New Release of the Trinity Desktop Environment

mescobal writes: A new release of the Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) is out. TDE is "a computer desktop environment for Unix-like operating systems with a primary goal of retaining the function and form of traditional desktop computers" which translates into a fully functional KDE 3 style Desktop. Something is missing in the new generation of desktop environments, since some people (perhaps more than "some") feel at home with Gnome 2 or KDE i3. They have repositories for Debian and Ubuntu-based distros. I'm now using it on Ubuntu 15.04, amazed about how well-planned things were in the previous generation of DE. We may have gained some things with Gnome 3 and Plasma 5, but we lost a lot of good features too. TDE brings them back.

Comments

Re:Change the channel, Marge

[epyT-R]

The real issue with UI lately is the 'mobilization' of the desktop, to its detriment. Windows, osx, and linux all suffer from it now. At least the latter allows the user to run alternatives.

Re:Change the channel, Marge

[0123456]

Unfortunately, even if you install a real desktop, you still suffer from the 'mobilization' of the web.

So many websites have now been redesigned for touchscreens to the point where they're utter crap on a desktop machine.

I really can't wait until this 'mobile' fad is over, and the 'UX designers' find some other fad to chase after.

Why not clone OS X?

[countach]

There was a time when people thought Linux would become a contender on the desktop. That basically hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen in a big way. Thus linux users are starved for good native apps (kinda a chicken and egg thing going on too).

Now if you ditched KDE and Gnome and simply went with a full on clone of OS X, suddenly a whole ton of apps would come to Linux, whether it be running OS X apps as-is or whether you convince developers to do a simple recompile for Linux. Whether you like OS X or don't like it, the reality is this would boost Linux, bring apps, and give a shoe in for a possible desktop future for Linux.

And the reality is, OS X is actually quite good. Apple developers have always quite liked developing for the platform, users apparently like it, so nobody would be terribly upset.

Or you can keep running with the failed KDE/Gnome wars.

Re:Why not clone OS X?

[serviscope_minor]

Constant tweaking like what?

I find it (along with every other OS) needs a bunch of tweaking on installation: bringing over .bashrc, setting up preferences, getting favourite/necessary programs installed etc etc.

But once that's done, keeping ubuntu running is just a question of occasionally typing "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" and perhaps once every two years, bumping from one LTS release to the next. I gather if you're a WIMPy sort of person, that happens with a few mouse clicks instead.

IOW, installing security updates and occasionally upgrading to a new major version, though the latter is strictly optional. That's exactly the same as every other desktop OS.

Keeping Arch (and I suspect Gentoo) running in the face of regular updates is sometimes a bit trickier, but they're explicitly distros for hacky people who like to hack and be right on the leading edge. You have to be pretty explicit in your choice to wade through the Arch installation manual rather than just dump an ubuntu install image in the drive.

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost everyone commenting here is an idiot practically. Saying stupid bullshit like, "Oh wow! Another DE, good thing I went to Mac!" or "I got mad when I used Ubuntu and they switched to Unity!". It's quite incredible, as for one, if you don't like that Unity sucks (and yes, it does) then either install a new DE or a new distro. And if you think news about a DE is a way to justify you tell everyone Mac OS X is better, then you're even bigger moron. How about we talk about TDE? You know, what the news post is actually about.

Re:which features did we lose?

[fnj]

Key missing feature: simplicity.

For better or worse, "activities" is a confusing concept. It takes an abstract concept (the desktop) and another level of abstract concept ("workplaces") and adds YET ANOTHER level of abstract concept (an "activity") which fully requires the first two levels. The main session is itself an activity, which starts to become really mind-twisting unless you already know what an activity is.

KDE also has two different concepts for application: that of a traditional application and that of a "widget". This puts extra burden on users to get a global overview on how the system works.

They are other important "features" missing too. But I think simplicity is the main drawback, and for both activities and widgets, it's debatable if they pull their weight, so to speak.

So, in other words, you can't come up with a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a missing feature. I figured you would fail. No one has yet come up with a list of these mysterious missing features in KDE4/5 that were present in 3. I think I can recall some configuration settings that were in 3 and are missing in 4/5, but again those are not really "features".

Simplicity is not a feature. It is an attribute; one which in fact implies fewer features.

Re:Change the channel, Marge

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I don't remember the KDE 4 people saying that the early releases where production ready. I do remember that the KDE people use another version system. x.0, x.1, x.2 are all releases that aren't ready yet. This was the case with KDE 1.x, 2.x and 3.x. You were better of waiting for the x.3 or even x.5 release to have a production ready release. But KDE did not start as a GPL project and they didn't use the same version philosophy as GPL projects. From the nineties I still remember an interview with one of the developers that people had to wait for a x.5 for a stable release, but where welcome to test x.0/x.1/... releases to help fix bugs.

The big problem with KDE4 was that major Linux distribution ditched KDE3 for KDE 4.x where x

I never had problems with KDE4, but of course, the first KDE4 I installed was 4.8 which was production ready and remained stable throughout every update.

The biggest problem I have with the desktop environments is that they just seem to bring an update to their project: Gnome 2 to 3, KDE 3 to 4. But in reality it is a completely different program. It would have been better if Gnome 2.x was just the latest Gnome. They should have chosen a different name for Gnome 3. Maybe Shell DE or whatever. This way people could still install Gnome 2 a long side the latest product of the creators of Gnome. Currently is it impossible to install Gnome 3 next to Gnome 2 since one updates/upgrades the other.

The KDE people had to name KDE 4 just Plasma. So you could still choose to install the latest KDE (3.5) and give Plasma a try. Now KDE4 was an upgrade of KDE 3.5, but it was not production ready. You could have a system with Gnome, Shell, KDE and Plasma. Two DE made by the Gnome team and two DE made by the KDE team.

It seems that they wanted to keep the current user base by not changing names, but instead of keeping them they alienated their user base with confusing decisions. I personally like the Gnome Shell idea, creating workspaces on the fly. I love it. But Gnome 3 came only usable (bug free and enough features) starting from 3.10 for me. I remained on an old Debian old-stable for my daily work. That shouldn't have been necessary. They could have simple given Gnome 2 to the community. Gnome 2.13, supported by the community (not by fedora/red hat). Bug fixes where enough for me. I didn't need extra features, nobody did I think. And there was this add on system anyway that could add some features if you really wanted. Making it compatible with never versions of Glibc or the Kernel, that was all that was necessary. And I think that could be easily achieved by the same team of people that are now doing lots of hard work with a fork of Gnome 2.x without needing to choose a non related name like Coriander or was it Cinnamon?

Now we have these DE that are forks from 'finished' DE of the Gnome and KDE team that have names that most linux users never heard about, and that very little mainstream Linux distribution care about. If you want to DE of your choice you have to be lucky that there are repositories for your version of the distribution and have to be knowledgeable enough to know how to add those repositories and how to install those DE's without messing up your system.