3, a user cannot sit down in front of it and just work. They can work in Kubuntu if they have a fast enough system. However, only in Xubuntu can one both work and be fast.
I hope Ubuntu 11.10 and/or 12.04 make changes: serious, serious changes. Until it does, I'm sticking with Xubuntu.
Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
Wow, AC gets it. There's nothing more frustrating than sitting down at a computer, figuring out some way to make it easier to use, and then have absolutely no way of implementing it. Very common experience on Windows or OS X.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think this is hilarious. It just proves that most Linux Geeks don't get it. What is Linus reasoning. When he opens up a terminal windows. Hello, users don't frickin do that, programmers do. Ah! We will never get it.
That also works the other way around: major overhauls such as Gnome 3 might also bring about more efficient ways of doing things (~automobile), and lots of people would still say they want just a faster horse.
I'm using it now. I thought for sure that I would give it a week, and then go back to something that I liked, but it's actually grown on me.
Most of the change of mind was due to me discovering stuff that wasn't completely obvious:
1) Install gconf-editor, and use it to set up hotkeys. See #2 for instructions on how to install it.
2) Fix multiple monitors by changing "workspaces only on primary" to false.
3) use "/usr/bin/terminal" instead of "gnome-terminal". The gnome version has issues. Beware that transparency is buggy unless the terminal is full screen.
4) Use Alt-F2 to open new applications (like Firefox), instead of hitting the super key (windows key) and searching.
5) Use ctrl-alt-up/down to change workspaces. This should be obvious to most people.
6) If you are looking for 'Shutdown', then hold down 'Alt' while you open the start menu. I don't know why it isn't there by default.
It's quite clear to me that gnome3 is in its infancy. It is not nearly as customizable as I would like, and it has bugs. But it's clean, it's fast, and it doesn't get in the way too much, so I'm sticking with it.
I still think fvwm95 is my favorite WM, due to it's 2-dimensional extensible workspace pager. I can't believe nothing like that exists for modern window managers. After that, I'll take gnome3, because it allows me to create workspaces on the fly. After that comes KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, Unity, XFCE, and all other window managers that I've tried.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Ha ha, how funny! Talk about déjà vu. I walked exactly the same route.
Vonnegut once wrote a story about people like you.
You're implicitly trying to argue that "work" is a less demanding performance aesthetic than some unstated higher aesthetic that rhymes with "drool". One man's drool is another man's slobber.
You're also missing the aesthetic known as "life". You know, the slow self-amplification of microscopic information feedback systems to become enmeshed in patterns of global interconnection whose mere parameters are a bitch to distill?
Some believe that 99.9999% of the apparent complexity was imported from the boundary conditions, where all the integrals experience a step function to a higher cardinality. Others believe in the crockpot theory: that planet earth stumbled by accident into a perfect sous-vide orbital configuration; whether the heavy-handed asteroid spice mix was essential to the Maillard reaction of Brownian motion has yet to be determined. (Oh look, I cleverly managed to leave out a word that rhymes with "crockpot". Amazing what you can smuggle under the surface. )
In this amazing system known as life, what matters is generativity: that the next flavour layer can build upon the previous flavour layer, without becoming a soggy mess.
Nothing I suppose, if you believe on the basis of symmetry that we completed our allotted 0.0001% addition to system complexity, so it's time to sit back in the comfy chair and admire our accomplishments.
A whole lot, if you believe that sous-vide is a work in progress. I'm not so sure the next generation wants to share your saliva. They might declare it a "soggy mess" and start over.
I went to GNOME2 from KDE3 when KDE4 came along, and now I use LXDE and I'm more happy than ever. I've also tried Unity and Xfce.
KDE and GNOME aren't good because they use too much RAM. Better have more memory available for programs you actually use.
LXDE uses less memory than Xfce, but its PCManFM file manager sucks, so I use LXDE with Xfce's Thunar file manager.
LXDE is so good because it only does what it needs to do and it's built on top of the OpenBox window manager.
And yet I've never seen a GUI for network interfaces that covers all the options and displays them as concisely as a command line.
I'm including Windows, OSx, MacOS, Linux, etc. in that statement.
If one ever exists, I may use it. Until then, I prefer my GUI to only tell me about my network status, and not try to configure it.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Amen brother. I too used to use Linux as a desktop machine after getting fed up with Windows 2000 with Windows' so called compatibiilty with existing software. After several years I got completely fed up with dependency hell and the lack of desktop progress (this was in the days of kde 1-2 and gnome 1) I moved to using a 5 year old Powerbook over a brand new linux machine for my daily work and found that I was much more productive. Now, 6 years later, I'm surrounded by Macs and cringe every time I have to use a Windows machine for work. However, I was rather excited about the direction of Gnome in the 2 series and thought that it was finally getting somewhere. Unfortunately, the step back that Gnome 3 is might just kill the platform after years of increasing its user base.
The real question is why a few GNOME developers opinions matter more than the users. These people are self-appointed UI experts and they have IMHO destroyed the usability of GNOME, all in an attempt to look like a touch-screen phone interface. And it's actually worse than the Android phone UI that I am already not pleased with. What happened to the HIG? Gone! There are no longer any guidelines or philosophy for GNOME, it's all just some people putting shit together that they think is neat or "fun". Let me tell ya, context switching in a UI is NOT desirable (i.e. going to "activities", or the arbitrary upper left corner "throw all the little windows out there to change applications" bullshit) it's visually jarring and requires a few seconds for a mental context change. Not friendly, not very usable, but ALL decided by a few people who think they know better. So yeah, Linus who has a more recognizable name gets to have his say in public too - without ruining my desktop experience.
So I started with Gnome (Kharmic) and tried KDE 4 on a lark (Kubuntu Kharmic). Loved it, except that it was too buggy. Stuck with it through 4.5.2, and then went back to Gnome in Lucid. I liked Ubuntu's added touches and it seemed more solid, so I stuck with it until Natty. Hated everything about Unity, so I stuck in a FC15 Alpha LiveCD and after about 5 minutes decided it was so much better than Unity I installed it and have been running ever since.
I do Java development, system administration, E-mail, photos, backups, samba shares, PHP/Apache, and make heavy use of VMs. And for every single one of these tasks I find that my workflow has improved significantly. The notifications system, while immature, is a huge step forward over any other desktop environment I've used. With a few shell extensions and the gnome tweak tool I have everything I need: date and time top center, weather icon and details on the panel, places menu with shortcuts to the filesystem, etc.
I'll grant you, it's not perfect. The power options stink. I can't pin certain Java apps (NetBeans) or custom shell commands to the shortcut panel (e.g. VBoxManage --startvm "Foo"). It would be nice if there was first class support for samba configuration and other things. The system configuration menus are anemic and confusing, and a lot of stuff has to be configured via gsettings. But I only deal with those things very infrequently. For my everyday tasks everything is much better. (I make a lot of use of the expose feature and the search tools.)
Now FC15 as a distro, on the other hand, is a complete pain to deal with, and if Ubuntu provided decent support for Gnome 3 then I'd switch back in a heartbeat.
I really like Gnome 3. Took a little while to get adjusted, but now I really enjoy it. I'm wondering if some people just haven't adapted to the new interface. Launching applications has never been easier: windows key -> start typing -> automatically filters app list -> press enter. No more digging through pull down menus at the top of the screen.
I've installed arch last week and since I had that option I installed Gnome 3. At first I was only going to try if for a few days and then come back to KDE4 but I'm really enjoying.
I understand all the negative reviews and I agree with some but I use my computer for this things: Browsing, watching videos, listen to music and write small texts and play games (vai Wine + Steam).
For all this things it works really well. I like to ability to start any program just by pressing the "Windows key" and write the name, I love the theme and the consistency between the different parts of the environment and everything is working really well so far.
I don't know if in a month or two I'll switch back to KDE4 but so far I like it.
BTW, I also like the new Unity. I tried the first version a year or so ago in my netbook and didn't like. It improved a lot and it'll get even better.
Actually, I think Linux had never been so good. KDE 4 is getting really really solid. Gnome 3 and Unity introduced a new refreshing DE that will get more completed and with more features in the near future, and Xfce and LXDE are still here for anyone who prefers a more "old school" and lightweight DE.
The problem is there is a big push for interoperability in new versions, which people want and demand, but then the new versions are doing a bunch of radical change at the same time, leaving nothing that works like the old versions but has the new generic backend features.
Maybe we'll end up with fvwm + dbus or something for power users.
