Slashdot Mirror


Debian Switching Back To GNOME As the Default Desktop

An anonymous reader writes: Debian will switch back to using GNOME as the default desktop environment for the upcoming Debian 8.0 Jessie release, due out in 2015. The decision is based on accessibility and systemd integration, along with a host of other reasons. Debian switched away from GNOME back in 2012 .

403 comments

  1. Why not KDE by Shaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe Gnome is friendlier for noobs or something. Are there noobs left in the world?

    --
    ...Steve
    1. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gnome is drastically different than any other environment out there. I can't imagine it being a good choice for noobs. MATE is a better choice because it is more familiar to Windows users. Unity is a good choice for Mac OS X users because of some similarities. GNOME is like neither. A noob would be lost.

    2. Re:Why not KDE by rcht148 · · Score: 2

      Linux noobs generally do NOT use Debian.
      They start with ubuntu or some of it's derivative like Mint.
      On a personal note, I use Linux Mint as my primary OS and recommend it to any noob who asks me on how to start using Linux. I have no qualms admitting myself as a Linux noob :)

    3. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      anyone with a 7 digit slashdot id is a noob irrespective of what OS they use

    4. Re:Why not KDE by dosius · · Score: 2, Informative

      MATE is also more familiar to users of previous versions of Debian, which is why I use it on my netbook.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    5. Re:Why not KDE by thieh · · Score: 1

      When I was a noob I use Fedora. Sadly ubuntu didn't work for my box circa 8.10 when the liveCD won't boot properly with some radeon cards and I kind of stayed away from ubuntu ever since, especially after the period which cross-distro solutions won't come from them when they start using upstart and unity. I still check out the variants of it when new DE versions comes out, though not much more than that.

    6. Re:Why not KDE by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      ...said the AC.

    7. Re:Why not KDE by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why KDE? KDE sucks for noobs and oldfags alike. Gnome is still better, and a simple text console is the best.

      Then man up and run slack.

    8. Re:Why not KDE by Shaman · · Score: 1

      Eh.................. troll on.... troll on.

      --
      ...Steve
    9. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC has a 3-digits id.

    10. Re:Why not KDE by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Linux noobs generally do NOT use Debian."

      ...and non noob Debian users generally do NOT use a GUI. So, what's the issue?

      And, in my experience, neither Gnome nor KDE are particularly robust. I got tired of fighting graphics drivers and configurations, and have XFCE installed to run those things which simply won't work without.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:Why not KDE by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Beat me too it. It is beyond me why the Debian priests insist on continued dead horse beating.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KDE? Because it sucks too. Try uninstalling zeitgeist and watch KDE dismantle itself. Any desktop/window manager that has that many fucking dependencies is rubbish. Whatever happened to the concept of freedom? Or was that never a big thing to Linux users? When will people see, Linux is actually suffering corruption.

    13. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My 70 year old computer illiterate Father (used Windows since the early days, but cut & paste is still a journey) has no problems performing his daily tasks in Ubuntu, both pre & post Unity. In fact, he took to Ubuntu's Gnome far better than he ever did to Windows...

    14. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an OSX user, fuck no. Unity is awful in every way. Especially on older hardware. The only way to make modern Ubuntu usable is apt-get install gnome-session-flashback.

    15. Re:Why not KDE by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unity is a good choice for Mac OS X users because of some similarities.

      Clearly you've never used OS X for any amount of time to make such a ridiculous claim. Unity is almost nothing like OS X beyond a couple of superficial similarities that, outside of the left hand buttons, don't even functionally act the same as the OS X counterpart it is trying to mimic. Long-time OS X users tend to despise Unity for its superficial cargo cult look.

    16. Re:Why not KDE by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yep, I always laugh my ass off when I hear someone make that claim. Having lefthand window buttons and a half-ass clone of the Mac OS global menus does not mean that OS X users will like Unity.

    17. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian was never intended for "noobs". What's with everything needing to be dumbed down? I really, honestly preferred tech when only the techies knew it. I've beem in IT for three decades now and things have gotten worse, not better. Learning curves and barriers to entry are always a good thing because it means you've learned something, achieved something. Gnome is dead simple and plain, although I far prefer Window Maker over all of them for its sheer configurability and options.

    18. Re:Why not KDE by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      I ain't no noob!

    19. Re:Why not KDE by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      KDE has features that Gnome has refused to implement. Gnome 3 promised Kiosk features similar to what KDE has had since version 2.0, never happened. They refuse to allow root access to the Window manager, and sometimes it's needed (CAD/CAE applications). To top all that off, it's far less flexible than KDE.

      Desktop control is required in some environments, which rules out all of the Linux desktops except for KDE. So maybe for you KDE sucks, but from a enterprise and compliance perspective it's both exceptional and essential.

      Further, I have had better experiences with KDE all the way around. I don't have issues controlling menus, location of "start" items, window tiling, multiple displays and desktops, sounds, or any of the other areas where Gnome and Unity are both problematic and inferior in my experience. KDE's speed has always been better than Gnome as well. I'm sure my hardware selection plays a role in that, so again your experiences may differ from mine.

      You can claim that emacs is better than vi just like you can claim that Gnome is better than KDE. Different people have different experiences, and will claim the opposite. Neither side is wrong necessarily.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:Why not KDE by s.petry · · Score: 0

      Did you Troll so frequently that the Karma is permanently set to -5 or something?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    21. Re:Why not KDE by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are there noobs left in the world?

      For some reason some people keep creating new ones.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    22. Re:Why not KDE by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been using Linux since 1997 (pretty much exclusively since 2009). I still prefer MInt over anything else. Eye candy is good, package management is good - and it is the primary platform for Cinnamon which removes all the retarded aspects of Gnome 3 to make it back into a decent desktop UI.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    23. Re: Why not KDE by loufoque · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand what you mean by desktop control and root access.
      Care elaborating?

    24. Re: Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a 2-digit IQ.

    25. Re:Why not KDE by danbuter · · Score: 1

      If you liked Gnome 2, you should seriously check out Mate http://mate-desktop.org/. It's a port of Gnome 2, and works great.

    26. Re:Why not KDE by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Except GP didn't make that claim, he said that Unity is more similar to OSX than Gnome is.

    27. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that was Gnome 2. Now they are on Gnome 3, which fucks everything up with Gnome shell and its wannabe Mac interface.

    28. Re:Why not KDE by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      cause KDE sucks resources and is less useable than windows95 on a 386 16

    29. Re:Why not KDE by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've used OS X for 4-5 years and have used Unity since it came out, and I find them very similar. There's differences, but they're much more like each other than they're like Windows. My wife, who isn't a computer person and has always used Macs, occasionally uses Unity on my laptop, and finds it almost the same as Mac except the colors are different.

      Jeff

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    30. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      time for you to master the radeon not the other way round

    31. Re: Why not KDE by Elbart · · Score: 0

      Ow!

    32. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My IQ: ff

    33. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to maintain a medium sized lab environment, about 200 Debian workstations or so, with everything from beginners to well-experienced Linux users. We have several desktop environments installed and users can switch between them, but Gnome to used by default unless you change it. When we rolled out Debian 7 I was a bit worried that users would not like it, but so far there's only been three or four complaints.

    34. Re:Why not KDE by russbutton · · Score: 1
      I love Windowmaker. Fast and does everything I want. Easy to configure as well. Gnome is slow and bloated, as is KDE and Unity.

      The problem with systemd is lack of competent documentation. There are plenty of good arguments for & against it, but if you want people to accept it, then they should put out docs that will enable people to readily do the things they did with good ol' init/chkconfig and so on.

    35. Re:Why not KDE by ruir · · Score: 1

      I would stay at Mint, they took weeks to solve the heartbleed bug. But then, I am into servers and not desktops.

    36. Re:Why not KDE by Teun · · Score: 1
      Hahaha, you show your age :)

      As with all large projects KDE has had it's problems but that's many years behind us, now they are the only viable full-featured DE.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    37. Re:Why not KDE by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 2

      signed or unsigned?

    38. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gnome is a dumbed down OS X, if that's possible. Truly awful, like OS X.

    39. Re:Why not KDE by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      RTFA. It said they changing the default from Xfce, not KDE

    40. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnome is drastically different than any other environment out there. I can't imagine it being a good choice for noobs. MATE is a better choice because it is more familiar to Windows users. Unity is a good choice for Mac OS X users because of some similarities. GNOME is like neither. A noob would be lost.

      Wrong, Gnome is so easy to use imo.

    41. Re:Why not KDE by lkernan · · Score: 1

      cause KDE sucks resources and is less useable than windows95 on a 386 16

      Please, Win95 on a 386 was fine and 16mb was only for the rich people, the rest of us had to get by with 8 at that stage!

    42. Re:Why not KDE by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      When I was a noob, I used Slackware.

      Now get off my lawn!

    43. Re:Why not KDE by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      "Linux noobs generally do NOT use Debian." ...and non noob Debian users generally do NOT use a GUI. So, what's the issue?

      I don't think I'm a noob (programmer since 1977, Unix user since 1990) but I use a GUI on my Debian workstations. Not on the servers of course.

      And, in my experience, neither Gnome nor KDE are particularly robust. I got tired of fighting graphics drivers and configurations, and have XFCE installed to run those things which simply won't work without.

      What are these "configurations" of which you speak?

    44. Re:Why not KDE by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      When you install Jessie you get the Debian desktop with Gnome by default.

      If you don't want a GUI you just deselect the desktop.

      If you want KDE or Xfce you just select them instead of Gnome.

      It's not hard.


      Software to install:
      [x] Desktop
      ... [x] Gnome
      ... [ ] KDE
      ... [ ] xfce

    45. Re:Why not KDE by msauve · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of xconfig? You are a noob.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    46. Re:Why not KDE by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Maybe Gnome is friendlier for noobs or something. Are there noobs left in the world?

      Apparently they determined KDE has NO accessibility features, because KDE doesn't have full support the GNOME API for accesibility that is only used by screen-readers.

      So apparently all the settings KDE has for accessibility doesn't matter. Maybe because Gnome doesn't have them?

    47. Re:Why not KDE by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of xconfig? You are a noob.

      I've heard of it.

      Fuck, I used to write modelines based on the manuals of old CRT monitors.

      But I haven't had to touch it for years now. Everything just works.

    48. Re: Why not KDE by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      I think he/she means KDE Remote Desktop Sharing http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdenetwork/krfb/index.html and is talking about the concept of the X11 root window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_window

    49. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know - it has been posted 10 times in this story as well as any linux desktop story that comes out.

    50. Re:Why not KDE by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      When I was a complete newb I used Yggdrasil. Then SCO.

    51. Re:Why not KDE by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Clearly you've never used OS X for any amount of time to make such a ridiculous claim."

      Okay, then I'll make the fucking claim with over a decade of OSX and Debian experience.

      They're similar enough to make Unity familiar to anyone that uses an Apple computer.

      But look at the linux zealot, who has VERY OBVIOUSLY never worked on a Mac before.

      Now shut your mouth, child. Adults are speaking.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    52. Re:Why not KDE by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Linux noobs generally do NOT use Debian.
      They start with ubuntu or some of it's derivative like Mint."

      EVERYTHING YOU JUST MENTIONED IS FUCKING DEBIAN-BASED.

      Which means almost EVERY n00b uses Debian in some flavor.

      Try again when you actually understand which distros are based from other distros.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    53. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You rise a valid question, as suddenly the target group of any software UI is some fantasy noob, who has never used a computer before. Does the UX-community really believe, that they get the rest of world who struggle daily to get food in their table to buy a shiny new device and start using their software? What about the people who have had the computer for last 20-30 years or so, why are we not worthy as your users?

    54. Re: Why not KDE by s.petry · · Score: 1

      To the first part I mean the Kiosk features where an admin can lock down things like the Screen saver settings, background image, power settings, etc... This obviously prevents users from disabling settings like screen lock requiring a password, ensuring that your policies are met (E.G. 5 minute idle time), forces warnings and backgrounds to display without allowing users to disable or change them.

      To the second part, allowing "root" to login to Gnome with a full desktop. Surely a bad idea on an internet facing desktop, but required for installation and configuration of certain CAD and CAE applications, especially those generating 3D stereoscopic displays but not limited to the same. I have not used Gnome in the last couple years, but last I checked it required hacks to allow Root to login.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    55. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with Gnome you can change the wallpaper using a script. Apparently this is such a scientifically complicated problem that the KDE V4x team still has not come up with a legitimate solution for this

    56. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with asking why not switch to KDE? Is there some rulebook that says Debian shall only ever include GNOME or Xfce?

      Try not being a pedantic dick...

    57. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. I have fooled over 70% of OSX users with Unity, many of them very long time Mac fans. I think it's more about the general Mac users' familiarity with computers in general than any relation to OSX and Unity. Most people just don't pay much attention.

    58. Re:Why not KDE by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      I believe the 16 stood for the MHz, not the RAM size. 16 and 33 were common MHz speeds for the 386.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    59. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have been using Linux for years and KDE or Awesome WM are the only way to go when im forced to use a GUI
      currently running on Archlinux though i am a old Slackware user (i miss my shoe boxes full of floppies)

      technically there is NO BAD GUI Desktop for Linux they all have there uses and Pros and Cons
      from Fluxbox or openbox and Icewm or JWM to LXDE and XFCE4 Gnome 3 and KDE4 there all cool and ANY modern PC can run them all

      basically if your Linux OS is slow its YOUR fault, try a different GUI

    60. Re:Why not KDE by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Except GP didn't make that claim,

      Sure they did. And I quote:

      Unity is a good choice for Mac OS X users

      The only way that Unity could be a "good choice" for OS X users would be that they would have to like it, no?

      he said that Unity is more similar to OSX than Gnome is.

      And then falsely claimed it would be a good choice. It is a terrible choice.

    61. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A.) Telling someone defending Gnome to run Slack is like telling someone who likes Finder to run Windows... You can probably make it work, but it'd definitely be third party support at best.

      B.) This notion that Slackware is somehow hard really doesn't help the cause. I use Slackware specifically because I got sick of dealing with all of the crap that amounted to the .deb/.rpm world being a place where it was HARDER to do what I wanted with my systems. The documentation is fantastic, which is certainly more than I can say for the model apparently espoused by a few of the popular "for noobs" distros out there which is comprised almost entirely of support forums (answering very specific questions on very specific builds with data that goes out of date when the next update comes out).

      C.) If all you want is a text console, you can do that on any distro. There are minimal Ubuntu installers that give you a ~200 mb installed system if you like, sans GUI. Slackware is different in plenty of ways than other distros, but suggesting that it's somehow more of a console based system than others gives the impression that it's LESS friendly for gui tasks than others. Again, NOT helping.

      D.) All that said, yes, more people should use Slack, and more distros should aspire to be more like it, rather than less so (and whoever thought Livedisk ISO's were a good install medium needs to be taken out back and shot). Choice is a good thing, and doesn't have to mean "things are more difficult".

    62. Re:Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The noobs that use Ubuntu or Mint tend to stay noobs forever. Especially as of the past few years, where they both seem to be enamored with changing up major parts of the system every release for amusement. New to Linux? Here, Ubuntu will teach you how to use SysVInit...err, Upstart....err, SystemD.

      Oh, and by "Teach" I mean "hand you packages that are unnecessarily complex in what they try to accomplish and may often be problematic in demanding unnecessary dependencies, but don't worry because they do everything they can to ensure you see as little of that process as possible anyway".

      They're terrible systems for learning Linux. USING it without being required to LEARN, I suppose they're better than many, but that's not a goal I have particularly a lot of respect for, as it tends to make for unnecessarily complex, monolithic, and frequently broken software. Write documentation in plain English, make it in your face, and easy to navigate, and you'll have done a better job of what "noob friendly" distros have tried to do without needing to touch the actual software on a standard "classic" GNU/Linux installation.

      Grandma, otoh, might be best off using Ubuntu/Mint...chances are, she wasn't trying to learn anything anyway, but just needed a free OS because her fixed income leaves Windows out of her price range, and really isn't going to admin anything anyway.

    63. Re: Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sudo aptitude install kubuntu-desktop for me

    64. Re: Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used Macs since System 6, I dislike Unity. I like KDE & LXDE

    65. Re: Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first distro was Peanut Linux. I now use kubuntu & fedora with KDE

    66. Re: Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MATE is like Ikea: you recognize all the items, but they all have weird names.

    67. Re:Why not KDE by Finite9 · · Score: 1

      gotta debunk. "better choice for Windows users"? Windows 8 is radically different that every other Windows Desktop there has been. Windows 95 was quite different than Windows 3.1 You've got Unity, Gnome, Windows 8, OSX, which are all departures from win95 desktop layouts, and then the rest of the so-called "traditional" Win95-esque desktops. To single Gnome out as something that is so different that it is unusable is a poor argument. By that argument, nobody would upgrade to Win8 because it's too different. But yet all those millions of Windows 7 home users will happily upgrade to Win8 no questions asked, just because it's the newest version. And when even Microsoft changes their own desktop paradigm to something radically different from the Win95-esque, then you've got to ask what you people are smoking when you posit that Win95 is the desktop standard to stick to.

      --
      "Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
    68. Re:Why not KDE by eneville · · Score: 1

      What you're saying is mostly right. However, there is nothing wrong with livecds, what they install, maybe. Debian was just right in the lenny days. I don't know why they're now targeting GUI users who want a kitchen sink install.

      Why systemd/gnome3 were the choice of late I don't know, I think this was a bad move for the distro. Systemd is a dependency now, which is *REALLY BAD*. It should have been agnostic towards upstart/sysv/systemd etc allowing the user to pick and choose between each.

    69. Re:Why not KDE by goarilla · · Score: 1

      What are these "configurations" of which you speak?

      You never had KDE corrupt its plasmarc files ?

  2. How many of you are still using Gnome? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have stopped using Gnome ever since the developers decided to stop listening to the users and fucked up the whole thing

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I used to have a gnome fetish, but I gave gnome the boot when the developers put a boot on the users' necks.

    2. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by thule · · Score: 2

      I still use it. It works for me. I like the clean interface. I like the search function (tracker). I like the way it integrates with OwnCloud (really easy). I just like the overall feel of the environment. Way better than OpenWindows or CDE. BTW, I'm not a new Linux user. I started with Linux and fvwm sometime around 1993-1994. I started out on Yggdrasil and Slackware and whatever "distro" I downloaded off a BBS in 1992 (but didn't really do anything with it other than boot it up).

    3. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      My favorite DE has always been gnome. When I tried to get Gnome3 to run on 3 screens I completely failed and had to switch to Mate.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    4. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Pichu0102 · · Score: 2

      You're in luck then, Debian is still way back in the days when GNOME 2 was new!

    5. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a bit of a loaded question...GNOME libs are hard to get around because the codebase can be traced back to NeXT and openstep. For instance just building an application that parses svg files on Linux is difficult without using GNOME libs. I could rant on but in a way we all use it and therefore we should have assumed...GNOME isn't going to leave on its own and is actually much more entrenched in things than just a desktop. To answer your question...a lot of us because based on the replies here many of us don't know we are still using it when we aren't. GNOME the desktop? Yeah no one uses that just desktops that depend on GNOME libs and hardware managers.

    6. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mod parent up further. I didn't realize how badly the GNOME team screwed the pooch until I tried running Deb 7 and Deb 8 testing to get a new laptop to work.

      I am at a complete loss as to why I should have to use a click-and-drag "swipe" gesture to unlock the screen on my workstation in the default configuration of GNOME 3 that comes with Jessie. I'm also not too fond of the default on for all the smart--phone centric gestures that mess up all of my window positioning if I accidentally mouse to the corner of the screen.

      I use Debian 6 for an operator console for a piece of heavy moving machinery, and I will not upgrade to Deb 7 or 8 for as long as I can because my whole workflow is based on the quaintly named "classic desktop model" where screens and windows don't magically resize and change position if I sneeze. I am truing to put off as long as I can the task of having to figure out all of these "features" in GNOME 3 or KDE how to disable them so that I can use it for my operator console without fear of an accidental version of the killer poke. I'd switch to LXDE or XFCE, but they're a little too light-weight for my taste, and I don't want to switch to MATE because all the executables have been renamed and I'd lose compatibility with my legacy systems that run GNOME 2. Geez.

    7. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Listening to users isn't necessarily a good thing. Henry Ford said that if he'd asked his customers what they wanted, they'd have asked for a faster horse. This is especially true of UI design, because most people (even power users) really don't measure what they're spending time doing and get into unproductive patterns. The problem with GNOME was that they also didn't listen to usability experts. Or even vaguely competent people who had read an HCI book. They went down a path of doing things that an uninformed user and a usability expert could both agree were stupid. Apparently they've improved recently, but it cost them a lot of users.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't have to drag to unlock. Press Escape or just typing your password.

    9. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by corychristison · · Score: 2

      I use XFCE as well.

      XFCE 4.10 came out in April/2012. I'm honestly worried maybe things have stalled. I use Funtoo(/Gentoo) Linux, so I see from time to time things get updated in the various applications that make up XFCE, but I'm still worried about its future.

    10. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      KDE 4.0 was bad, so lots of people switched to Gnome 2.

      KDE 4.3 was decent, and Gnome 3 was awful, so lots of people switched to KDE.

      Gnome 3.10 and KDE 4.13 are both fine. If they both keep working on polish and extension support for a while rather than trying to reinvent themselves again then everything will be peachy.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    11. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Cinnamon arrived it's arguable that GNOME has no reason to live.

    12. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by CaptnZilog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I use XFCE as well.

      XFCE 4.10 came out in April/2012. I'm honestly worried maybe things have stalled. I use Funtoo(/Gentoo) Linux, so I see from time to time things get updated in the various applications that make up XFCE, but I'm still worried about its future.

      Just a simple question - if it works for you, unless there are some major security bugs or something, why does it matter if it gets 'updated'?

    13. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Listening to users isn't necessarily a good thing.

      What I think you meant to say is that you carefully weight what users say against your own goals. Don't just do everything they ask for, but at the same time, don't just ignore them and assume you know what's best. Microsoft did the latter with Windows 8 - despite all the complaints about the GUI made through the public betas/RCs, very little changed in the final build because Microsoft believed they knew better.

      The GNOME developers don't seem to listen to users because they believe their untested/unvalidated opinions on GUI design are better simply because they're different to what we've seen before. They're idiots.

    14. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 2

      Uh.. you do realize that Cinnamon uses GNOME's codebase right? It's like wishing your upstream would go away so you would what? Take over development of everything instead?

    15. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      well, Debian is taking that to the next level and adopting systemd which ignores serious sys admins and fucks up the whole system init thing

    16. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      It uses GTK+ libaries, so what? unlike GNOME it uses them for a UI that doesn't suck.

    17. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      Yeah, still using it. Gnome 3 with the applications menu and window list turned on, Thunar as the file manager because they are removing title bars on windows for some reason. I'm getting fed up with it, probably going to move to Mate or Cinnamon. I used KDE3 on Fedora before, but something was always flaky with it, and they didn't have good GUI tools for things like setting up WiFi at the time. It was back when Ubuntu was paving the way for the desktop that I switched to Gnome (love having access to Debian repos and apt is awesome), they had a lot of good GUIs that integrated well with Gnome but weren't on the KDE side of things yet. I might give KDE a spin and kick the tires now that I think about it...

    18. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't want to switch to MATE because all the executables have been renamed and I'd lose compatibility with my legacy systems that run GNOME 2.

      Okay, my advice to you: switch to MATE.

      They renamed all the executables because they had to. For some reason that I don't understand, GNOME cannot have 2.x and 3.x on the same system; somehow they screwed the library versioning all to hell and it doesn't work. So the MATE developers renamed everything, so that people could install MATE and GNOME on the same system without any problems.

      You can install GNOME 2.x and MATE side by side and they won't fight. Try it.

      Maybe the future is Cinnamon. But I'm still running MATE. It just works, and just keeps on working. If you just want to get your work done and not fight with your DE, use MATE.

    19. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 2

      Yes, but one shouldn't wish ill on an upstream project. :)

    20. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Why that was rated as "5 insightful" ? Most of the common users actually have loved Gnome from the first use. It is only the Slashdot demographic (noisy hardcore nerds) that have not liked it, and that's a very small minority.

      Gnome actually enables you to focus using the computer, without having to tend to irrelevant details. It's also aesthetically pleasing, unlike especially KDE. Speaking of KDE, they have never understood any of the golden rules of UI design. Exploded search depth, no ability whatsoever to follow the 80-20 rule are the worst practice examples that almost every KDE application commit....

      If you want horrible UI design without listening to the user, please go away and slap everything full of buttons and sliding panels. Make the UI so complex only certain very small specialist user demographic will use it, just like you have done. But don't start whining about other environments that the major use base wants.

    21. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's true, however if you don't ask them you can wind up with solutions that are completely unacceptable to the users.

      Users can handle change, but it has to be reasonable, predictable and address some problem that they're actually having. One of the reasons why I hate MS UI design so much is that the changes seem to have more to do with making it impossible for anybody to use older versions alongside newer versions than about any legitimate design considerations. That stupid ribbon that they introduced years back was the last time I considered buying a copy of Office as it required me to look up the locations of functions and settings rather than them being in a predictable place based upon a well structured paradigm.

      I'd dump Firefox if there was a viable alternative. It uses less RAM than the competition and the alternatives lack the extensions I use. But, they're constantly fucking with the UI for reasons that I can't comprehend and the changes seem to be designed with a future Firefox-Chrome merger in mind rather than with usability, stability or consistency in mind.

    22. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I am at a complete loss as to why I should have to use a click-and-drag "swipe" gesture to unlock the screen on my workstation in the default configuration of GNOME 3 that comes with Jessie.

      You don't. Just type your password and it gets unlocked automatically.

    23. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I try the 'desktops' every so often, but I keep getting annoyed and go back to very old fvwm1 (emulating twm. no, not kidding).

      very light weight, no huge process list from hell (like all desktop linux's these days) - just the window manager, the x server and some other minor things. makes fast systems truly fast, and slower systems quite acceptable.

      what do I run on a rasp pi or beaglebone? yup, fvwm1 and no 'desktop'. makes those tiny systems usable. does not need a lot of memory or disk footprint.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    24. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Products and features your customers buy and use are good. Products and features your customers do not want are bad.

      There is no other definition of a "good" feature or design.

    25. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I have stopped using Gnome ever since the developers decided to stop listening to the users and fucked up the whole thing

      I switched to Gnome with version 3.8. I used to use fvwm before that and I'm still using it on some systems, but it's mostly due to laziness on my part. Gnome 3 is now my main environment and I actually like it.

    26. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use XFCE as well.

      XFCE 4.10 came out in April/2012. I'm honestly worried maybe things have stalled. I use Funtoo(/Gentoo) Linux, so I see from time to time things get updated in the various applications that make up XFCE, but I'm still worried about its future.

      Just a simple question - if it works for you, unless there are some major security bugs or something, why does it matter if it gets 'updated'?

      Because some distros out there drop stuff from their repos if they feel the software is abandoned. Doesn't matter if it is stable for years and there is no need for new features.

    27. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Listening to users in the beginning might not be such a good idea, but later on, when you present users with your new vision and they scream "the goggles, they do nothing!" and running for the hills, it may be time to accept that that's not the direction they want to go. Doubling down on it at that point is not helpful.

      I'm fairly convinced the Gnome project was taken over by a group of psychologists experimenting with how far you can push users before they leave. Even with all of that going on, guess what project was the first to grow a new dependency on systemd?

    28. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me what is an "unproductive pattern"? I ask because I find I am at my most unproductive when I procrastinate, which could involve web browsing, or making pointless and trivial tweaks to my desktop or OS set up. I find that I'm good so long as I can have multiple desktops arranged in a grid, key combinations to move between desktops, text editor of my choice, and ideally a BASH terminal. So the main desktop environment I find problematic is Windows, and this is mainly because I've not found a good virtual desktop program. On Linux I can get on equally well with XFCE, Mate, or KDE.

    29. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      indeed. I have an huge investment in Debian here at work, and I am considering switching. What are people looking at? Slackware? FreeBSD?

    30. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by mattventura · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Same, so I switched to XFCE. I'd much rather just have a nice minimal DE that doesn't get in the way. I'm not using a DE for the sake of using a DE, I'm using it to facilitate using actual applications.

    31. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. You're implying that people still use Gnome3 outside of flashback mode? I truly feel sorry for them. Gnome 2 was almost perfect, but Gnome 3 is worse than Unity.

      I didn't think that was possible for anything to be worse than Unity, but then I installed Ubuntu 14.04 with GNOME and forgot to set session to flashback. Me: "Oh. Hell. No." *logs out* + *chooses gnome-flashback* "Ahh much better."

    32. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by rl117 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I've been looking seriously at FreeBSD and now have a test server running ZFS to replace an LVM/ext4 Debian server. On the client I've got FreeBSD running as an alternative to Debian; 10.x with newcons does proper OpenGL and everything for radeon and intel graphics. It's a breath of fresh air after the depressing regression of the Linux desktop (GNOME3/Unity/Pulse/FreeDesktop junk), and now the whole system with systemd), which has taken place over the last five years.

      It's a shame to be considering fully dumping Linux after investing 17 years of your life into it as a developer, but it's slowly become something I no longer wish to use or develop.

      (Frustrated Debian developer.)

    33. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Maybe its reached its goal. adding more might make it fall into that spurious vapourware claim of being "bloated"

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    34. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      well, that shouldn't be a problem for the "serious sys admins" as they will be smart enough to remove systemd and re-institute their favoured system init solution.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    35. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      KDE lets you decide who you want your system, Gnome forces you to have their way. shame you've lost the ability to think for yourself on what suits you on a desktop

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    36. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used Gnome by default when I first started using Linux (Ubuntu) some years ago, but later I tired of its bloat and tried out LXDE and have been quite content with it. I don't feel anything missing in LXDE which would make me think it's "too light-weight"; it does what I expect and want a desktop to do, without the silly frills.

    37. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Rather interesting accounting. As for our side, I have worked decades into Linux. We (I) have invested a lot at work, customising and optimizations for vmware/Cloud, automation/ansible, and already testing Docker. Nevertheless, I touched almost every Unix flavour under the sun in several places, and came from the BSD world. Also did some development for a cable operation. And I agree with you, it is frustrating.

    38. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      To elaborate more on this. I have know several experienced administrators and organisations that roll out their own distros. I do am not feeling like going there, however one possibility is using my own local signed Debian repository to override a few packages that will force me to go with systemd. After all, my server setups are very light and I am not into graphical interfaces, so the effort should be light, and more cost-effective than rolling my own distro. Nevertheless, I am planning on setting up Slackware and FreeBSD servers for testing. I have been looking at very hot and new technologies in Linux that enable sysadmin on large scale, and I am not entirely comfortable with leaving it all behind.

    39. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by paskie · · Score: 2

      Because a desktop environment ties into a lot of the rest of the system infrastructure - from volume controls to disk mounting to power management - and the system infrastructure keeps moving forward. Therefore, you need to maintain the desktop environment in order for it to keep working well. A typical case is that xfce + new upower tends to suspend twice when you close the lid (i.e. when you open the notebook lid, it re-suspends right away). This is because noone updated xfce's power manager to a new upower API that was announced >6 months before it appeared in a release. (AFAIK xfce update finally happenned and is now fighting its way into Debian unstable.)

      Desktop environment is not maintenance free. The rest of the infrastructure evolves (for real reasons - better hardware support, security fixes, usability, ...) and the DEs need to keep pace.

      --
      It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
    40. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with GNOME was that they also didn't listen to usability experts.

      The problem is that usability experts are actually few and far between. Usability experts have been replaced with User eXperience experts and they kind of kicked off this nightmare of crap design. I like the Microsoft story of how the "Start" button came to exist. Without a requirement for usability experts to weigh in they actually beta tested many versions of windows with various designs, and each time wondered how to get users to click on the thing. Put the word "Start" on the button and suddenly everyone instinctively knew what to do.

      Now we are in a world of UX design where people don't seem to care anymore what the users think but only seem to care about how their product looks like. I'm going to buck the trend and actually say I like the theme of Windows 8. Flat and trendy works for me, but the UX design is a nightmare without any of the queues that a user needs to identify how something should happen.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe the UX guys are right and we're not optimally using the desktop. But if a user can't figure out how to use your desktop (see and endless stream of youtube how-to videos on Windows 8 showing people such advanced things like .... turning their computer off) then you have failed. The users absolutely need to be part of the equation.

    41. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Seeing as there has been no turn-around or re-examination, I am assuming they will hold course until death. It seems to me that such a choice is irrational... so why is the choice being made?

      Someone (or multiple someones) clearly wants Gnome dead. Who and why?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    42. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      I currently use XFCE for daily work, too. However, I'm not very happy with it and am looking for an alternative. XFCE's panel menus suck (both whisker and the old one), they take almost 30 seconds to load the entries for the first time, even if the icons are switched off. At least they should have an option for preloading the menu entries. (Or perhaps the developers should use slower, older machines, because XFCE does not seem to be fast and snappy at all to me on my 4 year old i7 920 6GB, particularly not when it is under some minor disk load).

      Other things I don't like about XFCE is that it is relatively complicated to switch off the tumbler thumbnailing service, and that swappable media take a long time to open in the file manager and if they finally do so, four windows pop up at the same time. (What kind of stupid bug is that?) Also, the panel used to crash so often that I had to put a "Repair Panel" button on it - but this problem is gone with latest updates.

      Minor quirks in an overall nice desktop manager but enough for me to (probably) switch. The only thing that kept me with XFCE is that I'm used to start everything with one click and I'm too lazy to make new custom panels for another environments.

    43. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      In my opinion the main usability problem of GNU/Linux is that practically all programs violate the #1 human interface guideline: Always give the user immediate and clear visual response to input action.

      If you press a button, it must highlight immediately, if you select a menu it must show up immediately, if you select a menu entry, it should blink several times without blocking, if you launch a program, the operating system should immediately tell you that it is about to be launched (no matter how long it takes), if you put a USB stick in a USB port, the OS must inform you about it immediately, and so forth. All of this visual feedback must be immediate and also long enough to be clearly visible - and if an action *usually* takes only milliseconds, the OS must automatically show some progress feedback in case it incidentally takes longer.

      This problem cannot be fixed by a desktop or window manager alone, it's also an application problem. But the GUI APIs do not seem to help much either. On a side note, Apple started to violate this and many other of their own guidelines since the introduction of OSX, so you could say that GNU/Linux is in "good" company.

    44. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      This is especially true of UI design, because most people (even power users) really don't measure what they're spending time doing and get into unproductive patterns. The problem with GNOME was that they also didn't listen to usability experts.

      I think most people are capable of finding their own of using their own computer - if the interface is not actually built to impose things on the user. I used to like GNOME in the beginning, and I stayed with it even when it began to annoy me and I had to reconfigure things in major way; but I decided to leave when they started removing genuinely useful features that I used (like the little pop-up that shows window geometry when you move or resize) and then hard-coded into the thing that you can't log on to a desktop as root.

      I am well aware of the security issues involved, and one can discuss the wisdom in logging in as root, but that is beside the point. The decision about that kind of things is mine to make on my own system, it is not the prerogative of some smart-ass to dictate. Any desktop is just a tool, and a tool should not get in the way of what you are trying to do, it should enable you.

      And that brings me back to UI design: a good user interface enables you to do the things you want, it may guide you towards doing things with a certain measure of discipline, but at the end of the day, the designer must respect the free choice of the user.

    45. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by rl117 · · Score: 1

      I'd likewise say I'm not comfortable leaving it behind, at least not yet. I would say with respect to FreeBSD I'm still at the "testing the waters" level. I'm quite encouraged by the recent work on the pkg(8) tool though, I was expecting building and installing ports to be quite a lot more primitive that it is in practice. It's still not quite as polished as dpkg/apt-get but it's getting much better with proper library dependency analysis recently added. For custom deployment of machines and VMs/jails, I plan to look at setting up a poudriere build jail and custom pkg repo, and creating ports of my Debian packages.

      I've set up Debian kFreeBSD in a jail on the test server which I can independently ssh into, take ZFS snapshots of etc. which is quite nice. And the same with additional native FreeBSD userland jails for different services. I'll have to look into Bhyve when I have more time. I plan to port my schroot(1) tool to make use of ZFS snapshots and jails.

      Doing a custom repo isn't too much work. The tooling is all there to make it possible (I'm one of the sbuild and sysvinit maintainers, though currently out of action due to RSI). It just depends on how entrenched systemd becomes for jessie. It was my understanding that while systemd would be the jessie default, sysvinit and upstart would continue to be supported since this would be a transitional release, which is needed for clean upgrades and would also allow continued use for the lifetime of jessie. Unfortunately it appears that certain maintainers have made efforts to entrench systemd immediately with the result that it's increasingly difficult to prevent its installation, and so the immediate future is much less certain. At the present time, I seriously doubt I'll be using Debian after the release of jessie; it's become rapidly much less usable and maintainable.

      Regards,
      Roger

    46. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cues not queues

    47. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      About Bhyve I have been looking at it, and it is not mature enough in 10.0. And then compared to a solution like VmWare, you have the problem of I/O contention and memory ballooning; which is why I would go with jails in FreeBSD for the time being.

    48. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd dump Firefox if there was a viable alternative. It uses less RAM than the competition and the alternatives lack the extensions I use. But, they're constantly fucking with the UI for reasons that I can't comprehend and the changes seem to be designed with a future Firefox-Chrome merger in mind rather than with usability, stability or consistency in mind.

      PaleMoon awaits you. Firefox extensibility, none of the Asa Dotzler UX fuckery.

    49. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by rl117 · · Score: 1

      Going the opposite way around, I've got FreeBSD 10.0-STABLE running as a VMware guest without any problems. The only issue I noticed was that I should probably have gone with UFS rather than ZFS due to its memory usage, but it's working fine other than that.

    50. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by porksauce · · Score: 1

      I'm a die-hard fluxbox user. Every once in awhile I try the others to see if they've gotten any better, but so far I've always gone back. What I need is simply a customizable menu when you right-click on the desktop, a simple way to map keystrokes to actions like launching apps, changing brightness etc., and a system tray with icons for power, network, and volume. Fluxbox doesn't come with applets for the system tray, but you can use the XFCE, Gnome or other stand-alone applets, and pick and choose the ones you want. Fluxbox is less likely to be suitable for you "out of the box" but I'd say if you spend some time with it, it's more likely you can get it working exactly how you want and eliminate all sources of irritation. And once you're done tweaking it, keep your configs forever and it's not going to change out from under you, so it's time well spent in my opinion. It surprises me how much of GUI design is spent making sure a user's first hour using it is easy, not much on making sure it's efficient for long-term use.

      I don't use the panel so can't comment on that, but Fluxbox is also very modular, so you can use the panel that comes with it or use Tint2 or Cairo or whatever else you like in its place. I like that modular approach that the big desktops have gotten away from.

      I suspect a tiling wm like awm would be more efficient for me after some getting used to, but for now flux just works and I love it.

    51. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Excuse me to still keeping up the thread...In debian I have paravirtualization support for the disk I/O, and with (open) vmware tools, for the network card and memory balloning ( and I am not very fond of the vmware tools, open or not ). how is it the paravirtualization support for freebsd in vmware? I have heard there are some news in that front, at least in 10.1, but I have still to investigate it more.

    52. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I'm the same way. I used to love KDE - would compile it every night in the early 4x days. I still love it, it's just not necessary for me.

      These days, I pretty much use only use a browser, a terminal (for ssh), and a file manager so the desktop doesn't really matter to me.

    53. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      You do realize that D7 gives you a choice of desktop environments if you do the expert install?

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    54. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Everybody is pretending as if Microsoft didn't know that Metro sucks. Of course they know, they had the response from the betatests. But they did it anyway to push their appstore.

    55. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by rl117 · · Score: 1

      For the VM I have 10.0-RELEASE p9 with open-vmware-tools running (emulators/open-vm-tools-nox11 from ports). It's using the em and mpt net and disc drivers, but I think that's probably because VMware was not configured to use the paravirtualised drivers (they are available since they work with virtualbox with the paravirt devices configured). The vm-tools was definitely needed for ballooning or else you get hard lockups at some point, presumably when the host forcibly reclaims memory from the guest or something. With that, it's been solid for a couple of months as a jenkins CI node, and I'm sure with better configuration on the host side it would be even better.

    56. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      "they believe their untested/unvalidated opinions on GUI design are better simply because they're different"

      Huh. That seems like an unfounded assumption. Maybe they believe their untested/unvalidated opinions on GUI design are better for some other reason than simply because they're different. How have you excluded other possibilities?

    57. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1
      You're going to re-engineer your entire environment with a new distro because Debian changed the 'default' *back* to what it was 6 months ago? Why the hell would you create work for yourself? You know hating a project is one thing, but there is nothing in these install process that forces you to use GNOME.

      Anyways, it is your work environment. But this mentality is pretty crappy. Your work environment should not be used as some kind of political statement to GNOME or Debian.

    58. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      You are construing it as a political statement, not me; I do not care about politics, nor do they concern me at all, so the political part is your problem. I am concerned about more practical side which is to administer the servers at my responsibility *without* using systemd altogether - I do not use graphical interfaces, but it appears that after Jessie, there wont be alternatives. I have already used most of the flavours of Unix in the past you can think of in other jobs, and OpenBSD and FreeBSD in the past, and if it cames to that I will be prepared to do whatever it takes to not be affected by braindead decisions. So in the meanwhile, I will be testing FreeBSD for the next year.

    59. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I ysed Windowmaker for a long time. All I want is something that shows where the programs are. I use XFCE now. On that I use KDE programs, GNOME programs. XFCE programs. I run others as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    60. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNOME cannot have 2.x and 3.x on the same system; somehow they screwed the library versioning

      IIRC that was intentional since Gnome 3 design choices where hated even before its release and with the realistic threat of people not upgrading Gnome just forced it.

    61. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      I am concerned about more practical side which is to administer the servers at my responsibility *without* using systemd altogether - I do not use graphical interfaces, but it appears that after Jessie, there wont be alternatives.

      Have you actually tried using a distribution that has fully migrated to systemd? What exact problems did you run into that would prevent you from administering your servers? Did you notice that it specifically has features for servers? Did you notice any conveniences (e.g. 'systemctl status foo' showing you the last few log entries from foo)? Did you notice your crappy init scripts (as long as they had LSB headers) still worked?

      You also seem to imply that systemd requires a graphical interface ... which is quite false. My home server is running a distro with systemd, and there is no X server installed, and systemd doesn't pull in any X libraries. Sure, if requires dbus, but soon dbus will be in-kernel :-p.

    62. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      I have an (already) legacy systemd Suse server here which I am not particularly fond of, and one the last one that I still have to convert to Debian. Also I never talked about having a graphical interface, do not put words where they are not, but about dependency hell, which goes completely against my way of working.

    63. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you do have to configure VM by VM the paravirtualized disk controller, and vmxnet(3). Thank you a lot for the interesting discussion.

    64. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      well, Debian is taking that to the next level and adopting systemd which ignores serious sys admins and fucks up the whole system init thing

      Uh, the "serious sys admins" all installed systemd long before their distros adopted it. :) Or do you think that the people coding a new init and service manager from scratch were all folks who couldn't figure out how to write a bash script?

    65. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by fluffynuts · · Score: 1

      Because software is never finished. There's always an optimisation or a bug to fix or a feature which falls in line with the ethos of the project.

      No updates == no interest from the developers and that's a bad place to be in. I'd rather use software which is actively maintained (and has some issues) that something which is robust but stagnant.

      Change is the only constant.

    66. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that it was 1992, I imagine it was SLS (Soft Landing System) (and if it had X at all I can just about guarantee it). There weren't exactly many around yet (and wikipedia only knows of 5, one of which was Yggdrasil, and the others (MCC Interim, TAMU, and Boot-Root) appear to have had no support for X whatsoever).

      Personally, I didn't see what the big issue with Gnome 3 was...but then I never did much care for Gnome 2, or any other Desktop Environment for that matter. They all amount to more crap taking up my screen as far as I'm concerned...space I could fit more terminal tiles into. If I need to search for a file, that's what "find / -name " is for, and having a hotkey accessible text based dmenu with string based matching for any commands in $PATH works lovely. That anyone who sits down at my computer promptly goes "How do I do anything?" is just a perk (for when I forget to lock it).

    67. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you know? Unless you constantly add in new, not very heavily tested features, software loses its value! A system with stable and secure software is to be avoided at all costs!

      Gotta love that logic... If I didn't know any better, I'd say all of these major distributions are being managed by people with some stake in the security industry... These guys are keeping pentesters, researchers, and auditors very well fed.

    68. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      I do. And I tried quite a few of them before reaching the conclusion that I'd have to either change code or lower expectations on all my deployed systems that use D6.

    69. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Gnome really a upstream project for Cinnamon, as they have forked the code. Gnome seems to have concentrated on removing features and screwing up the remaining ones, so quite likely the changes from Gnome are not so welcome to Cinnamon side anymore:-)

    70. Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? by goarilla · · Score: 1

      I just wished XFCE had splitscreen/tiling like KDE/Windows.
      Dragging an application to the side and having it snap to the edge and resize to fit half of the screen.

    71. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      most people (even power users) really don't measure what they're spending time doing and get into unproductive patterns.

      Perhaps because for most people, shaving a half second here and there is meaningless. It's much better to have a UI that is understandable, intuitive, and comfortable than one that is technically as "efficient" as it could possibly be.

      The problem with GNOME was that they also didn't listen to usability experts.

      Given the utter crap that the UX crowd has been coming out with over the past few years, I'm not sure this is a problem.

    72. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I've been seriously looking at FreeBSD, but Slackware is also still in the running.

    73. Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Here too, used a lot of *BSDs in the past, heard package management is so much better nowadays.

  3. GNOME's accessibility is moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 3D acceleration is still broken in stock Mesa.

    1. Re:GNOME's accessibility is moot by thieh · · Score: 1

      Stock Mesa got good 3D acceleration? O_o I guess I should start playing my steam games with it then.

    2. Re:GNOME's accessibility is moot by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Debian stable is an outdated distro, except maybe for a few monthes in its lifecycle. So it is better to use on 10 to 15 year old PCs where it can excel at both grandma computing and PhD computing. Except that those old computers will have trouble running a 3D accelerated desktop. Really, that's a bad idea : it exposes you to driver crashes, hardware instability, overheating or things like 100% CPU use.
      So, use a recent computer? Fine, but if the graphics card or CPU with integrated graphics is too recent, then you're exposed to driver issues because the drivers are immature, incomplete or hardly working. So you'd better use latest Ubuntu or Linux Mint 17 or the upcoming Mint 17.1.

      Running a 2D desktop avoids those issues entirely. For solid 3D support, your computer has to be perfectly antiquated (graphics a bit old, but not too old) and your distro reasonably up to date. Feel free to flame me about how your Intel laptop has always worked or whatever, I speak in general terms and I know some particular stuff works better than some other stuff.

  4. Help me Slackware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're my only hope!

    1. Re:Help me Slackware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Much fear I sense in you...
      Help you we can. Install FreeBSD we must.

  5. No big deal by msobkow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Regardless of the distro, I install KDE and I'm good to go. The only thing I use the "default" GUI for is any tools that aren't portable.

    Gnome 3 sucks farts off dead chickens in August... :P

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:No big deal by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      One of the things I like a lot about NetBSD is that the 'default' GUI is the Tab Window Manager. The base install ISO for NetBSD-i386 is still only 321MB. You add what you want to using Pkgsrc. No croft, no unneeded shit.

    2. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're being unduly kind to Gnome 3 there.

    3. Re:No big deal by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with the BSDs is that they can't handle large ext4 partitions...which is where I have all my data. I'd considered switching to them (in a dual boot mode) but that limitation made it out of the question.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem I have with the BSDs is that they can't handle large ext4 partitions...which is where I have all my data. I'd considered switching to them (in a dual boot mode) but that limitation made it out of the question.

      Probably because UFS2 let BSD folks use up to 8-zettabytes for a filesystem (released in FreeBSD 5.0, in Jan 2003), years before Linux had ext4.

    5. Re:No big deal by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      So why not put your data on a more robust and higher performance file system? Even in Linux land, that's not ext4

    6. Re:No big deal by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Funny that I still have most of my data in ntfs. I've not tried it but I guess the BSDs would read/write it fine, if FUSE is working correctly.

    7. Re:No big deal by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That might be why the BSD folk don't use it, but that rather lets BSD out for my use. I need to share an existing large partition with a Linux install, because I'm not going to switch entirely to BSD without first trying it to see if it fits my use case. I didn't even do that when switching from MSWind to Linux back in 99.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:No big deal by msobkow · · Score: 1

      There must be a lot of overly sensitive Gnome developers here today. I crack wise about how I feel about Gnome 3, and that's "flamebait" because the poor nancy-boys can't handle the fact that their GUI *does* suck farts off dead chickens in August. And if you've ever smelt a rotting dead chicken in the August heat, you'd know just how vile and revolting that description is.

      And if you've ever tried to use Gnome 3, you know how accurate that description is.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've smelt a rotting dead chicken in the August heat. Given that it stays below 0C at my elevation in this part of the southern hemisphere it's still quite delicious.

    10. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No croft, no unneeded shit.

      Why would you want a small Scottish farm anyway?

    11. Re:No big deal by marsu_k · · Score: 1

      If it uses the same FUSE driver as Linux, yes, it would - and the performance would suck donkey balls.

    12. Re:No big deal by ruir · · Score: 1

      No need to "sensitive" gnome developers. People mod mostly by their opinion and not by the merit or contribution for the discussion. However it does help not to write one-liners, those are the first to be modded down.

    13. Re:No big deal by ruir · · Score: 1

      I second this. I already knew it, but recently had to setup up some sharing at the last minute in a very controlled network. Went with FUSE, and man, saying FUSE is slow is an understatement. But then, it works in user land, and it does not help going back and forth between user land and kernel land.

    14. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are fags and feminists.
      They use your contributed dollars to pay female diversity managers for adding more women to tech.

      They need to be sued or worse.

    15. Re:No big deal by koinu · · Score: 1

      What's the problem with trying a BSD without sharing files from a different operating system?

      You are thinking too complicated, in my opinion.

    16. Re:No big deal by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There's no way I'm going to move all at once. None. For a time I'll run both systems in parallel. (Yes, I would *also* first run the BSD system isolated from my other work...but that's not a real test, that just makes sure that it won't break something.)

      My current system uses ext4 on a large partition, so any system I contemplate switching to must be able to read and write file to a large ext4 partition without problems. If everything works, then I'll consider moving over to a replacement system, and THEN I could consider switching to a different partition format.

      N.B.: I don't have a lot of spare hardware. Or space to set any more up. Or, for that matter, budget.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:No big deal by rl117 · · Score: 1

      My solution to this was to get a small HP N40L microserver and put all my data on it (I moved the disks over). My main machine can then boot as many systems as I want and they can all just use NFS/CIFS mounts from the server. This works around the need for a shared filesystem between all the systems. This doesn't require any particularly powerful hardware to accomplish, so shouldn't need to cost much money or space if you have a second system you can repurpose.

      I can now multiboot Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, FreeBSD, Gentoo and Windows without needing to worry about my data, and adding or removing additional systems isn't a problem.

      Another alternative here would be to use virtualisation and use the storage from the host in each guest, but that might mean compromising on stuff like graphics in the guests.

  6. Full stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are the major distros that people use for servers choosing to switch to gnome3 and systemd? Gnome3 I can understand, but there are some enterprise software that require RHEL then also require a GUI for configuration or installation and ssh -Y doesn't always cut it. It would be nicer to have xfce as default. But systemd for server distros is unconscionable.

    1. Re:Full stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why are the major distros that people use for servers choosing to switch
      > to gnome3 and systemd?

      as best as I can tell, something akin to regulator capture by Red Hat in the technical committees.

    2. Re:Full stupid by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The way I read it, Systemd is mainly a hail mary from the gnome cabal to try to jumpstart a stalled heart. The words "walking dead" come to mind.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Full stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The way I read it, Systemd is mainly a hail mary from the gnome cabal to try to jumpstart a stalled heart.

      You mean, they think they're going to ride systemd's dick back into our hearts? That would truly be a first-class delusion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Full stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ. It couldn't be about some nerds just wanting to scratch and itch, could it?

      No, it's got to be some grand elaborate conspiracy to achieve some other sinister goal in as round-about way as possible.

    5. Re:Full stupid by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ...It couldn't be about some nerds just wanting to scratch and itch, could it?

      No, not in this case.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  7. words? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

    I've been a long time slashdot user, but there are many words people syaing that idont u nderstand. systemd??? what is system??

    1. Re:words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interesting trollbot you have there. It'd be a shame if somebody replaced its init with systemd.

    2. Re:words? by ls671 · · Score: 2

      It is a french expression, systemd means "système débrouillardise".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:words? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      .. which would be more congruent with a series of anarchical low tech hacks on top of hacks hanging together with strings. So "Système D" would describe the old inits, whereas "systemd" is a big top down and corporate project.

      The name "systemd" has arrogance and octopus-like conquest buit-in : the letter "d" classically means a daemon (e.g. sshd is a SSH deamon, in other terms a SSH server) and "system", well that's the "S" in "OS".
      So it's the daemon that takes over most all administration of your OS.

      And presumably it's very good at what it's doing, but pisses off all those that rather use lots of small tools instead, or the situation is frowned upon for political reasons.

    4. Re:words? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      well I'll be darned I thought you were trolling me.

    5. Re:words? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of a search engine?

    6. Re:words? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      like what

    7. Re:words? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Nope, I wasn't. Then again, If you think of it, the whole concept is close to the hacking concept.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  8. Systemd integration counted as a positive thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why on earth would you do that?

  9. boo hiss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Monumentally Bad move Batman. The greater DD voters need to reclaim the committee and get back to core business.

    Kill this thing dead now.

  10. Why not XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a beautiful desktop environment and very functional. Oh well. I see. Systemd. Yeah yeah. Ok debian, it's good bye. It has been a really nice ride, thank you very much for all the wonderful years of providing me with a stable and no-nonsense linux distro!

    1. Re:Why not XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      XFCE is problematic. It's lacking developer resources and the last stable release is from 2 years ago. Its compositor is based on XRender (not OpenGL) and causes tearing. There are also no desktop effects.

    2. Re:Why not XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fled to XFCE because I was affected by the Compiz white-window bug.

    3. Re:Why not XFCE by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are also no desktop effects.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. Desktop effects are the second thing I turn off in a new install, the first being those fscking bongos.

    4. Re:Why not XFCE by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Stuff that's designed well doesn't need many updates. I still use XFCE and it works fine. I chose it specifically because it LACKS desktop effects. Thank god. If it's tearing, turn on vsync. If that doesn't work, your drivers are broken. Or do what I do, and turn off the compositor. Problem solved.

    5. Re:Why not XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its compositor is based on XRender (not OpenGL) and causes tearing.

      Which is why it's disabled by default in 4.10 and 4.11-git has a new compositor.
      Feel free to use compton or any other standards compliant compositor in the meantime.

      There are also no desktop effects.

      ... that's generally considered a feature.
      If you can't live without your wobbly translucent windows and spinning cube workspace switcher, xfce happily works with compiz instead of xfwm as the window manager.

    6. Re:Why not XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish my distro played the bongos while it checks the filesystem. Waiting for fsck is boring. :-(

    7. Re:Why not XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XRender (not OpenGL) and causes tearing. There are also no desktop effects.

      As a dev using OpenGL myself and from time to time using virtual box that is double plus good.

      First some Linux drivers still suck at handling more than one active OpenGL context, some just get corrupted graphics, others crash, sometimes you get nothing. The pain I went through to get a program to run on a recent vbox version just showed me that sometimes less OpenGL (for the window manager) is more (for my applications) . Nvidia generally works for desktop, AMD/ATI had small problems when I last checked (2?) years ago, Intel drivers can get upset with your threading model (may have been fixed by now) and as mentioned the vbox driver may have serious problems with more than one active OpenGL context on the whole system (afaik it is still marked as experimental).

      Also desktop effects just suck the life out of your GPU, both by causing general slow down and visible jitter. Writing simulation software we have to tell our customers repeatedly to disable these - you can have either a smooth experience or unnecessary 3D accelerated eye candy - both generally does not work (note: these problems may be blown out of proportion to you, most software doesn't have to render with specified real time requirements). That said we generally use KDE and recommend it to our customers since configuring and disabling all effects is easy enough.

  11. I like KDE too by supermaltese · · Score: 1

    The Gnome desktop would be my last choice.

  12. So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thing? by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

    Systemd is the main reason NOT to use gnome, another reason is that it sucked long before the other *DEs started sucking.
    Seems to me like a good reason not to use Debian, if they won't cater for power users.

  13. Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by SlashdotOgre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used GNOME as my primary desktop environment for almost a decade starting with 2.4 on Fedora Core 1. I watched as many features I cared for were either hidden or removed for simplicity's sake, but I kept with it because for the most part I could restore the features with minimal hassle and I liked the overall look & feel. I even put up with early GNOME 3 as I felt 3.4 & 3.6 were progressively improving. However by 3.8 I was getting fed up of having to constantly figure out how to restore features I want, and I had absolutely no interest in running systemd just to run a damn GUI. I had enough, jumped to XFCE4 and have it customized to a very similar setup to GNOME 2 and have been very satisfied.

    It takes a lot to alienate someone who has used the same software for a decade, but they've managed to it. I felt like each released "dumbed" the product down more and more and I kept thinking to myself that old saying, "If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot". I don't know what kind of consumer they want to attract, but apparently I'm no longer it.

    At least with Debian, the default desktop doesn't necessarily mean much as it's quite simple to install an alternative.

    --
    Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
    1. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > It takes a lot to alienate someone who has used the same software for a decade

      No, it really doesn't. If you're been doing things a certain way for a decade, you'll bitch over any type of change because, by 10 years, there's most likely a decent chunk of dedicated neurons about the matter.

    2. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by caseih · · Score: 1

      Funny, your comment about leaving Gnome 3 speaks nothing at all about systemd. I can certainly understand your dislike of Gnome 3. I also share it, and use the Mate desktop.

      Again, though, what does any of this has to do with systemd? Can you state your specific problems with it (I mean actual problems, not hypothetical, philosophical ones)? Many folks are running distros using systemd under the hood, using a variety of desktop interfaces (Gnome, KDE, Mate, XFCE, etc) for a couple of years now. Seems to do the job, and my first experience setting up a daemon service using systemd was way more pleasant and simpler than under sysv init.

    3. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left Gnome when they insisted on making the volume controls vertical instead of horizontal (like everyone else).
      Which wouldn't have been such a big deal if that also didn't reverse the scroll wheel direction you had to use to change the volume.
      If you're out to annoy your users, don't be surprised when you're out of users shortly...

    4. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does freedom of choice count as an actual problem?

      I like BSD-style init scripts, and I have no problems sys-V style. It used to be that Linux was all about freedom of choice. Everything had several options to choose from, from init systems to window managers.

      Soon, the best we can do will be the choice between Linux, BSD and Windows. For me, Windows (7) is above systemd on that list. And now that we finally have Steam on Linux, I have quickly ended up with a rather large collection of games that I have paid for. As far as I know, that rules out BSD, which will soon leave me with Windows.

      So all there is left to do, is hoping that Windows 9 will be as good as 7.

    5. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      I left Gnome when they insisted on making the volume controls vertical instead of horizontal (like everyone else).
      Which wouldn't have been such a big deal if that also didn't reverse the scroll wheel direction you had to use to change the volume.
      If you're out to annoy your users, don't be surprised when you're out of users shortly...

      Odd.

      If I move the mouse over the little loudspeaker icon I scroll down to reduce the volume, scroll up to increase the volume.

      If I click on the icon I see a horizontal slider for the volume.

      Aha, but you're right - in gnome control center the scroll wheel works backwards.

      Time for a bug report.

      Ah, no need.

      https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=703046

      https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710231

    6. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      horizontal instead of vertical, I meant.

    7. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will not sacrifice my Desktop. We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They added weird jesters with no user ques and we fall back. They remove or hide entire features we use to like, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And *I* will make them pay for what they've done!

    8. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I misspoke, and meant they made the sliders horizontal instead of vertical.
      When you clicked on the speaker icon, the scrolling on that horizontal slider suddenly worked opposite from before (when it was vertical). They reverted it in a later version, then broke it again...
      They probably fixed it by now, this was a few years back.
      It was just one of many examples where they made the user experience worse by "improving" things for no apparent reason.

    9. Re:Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they've caught up to Microsoft.

  14. Re:So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thin by LesFerg · · Score: 1

    I think "power users" know that they don't have to go with the default DE when installing Debian, and they probably also know that they can install most any DE they wish.

    --
    If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  15. Cinnamon by DivineKnight · · Score: 3, Informative

    Come, join us, Cinnamon is what you want.

    1. Re:Cinnamon by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      You are still using GNOME, just not the desktop bit.

    2. Re:Cinnamon by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Wrong, Cinnamon uses the GTK+, a library.

    3. Re:Cinnamon by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      No, it uses all of GNOME's stack except for the shell. They originally forked gnome-shell and modified that and other parts of the GNOME stack. Now I think they have their own UI not based on GNOME shell. But the rest is still there. You can't create an entire DE with just GTK+. Even if it is just GTK+ it is still supported by the GNOME project since all the maintainers are all GNOME folks.

    4. Re:Cinnamon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the shell is the reason I left GNOME.

    5. Re:Cinnamon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cinnamon sucks balls

  16. A special kind of stupid... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 2

    Running Debian Jessie (testing) right now, and KDE is the ONLY way to go... At least the default XFCE was not too bad, but I always prefer KDE over pretty much ANY other DE, but going to that piece of shit Gnome is a special kind of stupid... The only DE worse than Gnome is Unity or Windows 8.... What with all the crap software that many distros are trying to shove down our throats (like systemd and Gnome), I'm beginning to think its back to my Linux roots, namely Slackware... Cut my teeth on that distro back in 1994... Glad its still around and hopefully not going down the shithole like everybody else in the Linux world...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    1. Re:A special kind of stupid... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Here's a tip: when you're installing your system, don't pick the default DE and choose anything else. No one is going to force you to use gnome.

    2. Re:A special kind of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] Slackware... Cut my teeth on that distro back in 1994... Glad its still around and hopefully not going down the shithole like everybody else in the Linux world...

      It brings relief to me to know that distros like Slackware are around to avoid jumping on bandwagons.
      We have donated to them (and other projects) in the past, for this very reason.

    3. Re:A special kind of stupid... by ruir · · Score: 1

      Better yet, text mode into servers...and sadly I am not joking. First thing I did when took over the sysadmin role here, was uninstalling graphical interfaces and software, from all servers.

    4. Re:A special kind of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the Debian suddenly pushes the Gnome to existing XFCE-only installs on system upgrade. It did that once, and it took a good while of cleaning up the additional crap it brought with it (pulseaudio, network manager, etc..). I bet the Debian is now forced to switch to Gnome, since the XFCE has been breaking bit by bit on each time systemd assimilates more of the Debian. For example, it is not funny to find out that today the power button does immediate shutdown instead of asking by dialog, would I want to hibernate or suspend instead. The management who voted for systemd do not have the balls to admit, that the systemd is actually now in charge of their distribution.

    5. Re:A special kind of stupid... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      One would assume you would only install a desktop environment on a desktop machine.

    6. Re:A special kind of stupid... by ruir · · Score: 1

      One would assume someone supposedly seasoned into Linux administration would be smart enough to not install a desktop configuration with all the corresponding shit, 20GB of it, on a server I agree. And to know the difference between a kernel compiled for desktop or for server, I agree. And iptables rules for desktop or for server. And trimming down booted services. And doing periodical updates. Need I say more?

  17. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Because random init scripts sucks, and every modern linux user (like the devs of these distros) knows that. All you grouchy gray beards with fossilized minds are the only ones complaining.

  18. CoreOS by thule · · Score: 1

    CoreOS uses systemd. RedHat has nothing to do with CoreOS. CoreOS makes use of systemd via a program called 'fleet'. The program manages a cluster of containers. Pretty cool stuff. Fleet is not the only program to do this. RedHat created geard that also uses systemd for container management. Systemd is actually pretty useful in a server.

    1. Re:CoreOS by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Red Hat has been dead to me for years now, so I don't care what they do. However... why, Debian, are you requiring this systemd bullshit? I used to love you, but you've changed.

  19. Re:So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thin by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

    But will the system be systemd-free in the future?

  20. Enlightenment by jtotheh · · Score: 1

    enlightenment.org. Best desktop.

    1. Re: Enlightenment by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's definitely one of the cleanest. It needs a rewrite, though.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re: Enlightenment by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Please not another rewrite! 1.6 to 1.7 took 12 years!!!

      It did not help that instead of using other common libraries they had implemented their own from scratch (EFL).

      What E needs is to work on stability: It is the only desktop environment that crashes. Sure it is very fast and seamless at restarting right away, but it shouldn't crash in the first place!

    3. Re: Enlightenment by pokoteng · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you're talking about; ever since shortly after it's been marked stable, it has been rock solid. Perhaps you're recalling from the 0.16.999+??? days when it was sort of e17 but not really?

      --
      the game
    4. Re: Enlightenment by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nice joke but most readers wouldn't get it.

    5. Re: Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were just trying to polish the reboot speed. systemd has been taking notes.

    6. Re: Enlightenment by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I run Cinnamon on a cheap HP laptop, and an emachines desktop.Now and then (mostly when I'm in the middle of something long and tedious that I haven't saved) Cinnamon locks up and I have to logout then in.

      Both run Ubuntu or openSUSE like ringin' a bell.

  21. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by armanox · · Score: 2

    You mean the people that are the reason Linux lives in the enterprise and on so many servers, and are the ones who can kill its presence there too.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  22. Debian GNOME needs some attention by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After something like 20 years I finally found a system that won't run Debian unstable right now. My Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1 magnesium tablet + iKey Jumpseat magnesium keyboard. Systemd and GDM break. Bought (for less than full price) because I am a frequent traveler and speaker and really do need something you can drop from 6 feet and pour coffee over have it keep working.

    But because of this bug I have ubuntu at the moment, and am not having fun and am eager to return to Debian.

    1. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      It took me a few weeks to get used to Unity on Ubuntu. It's quite second nature now.

    2. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      omg, there's a bug in an unstable release?

    3. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I also find the user experience of Unity to be quite comfortable. And it does not constantly reinvent itself, so things are found from same places, version after version. As a bonus, in the midst of the flat and bland look of new desktops, Unity still looks cool.

    4. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I find Unity to be diseased crap, for people who think Windows 8.x UI is wonderful also. It impedes workflow for those who work with multiple applications, it tries to turn the desktop into a cell phone, badly.

    5. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      This is right. It feels unnatural, and fucks up my entire flow. It induces the same feeling you get when you use Windows 8, only much more intense. It makes me uncomfortable and I don't care how shiny/user-friendly it is or why or why not.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    6. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by smellotron · · Score: 1

      I am a frequent traveler and speaker and really do need something you can drop from 6 feet and pour coffee over have it keep working.

      I know you're a normal person, but when I read that I imagined a huge fucking guy fumbling his tablet from shoulder-height, getting mad as hell, and throwing his coffee after the poor thing.

    7. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      There is a video of someone throwing around my model, without the keyboard, here.

    8. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was that? GDM was recently broken in sid for several days due to the gnome 3.12 -> 3.14 transition.
      Also, what's the bug#?

    9. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      After something like 20 years I finally found a system that won't run Debian unstable right now. My Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1 magnesium tablet + iKey Jumpseat magnesium keyboard. Systemd and GDM break. Bought (for less than full price) because I am a frequent traveler and speaker and really do need something you can drop from 6 feet and pour coffee over have it keep working.

      Why do you run unstable on something that you absolutely need working? You should run stable, or at least testing.

    10. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      Uhm, you're talking about a tablet, so a slightly border-line system for Debian, even if from the specs it seems more like a laptop with no keyboard, not sure why they call it a tablet...

    11. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by ruir · · Score: 1

      It would be better if it were a bug. Braindead design decisions.

    12. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      I am not speaking for the OC, but I have need of software which will not run on the glibc in stable. For example Scrivener, which still has no viable competitor.

    13. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But because of this bug I have ubuntu at the moment, and am not having fun and am eager to return to Debian.

      What's wrong with ubuntu that causes you to not have fun day-to-day. I, personally cannot get to like Unity, but it's not hard to install another DE. I also used to find it compex to configure relative to Arch, but then Arch got systemD and I'm not nearly as familiarwith that as the old RC scripts, so it's a bit of a wash now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mate's lead developer, Martin Wimpress, has an excellent set of instructions on how to do a clean install of Ubuntu 14.04 (long term support) with Mate on top. Start with an Ubuntu net install, select none of the optional components, add the Mate PPAs, install Mate, and you are on your way. You get the underpinnings of Debian, the updated bits from Ubuntu, and a very usable desktop environment.

      https://ubuntu-mate.org/blog/2014-08-ubuntu-mate-14-04-from-scratch/

      Highly recommended.

    15. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Odd. Sturdy laptop with unstable OS... You must be new to Linux =)

    16. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      The Toughpad has a touchscreen and a pen (with a separate digitizer!) and the touchscreen doesn't work properly in the older GNOME in stable.

    17. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Because it has a touchscreen and a separate pen digitizer on the same screen. And now with the keyboard, it also has a Cirque touchpad, for a total of three digitizers.

    18. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Well, a Core i5 tablet with two parallel screen digitizers is an odd enough bird that you can't expect it to run on the somewhat aged Debian stable. And indeed the older GNOME there handles the touchscreen incorrectly.

    19. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I last tried a Debian install around the time of Dayton Hamvention, so a few months ago. I don't have a bug #, I tried to debug GDM for a while but didn't have enough time. I can try another install sometime soon.

    20. Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I see. Well, all I can suggest if you absolutely want to run Debian GNU/Linux is that you try the testing branch. Either that or wait until you have something that works on it. It takes time for stable to stabilize, that's both a godsend and a curse.

  23. I'm switching off Debian. by jd · · Score: 0

    Linux-From-Scratch is easier to use, less user-hostile and less determined to tell me how to think.

    ANY software that pretends to know better than me how I want things done is software that deserves to burn. And then sink into the swamp. It is that precise attitude that got me to kick the Windows habit and led me away from the early ix86 BSDs.

    I not only think better than a mere machine, I think better than your average distro compiler. I can spec better, I can build better, I can test better. Debian had, up till now, been acceptable, the packages are convenient and it's no great pain to tune. Now, Debian ranks lower than Fedora. I'd recommend the MCC distribution before either and that was last updated during the Ice Age.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:I'm switching off Debian. by ruir · · Score: 1

      Linux-From-Scratch is a heck of work.

  24. Why not KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my mother is a noob and she loves gnome-shell

  25. can't we all just get along (TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like Gnome 3 more than Unity. Really nice on my big screen TV.

    Then again, I like Windows 8 too. And KDE. And XFCE. And Blackbox. And OS X. The anti-new-user interface crowd is astonishing.

    1. Re:can't we all just get along (TM) by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Newer is not automatically better either. If you 'like' everything, perhaps the real reason is that you're not a complex user.

  26. I can understand the Accessibility concerns, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...the screwed up systemd (which has things that are debatable at best for something that should be deemed "mission critical" for the OS and should either gracefully recover or not fail at all- instead of the shrug your shoulders and say "best effort" and lose info like logs...)- that...that should be jettisoned and started over. The **ONLY** reason it's even got legs right now is that Red Hat's doing a Microsoft and jamming it down everyone's throat. Now...if you decoupled it so that it wasn't this monolithic homesick abortion of a one-size-fits-all solution and made it a series of services, which don't have opaque binary formats for anything- you'd have a win. It's main functionality is needed- the execution...SUCKS.

    Lest anyone thinks I was one of the naysayers until recently...I changed sides when I saw one of their bugs wherein the log could get corrupted because of a collision, etc. and quite simply lost content out of box- and they say basically "oh, well...not fixing it...". NOT something you want to say with something crucial like system logging. Sorry, like I said...we need something LIKE it- just not the current execution, because it's based off of code written and designs done up by people that have absolutely no business developing a core function like this on something as important as Linux distributions. You have to design and write the code as if someone's life depends on it- and not have any "oh, well" attitudes ANYWHERE In the mix.

  27. Re: Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of System by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Software that is designed correctly separates out what it does, how it does it, and how it interacts with the outside world.

    Ergo, software that is correctly designed is user-agnostic. If the user thinks in a particular way, whatever that way happens to be, it is the job of the software to accommodate that. If it does not, it is not software for users, it is software that has users. Possession is everything.

    Software that is correctly designed is configuration-agnostic. If the configuration file states something is enabled, then that is enabled. It is not the job of the software to say the file really means something else. If the configuration is broken, state how and why. Clearly. If the configuration is old, import and update. But don't tell me, or anyone else, what Joe Bloggs thinks would look better. I don't care. And the more other people's preferences get shoved in my face, the less I will care.

    Theo clearly has the right idea - the only way to get past the morons is with an attitude of utter contempt. Bugger all else matters, apparently.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  28. Re: So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thi by jd · · Score: 1

    Doesn't matter. It's not tested or validated for every possibility. Hell, given how easily I can break Debian, I wonder if it's tested at all these days. There is no point in using unvalidated setups with a distro, if you're at that point then you should roll your own.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  29. How many of you are still using Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Heh...same here. I moved to XFCE4 due to both GNOME and Ubuntu having their heads up their collective asses. I left KDE for the same reasons in the 2.x series.

    (Hint for all the GUI devs doing stuff on Linux: You don't know "better" than the users. Things like "shared ontologies" and other rubbish is a bunch of garbage posing as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Be "different" but do try to figure out what "different" is and realize that hosing up the I/O subsystem so you can do idiot things like Nepomuk (that most people cripple out on their distributions VERY quickly because of the periodic performance hit because your "shared ontologies" system is trawling the disk and hammering the system while it's doing it. You had it right numerous versions ago. My only hope is that Enlightenment takes off and they don't screw it up or that LXDE or XFCE keeps going forward well right at the moment- because GNOME, KDE, and Unity AREN'T IT.)

  30. Re: Systemd integration counted as a positive thin by jd · · Score: 1

    Go back to Windows. If you can't cope with people wanting to choose how to run their system, you don't deserve software that's all about choice. If insults are the best reason you have for living, do everyone a favour.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  31. What happened to Debian? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have heard they are being strong-armed by Canonical. Canonical makes donations to Debian, that puts Canonical in a position to influence Debian.

    Everybody knows that Gnome3 and Systemd suck. But the leading Linux distros are forcing that unwanted crap on users in a very Microsoft sort of way.

    I am not that surprised by Red Hat, or Canonical, but I am disappointed in Debian.

    1. Re:What happened to Debian? by pepa65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you got that backwards. Canonical started using systemd because Debian picked it. Also, Canonical doesn't do Gnome3 shell on their main offering, so how do you see any strongarming in this decision?

    2. Re:What happened to Debian? by devphaeton · · Score: 0

      I have heard they are being strong-armed by Canonical. Canonical makes donations to Debian, that puts Canonical in a position to influence Debian.

      Everybody knows that Gnome3 and Systemd suck. But the leading Linux distros are forcing that unwanted crap on users in a very Microsoft sort of way.

      I am not that surprised by Red Hat, or Canonical, but I am disappointed in Debian.

      I had wondered this too. I felt that the rapid adoption of systemd was very un-Debianlike. Not only because I would have never expected Debian to accept systemd based on technical merits, but also the incredible speed at which it happened. We all know how lonnnng it takes for Debian to even make decisions about changing things in the stable branch. Hell, there's a series of long-running jokes about it. But for the Debian team to just suddenly jump up and say "Yep, we're going with SystemD. End of discussion." seemed incredibly fishy to me.

      Getting bullied by Canonical makes loads of sense, but I don't like it one bit.

      --


      do() || do_not(); // try();
    3. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canonical didn't have anything to do with it. First off, the amount money they give to BOTH GNOME and Debian hasn't done squat to get any favoritism from either organizations. Secondly, if you really want the skinny on what's gone on with Debian, you should investigate the collusion between GNOME foundation members and GNOME developers with the responsible Debian developers working on GNOME and systemd. Also, investigate the under-the-table incentives being given out by the company that has the most to gain by establishing a hegemony over the Linux ecosphere. Debian is signing their own death warrant as well as any distributions downstream from them. Why on earth do think Canonical is rewriting its Unity interface in QT?

    4. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint for you, Unity is based off of the GNOME 3 core- the core's where the tie-ins to systemd are, not the shell... However, it's not Ubuntu or Debian that're not strong-arming the decision. There's another distribution vendor that's BANKROLLING the development of systemd (which started out as a good solution, and it's apparently not got *ANY* oversight that would've reined in the lurching horror feature-creep beast that it's become...) that's basically doing that.

    5. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jeezus, Canonical didn't want to Debian to adopt systemd, they wanted to them to go with Upstart you idiot.

    6. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian used systemd before ubuntu...

    7. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I felt that the rapid adoption of systemd was very un-Debianlike.

      "For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer." - The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli

    8. Re:What happened to Debian? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      The next version of Unity will use QT. There is no influence.

    9. Re:What happened to Debian? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Please tell us, oh Anonymous Coward what you revealed in your investigations?

    10. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what I'm referring to, mr. gnome foundation member.

    11. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth do think Canonical is rewriting its Unity interface in QT?

      Because QT isn't a complete piece of shit like GTK+.

    12. Re:What happened to Debian? by styrotech · · Score: 5, Informative

      Getting bullied by Canonical makes loads of sense, but I don't like it one bit.

      You need to look into it deeper. It didn't happen that way at all.

      Canonical wanted Debian to pick upstart (naturally as it was their software). Once Debian chose systemd though and with RHEL already switching away from upstart to systemd, Canonical felt that being left as the only distro still using upstart wasn't tenable any more. Staying aligned with Debian was more important than getting what they wanted.

    13. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unity will never use QuickTime.

    14. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your grammar stinks.

    15. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coup is what happened. And it happened 4 years ago.
      "Social" concerns came in (debian-women), technical men were kicked the fuck out (for not being nice enough).
      Then the door was garded by the cunt feminists who now vet any new "debian developers" (no mysoginy!).

      Gnome are the people who illegally and in bad faith spent your contributions on paying for female diversity managers and to get more women in tech.
      These people are feminists.

      They took over what was ours.

      In debian more recently, a systemd fan registered the lack of systemd as default as a "technical bug", so that the issue would be decided
      by an 8 man technical committie rather than by General Resolution. 4 of the committie members were current or former redhat employees, one of them
      being the tie breaker chair. The other four were present or former canonical employees. See how this thing is?

      No true debian people.

      Anyone who complained too much was banned from the mailing list.
      They keep talking about a do-acracy and shut the fuck up users and actual programmers who use the distro.
      Even though their charter says it's all for the benifit of the user.

    16. Re:What happened to Debian? by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

      Except that isn't close to what happened.

      Tech sites like slashdot covered the systemd/upstart drama for weeks as it was being pushed through the technical committee. They had a lengthy investigation, multiple rounds of voting, a member of the committee had a temper-tantrum, tried to vote the committee's chairman out. The whole systemd/upstart was a huge shit show that even people who don't use Debian (like) watched if only for it's entertainment value. Hell the conspiracy at the time was that Canonical was using the fact that 3 members of the committee were former employees to create a voting block and push upstart through the system.

      In the end it came to a tie and the committee chairman had to cast the deciding vote.

    17. Re:What happened to Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty soon the Unity will be rewritten using Silverlight, as it is the last major part of Windows that has not been yet cloned into Linux. We already have registry, binary log files, central repository for core dumps and user interface made for dummies.

  32. Re:So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If things go similarly as they did on Archlinux, removing systemd will take a lot of work. Systemd works like a virus, and it has infected dozens of packages already. Many packages that depend on systemd actually work fine even if you don't run it, so a compromise is to keep systemd installed so things continue working and use something less horrible for init.

  33. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go back in time 5 years and tell everyone Linux would be using binary log files, watch the fireworks. Systemd is from the same people who brought you the sometimes working Pulseaudio system. If init scripts did suck so badly then why were they in use for decades? Why was a replacement this long in the making?

    Next you guys are going to be talking about this great binary system for config files like the guys in Redmond use.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  34. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Scripts break easily and are slow to execute.

  35. gnome 3. blah blah by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 0

    I could not use gnome 3. blah blah as a desktop it was trying to be a mobile phone, and my computer was too big to put it to my ear. Besides I did not want a mobile phone I wanted a desktop so I stayed with Debian 6.0 the gnome desktop is still usable with that version. My big Homebase workstation still runs OpenSuSe with KDE, a customised version. I use two different languages every time it automatically updates KDE, with updates and security fixes I always feel nervous! In case it fucks things up. I cannot use the default KDE because of the misty looking desktop the edges are misty and it fools my eyes into believing they are out of focus it makes me suffer chronic migraines. So I switch off the blurred edges and KDE desktop effects. Long story short I multitask at a very fast speed which makes some people laugh watching me. I use KDE a customised version I cannot use the new mobile phone lookalike gnome desktop I just cannot work with it, it makes me furious it makes me want to put my fist through the monitor. I throw a tantrum and call the people who have turned it into a mobile phone all sorts of names. I hate it and I cannot have it as a desktop it simply doesn't function as a computer desktop.. it is simply impersonating a mobile phone interface. Look just leave the desktops alone do something useful go and work for a mobile phone company. My English is not good today been speaking another language it takes time to switch back.

    1. Re: gnome 3. blah blah by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Amen. Unity, GNOME3, Windows 8.x UI, those are all idental symptoms of same diseased thinking.

    2. Re: gnome 3. blah blah by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "My English is not good today been speaking another language it takes time to switch back." - its fine. better than a lot of the posters whose first language is English

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  36. I thought Gnome was the default desktop already? by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    I haven't included the "desktop system" or whatever dselect offers you in a Debian install since probably the turn of the century. I usually just install the minimum base system and apt-get the stuff I want, which resulted in wmaker up till about 2002, and XFCE since. I'm not saying this to sound l33t or anything, but I remember doing it this way all along to avoid installing Gnome.

    What was Debian's default desktop before now?

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  37. Horses for courses by Trogre · · Score: 1

    It's times like this that I'm glad that I use Debian exclusively for headless servers that never see a GUI.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Horses for courses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      systemd is dependent on some gnome tech and vice versa. You'll get gui components installed whether you like it or not.

    2. Re:Horses for courses by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is why a certain navel gazing tard with no engineering sense or real world experience, with a long and tragic history of failures and of fucking up GNU/Linux, decided the headless server realm needed a good fucking up too, and so he wrote systemd

    3. Re:Horses for courses by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      That is certainly not the case. Please be more vague.

    4. Re:Horses for courses by ruir · · Score: 1

      Will I? I am quite considering migrating to slackware or freebsd, and I am talking about almost 100 servers.

    5. Re:Horses for courses by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      systemd is not all dependent on Gnome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    6. Re:Horses for courses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, now that's some vitriol. I wonder who he's talking about. TELL ME OH GREAT WIKI. Letsseeeee....systemd.. three original authors with links... the first is...

      Lennart Poettering... who... wait, he also wrote PulseAudio!?

      BURN THIS MONSTER TO THE GROUND, SALT THE EARTH WHERE HIS ASHES LAND THAT NOTHING MAY EVER ARISE FROM THEM!

    7. Re:Horses for courses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does his crap get pushed so much? Is he performing sexual favours for Linux distro maintainers?

    8. Re:Horses for courses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess it's because Gnome needs it and every distro 'needs' Gnome. It's a kind of checkbox-compliant thinking from the distros. They're afraid they'll lose users if they have an 'outdated' version of Gnome or no Gnome at all.

      Everyone is fixated on having either Gnome or KDE even though there are plenty of good alternatives and even options that don't try to pose as a full Desktop Environment. (I use a plain window manager and there's nothing I miss...)

  38. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by armanox · · Score: 2

    Scripts are understood, easy to search and edit, debug and maintain. Systemd adds a layer of complexity that's not wanted. Journald means extra work as well, that nobody asked for.

        Execution speed? Not relevant.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  39. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was XFCE.

  40. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    And good lord have you ever heard of mySQL? I hear thats binary too!

    PST, its all binary.

  41. How long... by pgd7sen · · Score: 0

    ...will you Linux phanbois continue to argue over which desktop is superior? I've used several flavors of 'nix since before there was a desktop manager. And like almost EVERYTHING ELSE in the whole wide world (the original WWW), what works for one might not work for someone else. This is obvious if you'll pay attention to the fact that it's only since 2012 that Debian moved away from GNOME. Yet here they are, back again. I realize that it's been almost three whole years and that's like half of some of your lifetimes. But gimme a break. Besides it's not like you couldn't use GNOME with Debian if you desire. And if you're that much of a purist why the hell are you using a GUI anyway? Dig up that green screen (actually I prefer amber) and get crackin'! Why not nut up and be strong enough to accept the idea that there are several varieties of desktop manager for a reason; different strokes for different folks.

    1. Re:How long... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      While it's not really what the discussion is about, I think I would really like an amber OLED screen (moreso on a mobile device, maybe). It would be high res, readable, cheap, low power and durable. You wouldn't even have to think about color accuracy when cranking the brightness down or up.
      For a computer phone, you could even have a low latency monochrome touch screen. That's original, isn't it?
      Thick high quality keys on a solid state ultraportable laptop (with Cortex A7 or 4-watt x86) whose main body has to be thick enough for a RJ45 anyway. (even a COM port : let's pretend it's to set up "IoT" devices)

      So many things are possible but don't get made.

    2. Re:How long... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I want that in a 6 inch format, 40 keys, Fn and Fm modifiers for overloading the keyboard to 120 inputs without taking up much space, and all the battery that it can take!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  42. kind of irrelevant by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    i don't think anyone runs debian as a desktop friendly distribution. In my case, i have a small server on it, and installed a GUI not for me, but for everyone else that may use it and get lost without a GUI. I chose XFCE.

    1. Re:kind of irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know plenty of Debian users have been using it for a desktop since before KDE or Gnome even existed, right? wmaker for the win.

    2. Re:kind of irrelevant by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      I run Debian Jessie w/ XFCE on my laptop in place of Kali, itself Debian-based. Largely because Kali updates some of the tools I want to use (primarily GNURadio) too slowly for my tastes.

    3. Re:kind of irrelevant by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people do run Debian as a desktop friendly distribution, because it is actually one of the most desktop friendly ones that are aimed at more advanced users. As in, it doesn't try to hide the complexity, but it doesn't force you to manage it all, either.

    4. Re:kind of irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't think anyone runs debian as a desktop friendly distribution

      I do. I run Slackware on the servers, used to have Slackware desktops, but Debian was a compromise as I needed something with a fairly wide range of available software and a package management system that a.n.other could administer when I wasn't around, tested all the major distros on my desktop hardware and Debian was the only one which worked on all my machines without any fscking around.
      Now, with systemd on the horizon, I'll keep my current Debian installs going for as long as I can, then switching to whatever non-systemd distro works best.

      I'm already planning a backup migrate everything to *BSD in the event of a total systemd apocraplypse..servers and firewalls are easy (and 80%/100% already done respectively..shadow systems in testing), desktops, alas, not so..

  43. Steam will switch off Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Systemd, wayland, and gnome are shit for games. It's going to be a clusterfuck.

    1. Re:Steam will switch off Debian by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      can you point to any evidence of this or did you just pull it out of your trolling ass?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  44. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh? Scripts don't break themselves. They do exactly what you tell them to do.

  45. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, and we don't use MySQL for system boot configuration either because it would be way more complex than it needs to be.

  46. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    Funny I've never had an init script "break" in 25+ years of Unix and Linux administration. Tell me does it make a snapping sound? Does it break because the summer weather made it get wet and soft? Can they be glued back together?

  47. Server or Workstation by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Such sweeping generalizations. Servers may not have desktop GUIs installed, but we have plenty of people running Linux as a desktop for their workstation with a VM running Windows if they need a Windows only application.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Server or Workstation by Lennie · · Score: 2

      Why do you insult me claiming I need to run Windows on my Linux desktop ? ;-)

      I don't run Windows VMs on my desktop machine.

      There are no Windows applications I need or depend on.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    2. Re:Server or Workstation by nukenerd · · Score: 1
      Lennie wrote :-

      Why do you insult me claiming I need to run Windows

      It wasn't an insult. If you want an insult, try this :- It's Lenny

    3. Re:Server or Workstation by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You missed the "if" operator in my last sentence :)

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  48. Re: Systemd integration counted as a positive thin by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    That is false, most of your Linux distro written by people that have nothing whatever to do with systemd. Plenty of kernel developers think it is pure shit

  49. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    You are confused, the logging in a Linux system is text. So are configuration files.

    Mysql is for people who occassionally like to use data, so funny you picked that for example.

  50. Binary logs by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    No logging from systemd is now in binary form and needs special viewers and processing tools. So all the classic text programs like tail or grep or awk can no longer be used. This is a solution in search of a problem.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Binary logs by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      Yes, I was talking about things as they are now, not with the goatfuck that is systemd. And for even more hilarity the systemd wankers claim text logging can be used, but forget that will only start working if certain other parts of systemd get going

    2. Re:Binary logs by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      No logging from systemd is now in binary form and needs special viewers and processing tools. So all the classic text programs like tail or grep or awk can no longer be used. This is a solution in search of a problem.

      You say that as if that's a bad thing and that we can't possibly do better than tail, grep and awk. I've personally found that thanks to journald it's actually easier to find things now since I don't have dig through individual gzipped logrotated files anymore. I can specify exactly what I want to look at, from where I want to start and where I want to end. And if I really want to I can still pipe the output that I get from that into perl, grep and all sorts of things.

