It is being ported to GTK3 so that makes it a lot more relevant. If they just kept it at GTK2 then yeah it is useless.
Of course they are in direct competition to Cinnamon which provides a similar GNOME 2 interface.
They have gotten the 'datacenter' part, but it's true that generally from say an X station point of view, you can use it from your desk and someone from the data center could also use it. But the server is not some big iron thing, it's just a simple client.
The irony is that he'll want to have new features too. (e.g. more ways to tweak perhaps?) The problem is that an unchanging desktop is boring to hack on.
Yes, but Apple designed it into an overall operating system. PARC may have come up with the concepts, but Apple made it into a successful single product.
Usability experts worked for Apple, that's why ti's such an attractive platform. Even KDE/GNOME2/XFCE that whole look was created by usability experts for that day and age.
Every design has a expiration date. A lot of that is driven by new hardware and new potential. The heavily windows 95 design came at a time where hardware isn't as capable as it is now. New designs take into account new advances in technology in order to move forward. That's why things like systemd are also changing the face of desktops.
The shell was conceived because there was a lot of things that GNOME wanted to do but was frustrated with GNOME 2's shortcomings. GNOME 3 shell is a lot more flexible and can do a lot more things and can be tweaked a lot more easier than GNOME 3 since it uses standard HTML5 technologies.
Technical users believe that a computer is an extension of their themselves and project themselves more personally onto their desktop. The tweaking is a function of that. It's why they get frustrated when there aren't enough options.
what I've found is that you can only load web pages as fast as the ads that it links to load it. You can literally wait for an ad companies embedded ad to load before seeing the rest of the page.:/
You won't need X if you use QT or GTK3. The compositor, toolkit, and window manager are all merged into one. The X that is running is just for legacy. But if you're using GNOME 3.12 with GTK3 apps or even GNOME 3.10, you can use wayland transparently.
Faster than you think. This year, GNOME will already be fully on Wayland. I suspect Arch will all in on Wayland. Fedora and opensuse will probably wait an extra 6 months but then jump all in. The tizen platform is already going on wayland. No, man.. X is going to be a goner in two years.
So they say GNOME has too little configuration options, and KDE has too much confusing options. Their UI is similar to just about every other UI out there in free desktop land, except maybe the icons are different. You could theoretically, just create a KDE distribution (since they like QT) and then jsut programmatically create a good default and then a good theme and call it good. No need to change anything.
I don't know if y'all know this, but there is only one clipboard in Wayland. You're going to have to get used to having both middle click and ctrl-v pointing to the same thing.
You won't have any users if you don't keep up. Remember each new generation of users have different expectations of what their software does. Today's kids for instance, grow up on touch interfaces more than anything else so as they become older they'll be more familiar and work more efficiently with something similar. If you only catered to the "Unix" crowd for instance, these folks are pushing their mid 40s or higher. If you still want to be around, you're going to have to occasionally make changes.
Which would be exactly the situation GNOME and KDE would have been in, a lifeless project because it wasn't willing to make any changes thatwould keep up with the modern day.
Slashdot Mirror
It is being ported to GTK3 so that makes it a lot more relevant. If they just kept it at GTK2 then yeah it is useless. Of course they are in direct competition to Cinnamon which provides a similar GNOME 2 interface.
They have gotten the 'datacenter' part, but it's true that generally from say an X station point of view, you can use it from your desk and someone from the data center could also use it. But the server is not some big iron thing, it's just a simple client.
Just like glibc!
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I think you should respect those who do like it. In response we won't trash what desktop you like.
Linux is not Unix. The people writing the kernel are not out there to do Unix. You're free to go to BSD and likely stagnate there.
is that why we see more and more people using OSX at FOSS conferences?
The irony is that he'll want to have new features too. (e.g. more ways to tweak perhaps?) The problem is that an unchanging desktop is boring to hack on.
Yes, but Apple designed it into an overall operating system. PARC may have come up with the concepts, but Apple made it into a successful single product.
You mean the whole system 7 macos thing. Amiga didn't come up with that, Apple did.
Usability experts worked for Apple, that's why ti's such an attractive platform. Even KDE/GNOME2/XFCE that whole look was created by usability experts for that day and age.
Every design has a expiration date. A lot of that is driven by new hardware and new potential. The heavily windows 95 design came at a time where hardware isn't as capable as it is now. New designs take into account new advances in technology in order to move forward. That's why things like systemd are also changing the face of desktops. The shell was conceived because there was a lot of things that GNOME wanted to do but was frustrated with GNOME 2's shortcomings. GNOME 3 shell is a lot more flexible and can do a lot more things and can be tweaked a lot more easier than GNOME 3 since it uses standard HTML5 technologies.
Technical users believe that a computer is an extension of their themselves and project themselves more personally onto their desktop. The tweaking is a function of that. It's why they get frustrated when there aren't enough options.
what I've found is that you can only load web pages as fast as the ads that it links to load it. You can literally wait for an ad companies embedded ad to load before seeing the rest of the page. :/
You won't need X if you use QT or GTK3. The compositor, toolkit, and window manager are all merged into one. The X that is running is just for legacy. But if you're using GNOME 3.12 with GTK3 apps or even GNOME 3.10, you can use wayland transparently.
Faster than you think. This year, GNOME will already be fully on Wayland. I suspect Arch will all in on Wayland. Fedora and opensuse will probably wait an extra 6 months but then jump all in. The tizen platform is already going on wayland. No, man.. X is going to be a goner in two years.
Well there is a reason why the person posted as Anonymous Coward. :-)
What does Lennart have to do with this? Jeez, you're ready to accuse him of breaking X now?
So they say GNOME has too little configuration options, and KDE has too much confusing options. Their UI is similar to just about every other UI out there in free desktop land, except maybe the icons are different. You could theoretically, just create a KDE distribution (since they like QT) and then jsut programmatically create a good default and then a good theme and call it good. No need to change anything.
I don't know if y'all know this, but there is only one clipboard in Wayland. You're going to have to get used to having both middle click and ctrl-v pointing to the same thing.
Writing a UI is not the same as a kernel. It is a different mind space.
We'll be off of X in a year completely.
What do you think GNOME Shell is?
That was kind of how HBO started out.
You won't have any users if you don't keep up. Remember each new generation of users have different expectations of what their software does. Today's kids for instance, grow up on touch interfaces more than anything else so as they become older they'll be more familiar and work more efficiently with something similar. If you only catered to the "Unix" crowd for instance, these folks are pushing their mid 40s or higher. If you still want to be around, you're going to have to occasionally make changes.
Which would be exactly the situation GNOME and KDE would have been in, a lifeless project because it wasn't willing to make any changes thatwould keep up with the modern day.