Slashdot Mirror
SolusOS Forks Gnome 3 Fallback Mode
An anonymous reader writes "Linux distribution SolusOS has forked the GNOME 3 'fallback mode' that the GNOME Project decided to scrap with the upcoming 3.8 GNOME release. According to SolusOS, the fork, named Consort, can 'maintain an experience virtually identical to GNOME 2, but vastly improve it with no need for hardware acceleration such as with GNOME Shell or Cinnamon.' It 'will bring back all the old features, such as right click-interaction on the panel, GNOME 2 applet support, creating desktop launchers, etc' and 'allow Python GNOME 2 applets to run natively on consort-panel.'"
How can they not see the destruction of their ecosystem right in front of them? They worked so damned hard to make GNOME 2 the best damned environment, and it grew like a weed with Ubuntu. And then sometime around 2009 everyone just lost their damned minds and destroyed it all for no good reason at all.
All they've done is make all of the users unhappy, removed and broke functionality. They're too busy cutting off their own limbs to fix actual problems anymore. How do the leaders in GNOME not see this happening? It's a damned shame.
Maybe it's the cynicism growing on me but I don't get the constant bitching and moaning over desktop decorations. Back in the day I used KDE3.x and it was fine. Then I used Gnome 2.x and it was fine. Now I use Unity and it is just fine too. On my low-end tinker-boxes, I use Openbox and Fbpanel. And it's all fine. Alt-f2, Alt-tab, Alt-f4, and Alt-Space work everywhere. Focus on your applications, fellas; that's what's important.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Instead of helping GNOME to modernize fallback mode
GNOME didn't want to modernize it. They abandoned it.
I tried GNOME 3 when it was still pretty new, didn't like it very much, and switched to another desktop. I've heard it's improved a lot so I'll probably give it another shot in the near future, but it's not a big priority for me because XFCE is already extremely usable and configurable.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
People who have real work to do are already using XFCE.
Did you ever consider that some folks who cut their teeth on Gnome 2.x UI are just vastly more productive using that interface? For those folks, this is a big draw.
Why should I change my comfortable UI habits just because some OS Distro (ie, Microsoft, Canonical, etc) wants change for change's sake? I'm sure there's as much to hate about XFCE as Gnome2. To each their own.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Sounds like the same concept of MATE and Cinnamon, with the main differences being:
--GNOME Shell is the atrocity most people think of when they think GNOME 3. For the most part, it *is* the official GNOME 3.
--MATE really is just GNOME 2--GTK+2 and all. Creaky and old, not exactly modern, but with a few programs renamed to avoid conflicts with the official GNOME versions and to allow it to exist on a machine with GNOME 3.
--Cinnamon is a GNOME 2 clone written in GTK+3 on top of GNOME 3, requiring all the extra crap GNOME 3-proper does; for example, 3D hardware acceleration.
--Consort sounds like yet another environment based on GNOME 3/GTK+3, but being based on the deprecated "fallback mode" it will bring a GNOME 2-like experience without the need for 3D hardware acceleration.
Beyond that, I honestly have no clue which one is better, they're all relatively new and probably under heavy development. I'm not sure if MATE or Cinnamon have made it to the point where they are free of annoying bugs (in other words, usable), but last time I tried them they definitely had some problems. But they're all probably much better than the crap that the GNOME Project officially provides.
Once they've all stabilized and have become good to use, I would assume that your hardware (3D acceleration or not) and your desire for nice integration of the latest GTK+3 programs will become some of the most obvious differences. I'm not sure if MATE will eventually port the desktop to GTK+3 or not... if they do, assuming all of them survive, that will likely make the choice even more difficult.
Before Gnome 3 and Unity we had KDE, Gnome 2 and XFCE along with a host of other lightweight desktop environments.
The big three all had the same or similar overall UI elements. A "start" menu, icons on the desktop, windowed applications and a task bar.
Now, we have Unity, KDE, Gnome 3, Gnome 2 forks, XFCE, the same collection of various lightweight window managers and desktop environments. Also, apparently, this.