    3. Re:Binary logs by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Not all is lost, from what i've read about the journal logging systemd has a setting called "ForwardToSyslog - Control whether log messages received by the journal daemon shall be forwarded to a traditional syslog daemon, to the kernel log buffer (kmsg), to the system console, or sent as wall messages to all logged-in users. These options take boolean arguments."

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re:Binary logs by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "but forget that will only start working if certain other parts of systemd get going" - thats the case for all bits of software, if it doesn;t go, it doesn;t work

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:Binary logs by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      And everyone including you is pretending that theres a categorical difference between binary data and text. Only at a very high level of abstraction could you find a qualitative difference between "text" (aka arrays of ASCII-encoded bytes) and binary (which can be formatted in a zillion ways). It makes absolute sense when talking to laypersons; but when you speak of system recovery and which is "more reliable" you fly off the deep end, because--again-- there is not a qualitative difference between the two.

      People use wireshark just fine despite it all being "binary"; it works because wireshark can dissect and decode the binary, because it is standardized and well formatted. Why would you suppose systemd logging to be any different? Would you suggest wireshark operate on ASCII structures rather than the raw binary?

      Its like people are attempting to argue that rectangles are better than squares. I've got news for you...

    6. Re:Binary logs by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Correction-- should have been "argue that squares are better than rectangles".

    7. Re:Binary logs by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Why would you suppose systemd logging to be any different?

      Because it is new and untested.

      Just like pulseaudio.

      In principle I agree with you, but I disagree with the hurry. There is no need to hurry at all. We have working solutions right now, there is no sense that ALL distributions jump on systemd like a herd of lemmings.

    8. Re:Binary logs by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

      Such a radical change, like binary logs should at least require a couple of years of maturement time as an RFC, while it gets implemented by all relevant tools across the board. And even then, it should always be optional, and support multiple formats.

      Text parsing isn't all rosy either, there are large amounts of security/performance problems that are neatly hidden.

    9. Re:Binary logs by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Shocking new for you, most of the wares on the hundreds of servers I admin actually do put useful troubleshooting information into their text log before they stop working. But you do show the inexperience of those who think systemd is a good thing.

    10. Re:Binary logs by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes there is a difference, a human can read a text file with no special tools, even on a machine of a different OS if logs examined elsewhere. Of course, by not realizing this simple fact you show the level of inexperience, and the psuedo-intellectualism of those who advocate systemd.

    11. Re:Binary logs by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      You are very funny. If a machine is stalled in booting do you have tool available to read specialized binary file, versus those needed to list a text file? Gary Larson did a Far Side comic with a child trying to enter a "school for the gifted" by pushing on a door that had a handle and sign saying "pull". You were the model for that, weren't you?

    12. Re:Binary logs by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      yes there is a difference, a human can read a text file with no special tools,

      Either you're not getting me or you dont understand what ASCII is.

      You are using a "special tool" when you use vim or cat to parse a log file. At some point someone made the decision to start storing data on the disk, even though it was in this "scary" binary format called ASCII that you keep referring to as text. People store million dollar data in binary formats called SQL records. Its absurd that sysadmins balk at the idea of storing binary data in an encoding that happens not to be ASCII, just because its not ASCII.

      Speaking of pseudo-intellectualism you need to take a step back and realize that this objection holds no water. The fact that systemD is becoming a standard and that all systems with it have the tools to parse it means nearly any system you attempt to do a recovery from will also have the tools to parse the log. Whats next, complaining about ASCII because its not EBCDIC and is thus a scary binary format with few tools to parse it? We'd be still stuck on punch cards if everyone had taken this "change is scary" attitude.

    13. Re:Binary logs by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You are very funny. If a machine is stalled in booting do you have tool available to read specialized binary file, versus those needed to list a text file?

      In your scenario you are positing that you have the ability to run binaries (like cat or vim or nano)-- the tools required to successfully read and parse ASCII files. Why are you assuming you would be unable to use another binary dedicated to reading and parsing a binary log file?

      There is NOTHING magical about ASCII except that its an old standard. At some point it was a new standard, and EVERY SINGLE OBJECTION being made here could have been made about ASCII. If you could examine the disk surface and successfully decode the logs, then you would have a valid objection-- but "text" or "binary", you need a working filesystem and the ability to execute commands to parse logs. It makes NO DIFFERENCE.

    14. Re:Binary logs by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I wasnt arguing systemD was good (as thats outside of my area of expertise, being primarily a networking / virtualization / storage guy).

      Im just saying everyone's objection that "its binary" as they type away on a digital computer with digital storage and a digital processor is several kinds of hilarious. The "text" distinction is an end-user one only; when you're dealing with system recovery and troubleshooting scenarios you put the abstractions away and deal with reality (its all binary).

    15. Re:Binary logs by RoLi · · Score: 1

      You are using a "special tool" when you use vim or cat to parse a log file.

      No, because something similar is available on pretty much every desktop computer system for the last 20 years. I'm pretty sure that I can read ASCII files on an Amiga, MacOS9 or BeOS or any other exotic system.

      With systemd, I don't expect any support from even the latest/greatest MacOSX or Windows variants.

    16. Re:Binary logs by RoLi · · Score: 1

      In your scenario you are positing that you have the ability to run binaries (like cat or vim or nano)-- the tools required to successfully read and parse ASCII files. Why are you assuming you would be unable to use another binary dedicated to reading and parsing a binary log file?

      Because Linux distributions always screw it up at their first try?
      Because nobody can know everything and the obscure systemd tool may be there but not be found?
      Also systemd is by itself much more complicated than simple ASCII files.

      There is NOTHING magical about ASCII except that its an old standard.

      Exactly! And that means that it is:

      - tested
      - stable
      - understood (hey I know cat and grep by heart, I don't even know any systemd commands)

      Which means that the chances are very high that at least that will work when something breaks. And by that statement I include the human factor: The admin who has worked with ASCII files for the last 30 years will be able to work with them in an emergency. Especially in an emergency I don't want to be forced to learn the "new paradigma".

      It makes NO DIFFERENCE.

      You are contradicting yourself.

      When you said that ASCII is an old standard I thought that you got it, but you didn't.

      Being old, stable and tested makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

      Systemd may be great and maybe it is - but please let it mature first, let the bugs get worked out first. In other words: Let it become a "old standard" before forcing it down the user's throats.

    17. Re:Binary logs by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Thats a fine criticism to make ("its not stable enough-- run it thru Ubuntu / Fedora / whatever for more cycles"), and its not where my issue lies.

      My issue lies when people who are supposedly system administrators-- whom one would hope knew their IT fundamentals-- start raising objections that make no actual sense, like the problem with a binary format simply because its a binary format. Thats not a valid objection: all formats are binary formats, and all of them were at one point new. You can say "it needs more testing" (as you did), but at some point it will be tested, and at that point continuing to object on the grounds that its binary as if that fact somehow makes it less reliable begins to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers and data work.

      What's really being expressed here is "the tools and conventions I use are being changed, and thats scary-- therefore it must be bad." Change CAN be bad, and its never much fun, but it can often be beneficial. I wonder if you compared a simple filesystem like FAT to one with journalling and checksumming like ZFS, if you might be able to complain about the arcane data structures and metadata and checksums used by ZFS compared to the simple FAT. But noone sane would argue that FAT is more reliable or more desirable for production systems, and its not a problem: the filesystem is well documented and has multiple well vetted OSS implementations, so it doesnt much matter that your Mac or Windows box wont be able to read it.

      Its interesting that in the Debian bug where one of the massive discussions happened, "binary log" (or logs, or logging, etc) only occurs in 2 people's posts (and in one quote)-- this in a thread with some ~8000 comments (try ctrl-f'ing if yourself-- "binary L"). I wonder if thats because the devs there understand that whatever issues systemD has, the "binaryness" of its logs just isnt one.

    18. Re:Binary logs by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      with ASCII log a human can read the output even with what's included in busybox

      you just don't get it, you epitomize the problem.

    19. Re:Binary logs by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Wrong, readable using common tools on ALL general OS for over 35+ years. Your lack of common sense and understanding shows the problem with systemd developers and promoters.

      Your invoking "SQL records" is laughable, there are dozens of DBMS and they all have different internal format, not readable by the common tools available everywhere. Bringing that up, you lose the argument of in what format an operating sytem log should be stored, showing your incomprehension of fundamental issues.

  51. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    s/scripts/software

  52. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by caseih · · Score: 0

    The issue was hotly debated and decided on some months ago. Sorry you're late to the party!

  53. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I was wondering that too.

    Also, if SystemD is so well built, why is integrating it with KDE so difficult?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  54. UX researcher, weighing in: show me the studies. by splitsevin · · Score: 2
    All this speculation about which environment is the most usable. Which one is best for new users because this and that.

    The only way to determine which has an advantage is to conduct UX research from a completely unbiased standpoint.

    /. *nix threads are not known for their unbiased takes on things.

    --
    The enemy of my enemy is quite possibly also my enemy. I've made a lot of enemies.
  55. XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never changes and runs like water. So you shouldn't be subjected to any new and exciting games of hide and seek with your terminal after every time there's a version upgrade.

  56. openbox + tint2 by neoedmund · · Score: 1

    I'm using openbox + tint2, well enough for me.

  57. LXDE, XFCE are "a little too light-weight" ? by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

    my whole workflow is based on the quaintly named "classic desktop model" where screens and windows don't magically resize and change position (...) I'd switch to LXDE or XFCE, but they're a little too light-weight for my taste

    What does "a little too light-weight" mean? Something like JWM or icewm?**

    LXDE has a useful set of features and it won't waste your time with unwanted "special effects". If you really are frustrated by the barkers at the KDE-Gnome-Mate-Cinnamon desktop carnival, I suggest that you try Debian LXDE or even Lubuntu.

    The configurable simplicity of LXDE is the main reason to use it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_window_managers)

    One of the main reasons why the Debian folks switched from Gnome to XFCE was that they couldn't fit Gnome on a CD anymore. The fact that the market is abandoning optical disks in favour of USB/SDHC booting doesn't mean that I want KDE/Gnome bloat.

    **Disclaimer: I use icewm on my Raspberry Pi(s). The icewm DE light, simple, and easy to understand. Oh yeah, and the R.Pi won't run much else very well anyway. (o;

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  58. Not that deep by dbIII · · Score: 1

    But stretching so deep into userspace that a window manager is impacted in any way?
    It should just kick off X and get out of the way, leaving whatever your display manager is to do the job from then on.
    Some tool may make noises about what is X needs to be restarted, not understanding that that's been handled nicely without bothering init for a couple of decades at least.
    If it's something about having a set of desktop applications starting up automaticly after login there's been plenty of ways that have worked well over the last couple of decades.

  59. why does debian even ship with a stock DE? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    really its debian, you install it cause your tired of all the CRAP that comes on its variants

    debian should give me a giant ass menu of all the crap I want on install, or not install anything aside from the core system so I can do it myself, If I want 100,000 jack ass packages ill use ubuntu, least it has firefox without having to fuck with text files for apt-get

    1. Re:why does debian even ship with a stock DE? by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      If you want to install Debian that way you can, but it's up to you to do it. Debian installs a nice looking accessible desktop by default since that's usually what most beginners want, and Gnome works very well for that purpose.

    2. Re:why does debian even ship with a stock DE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, too bad you can't select "expert mode" in the installer and pick any DE you like, or none at all.
      Oh, wait.

  60. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Gnome has been the default but about a year ago they switched testing over to Xfce just to see how things would work out. Apparently they decided that Gnome was a better default and changed it back.

  61. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Issarlk · · Score: 1

    To finally lift linux to the level of a real OS like Windows, with reboots after upgrade and the equivalent of bluescreen when everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-d crashes.

  62. Re:So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...wait wat!?

    And that works?

    Halle f'ing luja!

  63. Re: So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thi by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is. Everything that goes into stable is tested. That's of course not a guarantee that there won't be bugs though.

  64. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    The main point of having a "default desktop" is that it is what you'll get if you're installing of CD, with no network to download packages from. It's irrelevant to probably 99% people in US, but some other countries are not so lucky.

  65. I too used to be a GNOME fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...right back at 1.x. I survived 2.x

    Nowadays, I ditched XFCE because it's becoming more and more like GNOME.

    I turned away from all that disgusting Desktop stuff and am a happy FVWM2 user. I've had enough bloat, incomprehensible policy hidden away in some obscure daemons (instead of in readable config files), NetworkManager, Avahi, a web server as printer spooler (CUPS: seriously?), *-kit and all that crap growing by accretion in the name of user friendliness.

    To which user are you trying to be friendly? Not to me, at least.

  66. Not really an issue by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

    People choosing Debian usually have a minimum of knowledge so that they can easily avoid choosing the default desktop from the installer, and pick another one later, usually by installing a single master packet that will manage all the dependencies automatically.

    1. Re:Not really an issue by ruir · · Score: 1

      Problem is that systemd has becoming tied to too many things. It can be done, but it can become a lot of work.

  67. Re: Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of System by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's impossible to design something that is 'agnostic' to everyone as everyone thinks differently and makes different assumptions. Therefore, designers have to make certain assumptions of their own and expect users to stretch out a bit and learn them. Good designers will write reasonable documentation or build intuitive hints into their designs to facilitate this, but going too far makes it difficult to be efficient with the tool. Unfortunately, designs like gnome 3.x, metro, osx, unity, and mobile interfaces clearly show this has become a trend.

    While tools that are difficult to use for no good reason aren't great, especially when the task is relatively simple, tools that make too many assumptions about complex tasks under the guise of simplicity often prevent user skill growth and understanding. The inflexibility that comes with this just pisses the experienced users off. It shouldn't take 6 clicks to do something that should take 1, nor does it make sense to remove all the functionality except that which only takes 1 click just to make it less 'confusing' to do easy things. Who is the target user for interfaces like these? bonobos?

  68. Gnome classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Debian with Gnome Classic is how God intended computers to function.

    1. Re:Gnome classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dog? You are on the wrong place, this is a technical board. Your imaginary friends are NOT welcomed here.

  69. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If init scripts did suck so badly then why were they in use for decades?

    Ah, the Windows XP fallacy.

  70. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But after this change, you will not be installing from a CD anymore, see the official statement: "However, the Debian live team doesn't care about fitting on a traditional CD; and while the Debian CD team hasn't made a statement, my impression as a member is that this is not something we care enough about any more to make it a hard blocker on the default desktop." It is a bit sad, that after this the Debian is not easily installable to older machines, which are not able to boot from USB.

  71. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Barsteward · · Score: 2

    Is that still the case? here's an explanation about issues between KDE and systemd i've found "As ConsoleKit is deprecated, systemd offers its own daemon to keep track of sessions and assigned seats in a system. However, the KDE Workspaces rely on ConsoleKit to handle user switching, reboot, shutdown and a lot of their things. Removing ConsoleKit would mean that users would suffer feature loss. On the other hand, with something that’s been deprecated and no longer actively worked on, you have issues with maintenance." i took it from thjs link https://www.dennogumi.org/2012...