Thank you Linus for validating my thoughts. I tried Fedora 15 and had a look at Gnome 3. Interesting but it would not make me productive. It's like WinXP, the first thing I did was change it back to Classic. Gnome 2 should be renamed Gnome Classic, Gnome 3 (pick something) and drop the numbers. I've seen too much change for change sake as has been stated already. Make options and improvement, not permanent redesigns and changes. Don't burn the bridges behind you.
When Linus speaks up, I listen. And in this case I think that Linus may have a point. I use Displaylink, but Natty/Gnome can't swallow it. Why? Using Maverick can do the job, but why does Natty choke on this dog that hunts?
Having just tried Xubuntu 11.04 and regular Ubuntu 11.04, trying to decide which to give to one of my clueless relatives, I'd say the one thing that lacked in the XFCE setup was browsing smb network shares through the file browser. It was easy for said relative to pop in an Ubuntu 11.04 boot cd (unity and all), get into a live desktop, and find the network share for some network gadget he had. Sure Nautilus pulls in a ton of junk and ain't great on your outdated desktop, but it works. The default file browser in Xubuntu wasn't nearly as functional, for all of the speed up it might have given.
This sig is false.
Did Ford ever really say that? Ford didn't invent the car, although there's still probably a bunch of morons out there who think he did. Cars were around for years before Ford came along, he only came up with a way of making them cheaply. When he came along, his customers likely had several choices of cars, a bunch of models that were basically custom-made and cost a fortune, and then the Model T which was bare-bones and cheap. They weren't looking for horses, they were looking for something like what the rich people transported themselves in, just not as fancy or expensive.
I was religiously all-Linux, all-KDE, all the time until KDE 4 on Fedora 9.
I stuck with KDE4 for several months; at first, I couldn't imagine changing the desktop environment I'd had for so long.
Eventually, however, I realized I spent far too much time trying to configure and reconfigure my KDE4 desktop to behave and appear in ways that were acceptable to me. It seemed like I was always spending time configuring my desktop, yet never getting it quite right. I'd be in the middle of a real task and something would annoy the hell out of me and the next thing you know I'd be knee-deep in configuration and kludging and after a couple hours I'd determinedly force myself to give up and live with it (frown, frown) only to find myself configuring once again before the day was out.
But when GNOME3 details came out and as the KDE4/GNOME3/Unity trifecta started to overtake the Linux world, I got really frustrated.
Did you ever try a more recent version of KDE4? I was a longtime user of KDE as well, but when 4.0 came out, all I heard was how bad it was, how it was buggy, how it was missing functionality, etc., so, I simply didn't upgrade to it. I stayed with KDE3.5 for quite some time, until somewhere around KDE4.4. While it was still a bit of a step backwards, it wasn't nearly as bad as the early 4.0 series that many suffered with, thanks to Fedora's (and other distros') stupid, stupid decision to move to KDE4.0 prematurely even though the KDE team warned everyone it wasn't production-ready (though it was equally stupid of them to give it the "4.0" moniker if it wasn't ready for prime-time).
These days, with 4.6 and now 4.7, it actually seems to work pretty well. It certainly doesn't suffer from the anti-configurability philosophy that Gnome and Unity have.
If you haven't tried it out recently, I encourage you to do so. I'm reading too many accounts of people who abandoned KDE at 4.0, and then never went back but are still complaining about other DEs. Maybe it's time to forgive them their past mistakes and try them out again; I don't think we have to worry about them repeating the same mistake.
As many have mentioned above, Debian is still running mostly Gnome 2. In Debian testing, unstable, and experimental, some components like gnome-keyring have gone to 3, but the core components and look-and-feel are Gnome 2.
Debian also have twm, fvwm, xfce, and kde4 all available. And with multiple window managers installed, the display manager (all of them) allow you to choose your desktop--either your last choice or any currently installed.
These are expensive
Butuggs online they proper care at the end of the year. Another popular brand is emu boots. Emu is by the same materials and quality as the boots, the same price range. Want to know, is actually cowhide and merino wool significantly reduce the cost. Is the real made of skins, need not spend less. So, which one you should buy? To make the right choice really comes down to individual be fond of colors and styles. So, unless you have to leave your house or the dormitory, since late September the opportunities are good, you have noted, the number of lead the tide in the middle of preparation for the winter. Fashion is critical is forever change the trend. Here to see the trend of boots, you should keep an eye on the three. Top designers must have been watching the old westerns to their design work for fashion week, this trend. This trend is full swing, squat high heels and more than uggs boots any cowboy will find button needs to be updated. Fletcher see premium boots, is always a great brand, and they have a great choice cowboy style. If you prefer not to take as many of the trend, may not be next fall, quality boots to try to lower price point, Steve dynamite. Since you are not used to transport horse cowboy, you can exercise your boots, jeans, a good western old pattern, with a lovely, or the skirt. Even if you have a lot of leg, it might not be the ugg online best show them your new boots and a pair of Daisy duke shorts, LA Jessica Simpson, because we enter winter months. This may seem, merely attract much too much attention. erhaps the most bold in fashion trend this year to more than the boots of knee, maybe a bit too dramatic, not directly involved in the fashion industry in most of the women's taste. Even if no high-heeled shoes, the boots is attention at that exact moment, sexy, and one hundred percent of fashion. Well, they can wear, but you want to wear short skirt, mini in your favorite tight jeans, tie-in knickers or more than to begin. For the confidence of the rock this moderate growth women boots, the effect can be quite surprising, especially when boots and high-heeled shoes function. For shorter women, this is a trend, you may want to avoid. Love or hate, boots may not anytime soon. They ugg boots may turn head a see, as the beginning of the 21 st century great fashion, but now they are one of the accident in here. Accommodation and keep your legs and feet the cold winter months warm. If you live in snow often visit places, and the boots is always a great except your winter wardrobe, no matter how ugly you find them. If you old, need more fur boots, check out the insoles out of replacement, and will make your old boots as warm as UGG as web site. If you are new to the market, try a pair of UGG fan, now in college campus popular sweater boots. If you really can't bring yourself to buy a pair of boots, the traditional to try a new style of one..TS
What's he doing with Gnome or KDE that can't be done with a simple window manager? I try out the new stuff with regular intervals but quickly return to my simple but stable evilwm+pcmanfm setup (sanity restored!). I also don't use display managers. Even thoroughly stupid people don't need KDM/GDM if they can be bothered to type "startx".
I am currently using Gnome 2, test-driving XFCE, and have just tried KDE4 (Didn't like it. System resource use was terrible).
So if I try gnome 3 and don't like it, how difficult is it to revert back to gnome 2?
As far as I know Linus is just doing kernel development and that being as such, why does he care about the direction of Window Managers? Since I can accomplish 90% of my tube time in Firefox, Emacs, and a Terminal I don't see what the big deal is, but that's just me.
So ... does this Gnome/KDE/Xfce make my cursor change color or something? I think the white cursor imposed on the black background is perfectly fine. I see no reason to change it.
who cares? some dude switch from a desktop to an another and that's like the end of the world. my aunt's wife has just changed the brand of litter for her cat and i'm sure that could make Slashdot one day...
PS: I just google who te fuck is Linus and it's actually the guy who did Linux whooooo..
Like it matters what Linus uses. Who the fuck cares? Use what works for you.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
There was a comment on /. some weeks ago that got me thinking. The commenter said that UI was a 'solved problem' but that designers will always insist that it is not. So designers keep fixing what is not broken. Similarly, it often occurs to me that programmers keep building and re-building because that is what coders do. Coders code, designers design. That is what they do. This is the problem with Gnome and most interface issues (it's not just Linux - look at how MS botched Vista). It takes a firm handle on what might be called evidence-based product management and a good understanding of the market needs to pull these people in and get them to just stop. Fix the old bugs and quit breaking the interface.
Apple developed the desktop, point-and-click metaphor that everyone has since used in, what was it, 1984? More correctly, they borrowed ideas from Zerox. It took until Windows 95 for Microsoft to imitate the Mac gui properly. There has been no other significant change in UI since other than the touchpad, gesture-based and accelerometer interfaces in which iOS (Apple again) and perhaps Nintendo reign supreme. No-one seems to want a desktop interface that is not, in essence, derived from Mac 1984. All that is added are bells and whistles. I will not be surprised if no-one will want a smartphone or tablet interface that is not somewhat similar to the iPhone and iPad (unless you consider Android not similar to the iPhone interface).
I had to laugh, as I had finally ditched KDE4 for XFCE a few days ago.
After a couple of years of use, and after a while of having convinced myself otherwise, I have been forced to conclude that, for me, KDE4 is unusable, because ALL THOSE FEATURES distract me more than they add to productivity. I start running KDE4, and I just can't stop myself from dicking around with the desktop, messing with the widgets and themes all the time. Instead of the Desktop metaphor, I've got an apartment that I'm supposed to furnish and decorate, although no one ever visits me there.
And it doesn't help me get a fucking thing done faster or better. There's nothing in any of those widgets that can't be done with a desktop application-- or maybe a website-- that I can set up to access with a single click or keystroke.
It drives me crazy, but I'm sure other people handle this better. I suspect that it's really my fault for being so ADD. But it doesn't matter to me if it's my fault or the Desktop's fault. I'm staying. The Desktop is the one that has to go.
Developers need to develop. They've had some amazing accomplishments, and without them we'd be nothing. We'd have Microsoft so far up our asses that we'd be all be tasting Ballmer's cologne. The developers are real culture heroes, and I can't fault them for wanting to explore and dream big. The problem is that they drive every distro. No one wants to be the lonely distro that clings to the old Desktop. Everybody wants to INNOVATE. And pretty soon you're eating your cornflakes with an electric spoon, and it doesn't really make breakfast any easier.
But there are still options. XFCE is great. KDE still has the best applications, but I can run those from XFCE almost seamlessly. I use KDE3 daily with Live CDs based on Slax, Live CDs let me use the old version, without having to use the old version FOR EVERYTHING. And now, Porteous offers the forked version of KDE3, Trinity, which is starting to look better all the time. I tired the trinity version of Ubuntu. It's not quite there yet, but the progress is palpable. They're totally doing it. The conventional wisdom used to say a forked version of KDE 3 couldn't be created, and now they're saying that a forked version of KDE3 can't survive. O RLY?
There will always be tension between developers and users, and there will always be options. Free software will make sure of it.
Don't worry, you won't miss out on the fun. Apple have their own plans for turning OS X into a desktop OS suitable for cretins who only ever use mobile phones too.
I've been using Linux since 1783, and if there is one thing that would have started another war between Hamilton and Jefferson, it would have been fagging out the desktop so it doesn't work on multiple screens and prevents truly productive people with Things To Do other than twitter and facebook about the latest way to prove how original they are from getting anything done that requires a full view of, say, 7 windows at a time and multiple instances of programs running.
Of course, there is always promise behind BlueBubble (that is, keeping Gnome2 alive and refactoring it to be slimmer and adhere to a standard -- which is what Gnome 3 should have been), or jumping ship and using Scientific Linux for the next 5 years in the hope that when you emerge from your time capsule of science that the world will have come to its senses and Linux will no longer be Windows 7.5.
I tried Enlightenment, Gnomes of all ages, Puppy, Unity, LXDE, XFCE, XKCD, whatever. The one I like is the one that works without fooling around, and I don't care where the buttons are, I'll get used to it. I'm a non-geek, and my name is Legion.
As many have written, I choose the freedom of Debian, from a net-install media, I was able to "built" my OS almost from scratch avoiding to spend a lot of days compiling. Nowadays I need to run a really heavy framework for my work and a fu..ing win emulated for a specified apps, this eat a lot of resources from my lovely old thinkpad so switching from compiz to just Gnome wasn't enough, I tried with lxde and xfce but any of them was what I expected, so I found this little desktop called JWM looking for something new avoiding the well know BlackBox and I wonder how useful it can be. As experienced user I know what applications I want to use (like Pidgin, Gimp, VLC, Pcmanfm...) so I took half an hour editing .jwm, customizing it, adding applications to menu, making the panel useful (like adding wicd, gnome bluetooth and power manager...). After that, it was an only way path, I'm really happy with my single desktop, I have everything that I need for a day by day and when there is something that I want to try, I always have my gnome-terminal to run it.
I strong recommend this alternative, specially for that ones with limited hardware resources.
after switching to F15(G3): ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
-
old timer #1: holy crap! I am going back to F14(G2)
old timer #2: holy crap! I am going back to F14(G2)
me: it is unusual, as anything new, an I am not
making my mind up until I use it for a while
me to "old timer #1": give it a try
me to "old timer #2": your new laptop will not have WiFi under F14 but
it should work under F15, try it and it might just work
for you
old timer #1: it is good I did not upgrade my other #N machines to F15,
staying with F14 and happy
old timer #2: holy crap! I actually like G3
me: the freaking thing is GOOD, but UNFINISHED!