Personally, I'm glad major players diverged significantly from the GUI elements we've all seemed to carry along from Windows 95. It is, in fact, a brave new world with touch screens and tablets. Sure it's arduous, and not cool for desktop productivity but it's only been 2 or 3 years. Maybe it will get better, or maybe some other options will become more popular. The point is, I'm glad I have something new to play around with.
And besides, it's not like you don't have choices if you liked the old way. I was a die-hard Gnome 2 fan, but now I use XFCE and I can hardly tell the difference.
As long as there are people willing to use and fund these forks I don't see a problem. The devs are investing their own time - why should anyone complain?
I even find it poignant in a way, the "bringing back old features" pitch. Trying to revive the past, being nostalgic... but above all, having the skill to actually do something about it instead of just whine - so kudos to whoever is behind this.
... ever getting on the mainstream desktop.
What makes you think the goal is making Linux a "mainstream" desktop? Windows is perfect as the mainstream desktop - it lets the non-technical masses post pictures of fluffy puppies to all their friends on the fashionable social media site of the month, and indulge in rambling flame wars about the relative merits of "Cool Ranch Flavour" versus "Nacho Cheese Flavour" on their favourite World of Cornchips forum, and maybe play some fun little games. The rest of us are happy with our non-mainstream OSes that we use to get real work done.
Can you imagine if OSes were like vehicles? Of course, it's okay for *me* to drive a 32-tonne truck to the shops for my morning paper, but can you imagine if *everyone* did it? Madness...
Personnaly I'm sick and tired of all the distro's: Ubuntu, Fedora and
even Mint/Cinnamon.
They ALL spell REGRESSION. ...backwards, sideways, upside down, mirrored, whatever.
R E G R E S S S I O N.
regression.
Niosserrger...
And there isn't a mouse or tablet or gesture or kick in the groin that
will do them any good or correct this wanton purposeful dimwittery.
So, -- for me, compiz, plus cairo-dock, plus emerald, will get my
attention.
Personally, I like the fact that more DE options are appearing. Given that many are Gnome forks, I think it shows that the Gnome developers have gone off in a less-than-satisfying direction for many long-time users. So be it. I don't pay them to develop for me; I'm perfectly ok with letting them scratch their own itches. I don't like Gnome-Shell, I don't like Unity, and I haven't tried Mate, but Cinnamon seems pretty agreeable to me. I'll give Consort a shot - who knows, maybe I'll like it.
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
Abandoning fallback mode is such a dreadful mistake.
I love GNOME 3, but the reality of current driver support on Linux is that many systems which aren't even very old are incapable of running GNOME 3 properly. Not to mention, remote desktop software such as FreeNX is incapable of 3d acceleration at all, and so a solution that does not require hardware acceleration is vital for that use as well.
I can certainly understand the desire to kill off fallback mode in the long run, but hastening its demise will just hasten the exodus of GNOME users. It's sad to me that the GNOME developers seem to have chosen the most abrasive transition strategy possible, ignoring critical use cases and the users who require them.
All that said, I don't see how a fork of fallback mode really makes a lot of sense at this point. Mate is already out there, and it seems to fill the same niche.
MATE is a quick functional fix. The GNOME2 code may have been old but it was not broken. it was working well for many people. MATE just took the existing code, and made sure that it was still installable on a modern distro. due to the way GNOME3 had been done this entailed renaming everything. (GNOME devs really did not want to to be easy to have GNOME2 and 3 installed together).
This meant that in 2011 and 2012 people could easily keep using a GNOME2 style desktop. So for the people that value that, MATE is great.
Some people think that a DE must be written in the latest libraries, as so are working on GNOME2 style desktops using GNOME3 tech. You could call GNOME3 fallback the first attempt (though it lacked many features), cinnamon is another, and now consort. Also MATE is gradually moving to newer libraries. I guess one of these will be the winner, but for now (from my point of view) MATE is in the lead.
I have tried to use the Unity interface, and I it definitely feels like someone has literally had "intimate knowledge" of it in the biblical sense.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
I've been running LMDE for the past 12 months and find that Cinnamon is usable. Stability has definitely improved with Update 5 & 6. I wouldn't say it is perfect, but having previously used Gnome 2, it lets me get work done.
Acgtually, I don't really care what desktop environment I use. I find that it is the applications I am using that determine my productivity or not. I rarely sit there staring at an empty desktop.