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  72. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Your comment is especially dense. Init scripts do suck and systemd is FAR from the first to try and work around their many shortcomings. As one article put it, they just so happen to be the first guys who were able to market it to be the default in major distros. That and they crammed every other solution into one box and shipped it which is not nice, but init scripts have plenty of complaints about them.

    Speaking of did you realise we used phones with actual buttons for decades too? Oh and horses, oh the horror. The time frame we used something is NEVER a good indicator for any of its qualities.

    As for Pulseaudio, yeah it was flaky, but at least it worked sometimes. How many other audio systems can you mention in Linux which seamlessly allowed you to add devices to an audio stream, hot plug blue-tooth headsets, or change destinations of streams without interrupting them? Yes it too has warts, but so did its nasty-in-other-ways predecessors.

  73. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Scripts break easily and are slow to execute.

    This is such a hunk of shit I don't know where to begin:

    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ cat hello
    > #!/bin/bash
    > echo "Hello, bash"

    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ cat hello-c.c
    > #include
    >
    > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
    > {
    > printf("Hello, world!\n");
    > }

    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ cat hello.java
    > public class hello {
    > public static void main(String[] args) {
    > System.out.println("Goodbye, Java!\n");
    > }
    > }

    > The setup explained, now the numbers.

    > First, c: (every run twice, to show the effect of FS cache; machine has gobs of RAM for this task (8GB) but is a bit thin on CPU; each pair of runs we flush the cache):

    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ sudo bash -c "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ time ./hello-c
    > Hello, world!
    >
    > real 0m0.067s
    > user 0m0.000s
    > sys 0m0.000s
    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ time ./hello-c
    > Hello, world!
    >
    > real 0m0.004s
    > user 0m0.000s
    > sys 0m0.000s

    3ms when warm. Barely measurable with "time" anyway.

    Now comes bash (yeah, I know dash is way faster, but I don't care):

    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ sudo bash -c "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ time bash hello
    > Hello, bash
    >
    > real 0m0.082s
    >user 0m0.000s
    > sys 0m0.008s
    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ time bash hello
    > Hello, bash
    >
    > real 0m0.009s
    > user 0m0.000s
    > sys 0m0.004s

    Not bad. Note the extra sys time (even when warm). But note also that "warm" would be the default state for your default shell anyway. And perhaps we're being unfair to bash, because by interposing "time" we're forcing it to fork, exec, exec (at least). But we're reading tea leaves anyway.

    Now, Java (sit down!):

    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ sudo bash -c "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ time java hello
    > Goodbye, Java!
    >
    >
    > real 0m2.198s
    > user 0m0.336s
    > sys 0m0.140s
    > tomas@rasputin:~/hello$ time java hello
    > Goodbye, Java!
    >
    >
    > real 0m0.227s
    > user 0m0.172s
    > sys 0m0.044s

    Yikes.

    So shell was slow why again?

    (BTW: fuck slashdot's lameness filter)

  74. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not pro systemd, but binary log files have been in UNIX/Linux forever.
    take a look at utmp, wtmp, or btmp

  75. Re:UX researcher, weighing in: show me the studies by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    UX is about more than just UI.

    Most of the "weighing in" so far is about, among other things, not screwing over your customers with a bloated sysadmin nightmare of an init program. The closest you're going to get to a study is The Art of Unix Programming .

  76. Re:I can understand the Accessibility concerns, bu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PulseAudio took 5 years to become usably stable for an audio system. Extrapolating, systemd is ripe for discussing seriously in maybe 10 years.

  77. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    How many machines are out there that don't have a DVD drive? OK, I have one, gathering dust. I'll modify the question: how many machines are in use that have a CD drive but not a DVD one?

    The last time I used Live Build, it produces (by default) an image that will work on USB or optical media.
    http://live.debian.net/manual/...

    If size is the problem, you can customize what packages are installed till you get below 700M.

    No really sure what you're whining about, to be honest.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  78. Plus one for the old timers by DavidCBillen · · Score: 1

    I just setup my Linux development host to boot Openbox from .xinit and - to my surprise - have never been happier with any desktop including the one on the airbook I'm using to type this post. It really never occurred to me how little I need from a DE. I'm starting to believe that the state-of-the-art in desktop environments is a silly pile of bloat. An application where simplicity and lack-of-clutter are critical attributes breaks under the weight of too many features.

  79. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many machines are out there that don't have a DVD drive?

    I've got about 50 4-core 16GB 1U servers with a CD drive but no DVD. Of course I install via USB HDD to one and clone to the others, but point stands that such machines still exist.

  80. Does it matter? by sqorbit · · Score: 1

    Right from the post from Debian the XFCE team states that haven't seen an increase in their development. It is rather easy to pick the desktop during the install of Debian, so who really cares what the default is? If you are using Debian I'm going to assume you know how to switch the desktop environment during install or you are at least capable of typing "install XFCE instead of Gnome in Debian" into google.

    --
    Sent from my TARDIS
  81. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    If you have 50 servers you should really take a look at pxe and installing it over the network with tools like FAI.

  82. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    How many machines are out there that don't have a DVD drive? OK, I have one, gathering dust. I'll modify the question: how many machines are in use that have a CD drive but not a DVD one?

    The last time I used Live Build, it produces (by default) an image that will work on USB or optical media.
    http://live.debian.net/manual/...

    If size is the problem, you can customize what packages are installed till you get below 700M.

    No really sure what you're whining about, to be honest.

    My laptop is three years old and doesn't have an optical drive at all.

  83. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by devman · · Score: 1

    Initscripts don't break because package maintainers put a lot of effort in to maintaining them for a given distro. Unit-files are much cleaner, can be maintained upstream and shared by many distros. Freeing up package maintainers to work on other things.

    This is likely a large reason why all the major distro's bandwagoned on to systemd, and people don't seem to realize how much man power went in to maintaining the init system by packages that use it. No need to do process tracking, pid files, run lock files, restart on crash, proper daemonizing, run level checking, dependency checking in every script which is 80% of the boilerplate in most scripts.

  84. Re: Systemd integration counted as a positive thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plenty of kernel developers are also happy to see systemd using features they worked hard on developing (i.e. cgroups). The GP had it wrong though. The people who are most embracing of systemd are the people who spend time actually maintaining initscripts for distros.

  85. Re:UX researcher, weighing in: show me the studies by koinu · · Score: 2

    My "studies" show that users will bitch about everything that has changed and where they need to rethink their workflows.

    On the other hand, I don't think that systemd is useful, but I also don't care about what nightmares Linux gets from the administrative point of view (because I am a FreeBSD user). I also left the Gnome world after I noticed how it the software project is being handled (getting more and more unportable and dependent on Linux) and gradually found my way to Openbox and now to Xmonad where the UX is only limited by my imagination capabilities.

    As you can see, UX is highly dependent on the user. The common desktop environments have a really shitty UX (from my point of view), because I cannot get them to do what I easily can do with Xmonad. Other users will get confused by Xmonad and think that it has a terrible UX (which will be mostly "true", also for you as a researcher, because you think that UX is not something that you are responsible to develop, but the desktop environment should provide it for the average dumb user out there).

  86. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    A sysadmin, but doesnt know what fundamental datatype strings are stored as or what ASCII is?

    What is the world coming to :(

  87. reading from a deb 7.6 laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *reading from a deb 7.6 laptop on gnome 3* uhm... what was it before if they're switching to gnome? o.O

  88. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by RoLi · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Linux would need stability and not this constant change for change's sake.

    If you want systemd - great, make it an option. After a couple of versions, when the bugs have been worked out, make it the default if it really offers an advantage, but not before.

  89. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by RoLi · · Score: 1

    I had a lot of broken scripts in the bash to dash transition. But that is also a reason NOT to change too much and NOT to switch to systemd any time soon.

  90. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by RoLi · · Score: 1

    How many other audio systems can you mention in Linux which seamlessly allowed you to add devices to an audio stream, hot plug blue-tooth headsets, or change destinations of streams without interrupting them?

    None, but nobody except a tiny group of people ever needed anything like that. There would have been nothing wrong in just supporting pulseaudio for those that need it and keep the working ALSA for the default until pulseaudio is debugged. And only when you have a couple of years of stability make it the default. But no, we can't have that. No, everybody had to make it the default as soon as they could - and of course I was also bitten (several times) by pulseaudio. And I had no alternative because all wanted to be part of the herd.

    This herd-mentality is really the problem with Linux nowadays. In *theory* we could have many different distributions - from cutting-edge to conservative. But in the real world we have a group of lemmings that compete on who is the first to jump on the latest untested feature.

    For example: On one computer I used debian lenny for many years and now I wanted to upgrade. Tried the new debian - hangs on shut-down. Tried SuSE - hangs on shut-down. Tried Mint - hangs on shut-down.

    You see what I mean? They are all the same - and that sucks.

  91. If only the GUI was the most busted part of Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fork less, patch more! That is really all that needs to be said about Linux. All of the top 10 distros have incredibly bad version stability compared to other *nix's.

  92. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, XFCE worked out just fine.

    Debian 7 Fast and Rock Solid Stable
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG8ZSpUOJuw

    So why switch, and go with a total POS like Gnome3?

  93. No perfect desktop.. you have to build it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Along time ago, I came to the conclusion that, for me at least, there is no perfect solution for the linux desktop! I had to put together my own consortium of applications until I found something that fit my individual needc. So far that has been openbox + pcmanfm desktop + lxpanel + docky + xcompmgr. I could not be happier and the kde and gnome apps I depend on work much faster, with less issue.

  94. Why make debian run slower than Windows Vista? by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    Resolution:
    - apt-get purge gnome*
    - apt-get install lxde

    Say hello to a perfectly functioning desktop that doesnt need a supercomputer.

    1. Re:Why make debian run slower than Windows Vista? by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      I can't remember the last time I did a Linux distro install, where I did not use the minimal net install image, when one was available. I always expect any distro's large default install to be full of superfluous crap; so I do not necessary resent Debian because theirs also is.

      My philosophy is that there is a direct relationship between the quality of anything I receive, and the amount of work I put into it myself. So if I get something where all of the usual decisions have been made for me, then I consider it only natural that it will be horrible.

  95. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, XFCE worked out just fine.

    Debian 7 Fast and Rock Solid Stable
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    GNOME 3.4 is default in Debian 7. Xfce has only been the default on testing.

    So why switch, and go with a total POS like Gnome3?

    There are many reasons. Like for example accessibility features, more reliable upstream releases and better systemd integration.

  96. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by rl117 · · Score: 1

    I always considered the diversity of the Linux ecosystem its greatest asset, and the primary reason for its success--everyone had a reason to use it since you could adapt it to do whatever you wanted. That encouraged motivated and passionate people to make it what it is today. The homogenisation of Linux distributions championed by systemd is IMO one of the most foolish mistakes that could be made. Sounds good if you're a corporate drone who just deploys pre-canned applications all day long, but it's the beginning of the end for doing novel, interesting and unusal stuff with Linux, and ultimately that will affect the corporate drones as well once the people who were doing the development work move on to something else.

  97. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by noldrin · · Score: 1

    I would say that there are some extremely bad and troubling design elements at play *if* indeed the initial process is now dictating the graphical desktop. Does upstart or openrc have this issue? Yes, initd was old and needed to be replaced, but it had already been satisfactorily replaced on many distros with upstart, which also provided backwards compatibility and didn't take over your entire system in onerous ways.

  98. Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I switched to Debian to get away from the Gnome 3 craziness. To learn that they're making it the default is depressing but, as you rightly point out, it should be simple to install an alternative. Even if it's simple to install an alternative, though, I still think I'll stick with Wheezy Stable and XFCE for as long as i possibly can. Car analogy: I don't have to think hard about driving because it's become second nature and I can get from A to B easily, but some people seem to think the brake pedal should be in a different place and make me learn a new way. No thanks. Donning my tinfoil hat, I really do wonder if closed source vendors have installed sleepers in various distros to mess things around.

  99. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

    Ah, the nostalgia of Windows ME

  100. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    None, but nobody except a tiny group of people ever needed anything like that.

    Ahh the old we know better than the users line.

    Users who use teleconferencing apps, or god forbid something as simple as skype. My technophobe mother does this too. Then there's every computer at work which comes with a USB headset incase we need to do an online meeting or something. God forbid I actually want to play a computer game and plug in my headset mid game because someone next door started building and my teammates are sick if hearing a circular saw come through the mic.

    No use cases, none what so ever clearly.

    As a side note, YOU are the reason it will never be the year of Linux on desktop.

  101. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Theres no such thing as a "text" datatype on computer systems. Every piece of data in your computer is binary.

    The people in this thread are blowing my mind with their ignorance and / or obstinance.

    Mysql is for people who occassionally like to use data, so funny you picked that for example.

    My statement applies to all database systems, you gonna mock those too? Perhaps you could drop google or microsoft a line and let them know about your new, non-binary computer data storage system.

  102. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by RoLi · · Score: 1

    Nonsense.

    In fact I had to deinstall pulseaudio to make Skype work - on several different distributions. That was the only way because pulseaudio just didn't work. For a long time the audio-quality was also bad (had a lot of hickups and cracks). I also know (you obviously don't) that the pulseaudio-team refused to work on many problems because the drivers (which worked perfectly with ALSA) were somehow flawed. Now maybe they were flawed, but they worked with ALSA and if they don't work with pulseaudio then ALSA is still better no matter how many features pulseaudio may offer.

    The distributions *should* be the advocates of the users. But they are not. They are advocates of the developers who obviously always want the latest/greatest.

    When your mother tells you that she has cracking in the sound that makes it unusable, do you tell her "hey, just uninstall pulseaudio and enable ALSA"? Is that user-friendly? Or do you tell her "You are the reason that there will never be the year of the Linux desktop, the cracks are a product of your imagination"?

    You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Especially about Skype which took forever to work with pulseaudio. Especially Skype. God I remember hours of getting Skype to work with (or in fact without because uninstalling did the job) pulseaudio.

    As I said, the way to go would have been to include pulseaudio and let those that need the advanced features use it. And then, after it became stable, then make it the default.

    But that didn't happen. They just jumped on pulseaudio years before it was ready.

    And that is the problem: You and all the other upgrade-fanatics consider the users just worthless beta-testers without any rights whatsoever.

  103. I've been on Arch & KDE for a while but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Frankly, I'm bored with the breakages & the hoops I had to go through to get everything working, so I back on good old Mint 17 & Cinnamon because finally Clem's cottoned onto the fact we wanted Mint with LTS support! I still love the customisation side of KDE, coz you can truly make it your own, but it is nowhere near as polished as the latest iteration of Gnome or indeed Cinnamon and lightweight, KDE defintely isn't...

  104. Re:I thought Gnome was the default desktop already by efitton · · Score: 1

    The better SystemD integration is a bit rich as it feels like the reason Debian went to SystemD was as a favor/benefit to GNOME. GNOME needs SystemD lets default to it, now we need to default to GNOME because it has the best SystemD integration.

  105. The decision is based on by red+crab · · Score: 1

    based on accessibility and systemd integration, along with a host of other reasons; mainly political.

  106. Re:Systemd integration counted as a positive thing by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    FUck you, I miss physical keyboards on phones...

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.