PS. In my book an "old timer"=="retrograde" is someone who was ...
a UNIX user(developer) before he had to switch Linux and thinks
that it was the "golden era".
PPS. me - using L. since 0.9X in mid 90-ies, I have no attachment to twm, mwm,
fvwm, tcsh, Kde[1-3],...
> I tested out Gnome 3 on Arch for about a week before I decided it was > time to abandon it. I also ended up at Xfce. It gets the job done.
This was my first reaction too, but I did some reading, enabled extensions and used gnome-tweak-tool and now I am a happy GNOME3 user.
There are two things I still hate:
1. clicking on icon does open a new instance but brings the old
2. there are some bugs with multi-monitor configuration - e.g. VirtualBox when switched to fullscreen does not go to the screen on which the window was...
But apart from that - it works OK. It is slower and hangs more often than GNOME2 but I love windows key function...
KDE is an operating system.
What I'm about to say is probably going to tick off a lot of people, so start sharpening your blades now. But quite frankly, you can get over it. Gnome 3 is not an 'unholy mess' by any means, and having an attractive, functional (yes, it's functional - I get my work done and can access everything without a problem) DE is not a crime. Hardcore linux types seem to think that you can only get work done with boring, gray, win95 style environments. Gnome 3 makes me more efficient - hitting the meta and then typing out the first four letters of the program to call it up, then hitting enter is significantly faster than typing out a whole command or digging my way through gnome 2.x/winxp style menus. It seems like a lot of people are just afraid of change because it's change. Some people are ticked about the launching programs vs. window switching thing, but I really think this is a non-issue. If you don't like it that way, use the alt+tab to switch programs, don't use the bar. The hilarious thing here is that many of us want other people to use linux and show an interest in linux because open source is the best way to go for a lot of approaches. Open source allows for customization. If you don't like your DE, just download another one. If you really want a command line system only, you can do that. If you don't like Gnome 3 or any of the OS X inspired systems (which themselves are significantly more railroaded into the designer-inspired changes than the DEs we use on linux systems), just don't use them. Or write your own if it's that terrible. In short. Looking good isn't a sin, and some smooth animations are hardly the end of work on linux desktops. Now, feel free to leave your hate mail after the beep.
Actually you just steal useful things like Thunar from other window managers. They work fine in Windowmaker. What it mostly needs is someone to go through and repackage a nice combination of lightweight utilities as a standard initial configuration.
KDE 4 wasn't really usable until KDE4.2 ... now, it does precisely what I want it to do, it allows me to forget about it while I get my work done. It's now boring and stable.
Weird. I've had almost the same experience switching from Enlightenment to WindowMaker to KDE to GNOME to Unity. Not wanting to tweak every and all settings anymore. Growing out of the compile-my-own-kernel mode.
But your solution ... OSX? I wouldn't think of using OSX as the times I've had to navigate it on friends computers it seemed totally counter-inituitive to me ...
I actually like Unity. It seems I'm one of the few. It's clean, simple, fast, doesn't get in my way ... actually to me it feels like going back to WindowMaker, but this time with a filemanager and without having to configure settings manually.
I'm actually incredibly happy about Unity ditching all menu's ... I really don't like menu's in OS (in applications is another story), never can find anything, always have to look twice even if I know where the item is.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
This is the first person in any discussion of Unity who's said what I too felt. I spent ages fiddling with and customising GNOME 2 to try to get it working as smoothly as I can do in 2min with [*whispers*] Windows. Unity has just blown this away. Minimal tweaking and it works just fine.
I really do not understand people who are flexible enough to move away from majority, default-choice commercial OSs to a minority FOSS OS such as Linux and then have a nervous breakdown because the desktop changes a bit!
Unity is a /lot/ more like GNOME 2 than GNOME 3 is. GNOME 2 is dead, same as KDE 3.x (and Trinity) are dead. Staying with them isn't an option.
And Unity does actually work pretty well. It replicates all the important functionality from GNOME 2, Mac OS X and, yes, even Windows. No, not everything I'd like is there, but everything I /need/ to get my work done is.
GNOME 3, from a fairly brief try, is far more disruptive - but it's pretty and there were some elements of it I liked. When it's an option on Ubuntu, I will give it a proper try.
Liam P. ~ "Intelligence is a lethal mutation." (me)