Slashdot Mirror
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.
That's what I was thinking... they gave me a Mac Mini at work about 4 years ago. I gave it a real try - several months, but couldn't get over the UI, and couldn't understand why people claimed to like it so much. So I powered it down and worked on my old Linux box. Then Ubuntu switched to Unity, and I was like "this again? I went back to Linux to get AWAY from this."
I think anyone can get accustomed to just about any UI, and I think we're mostly hung up on how things worked before, but unless those new "paradigms" actually prove advantageous to work, then it's not just a fear of something new or disliking a learning curve - why should I learn something new when it gains me nothing?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
There are people working on this as we speak: http://gnustep.org/
It is not very popular because people who run Linux generally don't want a clone of the Mac desktop. The point of free software is freedom. People can do what they want. It's not about picking one thing and ramming down the throats of everybody who uses a computer. It's definitely not about taking market share and making sure everybody is doing the same thing.
KDE and Gnome are hardly failures. There are many, many people who use each and love it. There are many developers who love developing it. Many other people don't like it. That's OK. In fact, if I were to say one thing that has been disappointing about these projects (and Compiz/Unity as well) is adopting the attitude that Apple/MS have: My way or the highway. Luckily in Linux the highway is well built with many interesting stops along the way.
Personally, I have run a Gnu/Linux box since 1992. I currently do not have KDE, Gnome, Unity *or* GnuStep (though I have used all of these in the past). I'm very happy with my set up and my computer works just as if it was meant to use what I'm using now. Because it was. Imagine having a system where *you* choose.
I don't think I would ever be happy with a Mac. YMMV.
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.
Ubuntu's 'macification' of their UI was so half-baked that it was a massive retrograde step. Forcing apps to render their menus at the top of the screen is only one aspect. The whole Linux ecosystem is NOT designed around this fundamental concept from OS X, and it was never going to work well - it certainly didn't before I gave up. I have no idea if it has improved since then, but now that I'm a happy Mac user - "fanboy" if you will (boo, hiss!!) - there's absolutely no reason to go back. All my dev stuff works on OS X and I have a fully functional unix underneath (if I care to go near it).
I remember that once upon a time I used Gnome 2 for a very long time. It was my definitive go to DE. Now this is my opinion, but in the years that followed, the usefulness of DEs took a nose dive into (not always but still crap) bloated garbage with "enhancements" over previous versions of you name it. I spent years hopping from one DE to another, version after version hoping to find something lightweight and that I could actually be productive in. Pantheon and XFCE come close, but aren't my cup of tea for various reasons. Anyway, I've tried them all repeatedly over the years. As someone who spends most of their time working across multiple terminals it occurred to me, "Do I really need a full DE?" A couple of months ago I took the plunge and dived into Awesome Window Manager - most assuredly not a DE. I am absolutely in love with it and now wonder how anyone survives without a tiling window manager.
i3 is really nice too, but I settled on Awesome.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
It's called GNUstep, and it has languished for many years because it's not as smexy like the KDE/Gnome wars.
Also. . . If your goal was source compatibility -- or even semi-compatibility -- with Mac OS X, you'd be forever chasing after a rapidly-moving target.
of Gnome 2 or the older standard desktops.... without being particularly slick and pretty. Xfce has the most customizable desktop because you can easily create launchers for apps, files, and urls. And you can define panels and dock those launchers into the panels..... something that Gnome never really offered.
Cinnamon is prettier and Unity is more "space-age" in its appearance. But when it comes to functionality, Xfce gives me what I need.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition