- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Cinnamon: GNOME Shell Fork With A GNOME2-Like Layout
|
|
|
Comments (34)
14 earlier comments in the full thread.
We don't have Crismast (don't even now how to write it without spell-check) here, so I have an excuse =)
Peace and love is overrated.
I've used other window managers in the past, but I've pretty much fallen into being a GNOME 2 user over the past year or so. Last week I decided to spend some time in Fvwm2, a window manager I have a lot of experience with but haven't used much since I've been running GNOME.
I lost a lot of productivity not being in GNOME. Sure, I could spend many hours setting up Fvwm2 or Fluxbox -- and I very well might -- but I still have GNOME 2 (I'm running Debian Squeeze, which will be supported through early 2014 if Debian keeps its recent release rhythm).
I'm one of those people who have spent a little time in GNOME 3/Shell (in Fedora 16's live environment). I didn't find it so objectionable. It has a lot of good things along with the head-scratchers.
What would make me happy?
Give me a panel where I can put icons that lead to my most-used applications and requisite number of virtual desktops (I have six right now, though I acknowledge that GNOME Shell's way of focusing on individual apps and switching between them makes it easy to work without as many virtual desktops).
If you can't do that now with GNOME shell extensions, I'm sure you'll be able to do that soon.
Otherwise there's still Xfce, another desktop environment I've used quite a bit -- and which I like.
I could never get Gigolo to work on FTP, but now that network connectivity is baked right into Thunar, that problem should be solved. I'm not crazy about the Mousepad text editor and the Xfce terminal (though I used to love them), but there are dozens of alternatives out there.
At some point, Xfce will probably upgrade to GTK 3, and even with a GTK 2/3 mix you can bring in all the little GNOME bits you want/need (GNOME terminal, NetworkManager, Gedit, etc.) but stick with Xfce.
If the backlash against GNOME 3 (and Unity, for that matter) continues to grow, I bet we'll see distributions and packages that seek to offer an "enhanced" Xfce experience, or a more GNOME 2-ish GNOME 3.
And the code is there to be forked, so if there's the will, that's the way.
I lost a lot of productivity not being in GNOME. Sure, I could spend many hours setting up Fvwm2 or Fluxbox -- and I very well might -- but I still have GNOME 2 (I'm running Debian Squeeze, which will be supported through early 2014 if Debian keeps its recent release rhythm).
I'm one of those people who have spent a little time in GNOME 3/Shell (in Fedora 16's live environment). I didn't find it so objectionable. It has a lot of good things along with the head-scratchers.
What would make me happy?
Give me a panel where I can put icons that lead to my most-used applications and requisite number of virtual desktops (I have six right now, though I acknowledge that GNOME Shell's way of focusing on individual apps and switching between them makes it easy to work without as many virtual desktops).
If you can't do that now with GNOME shell extensions, I'm sure you'll be able to do that soon.
Otherwise there's still Xfce, another desktop environment I've used quite a bit -- and which I like.
I could never get Gigolo to work on FTP, but now that network connectivity is baked right into Thunar, that problem should be solved. I'm not crazy about the Mousepad text editor and the Xfce terminal (though I used to love them), but there are dozens of alternatives out there.
At some point, Xfce will probably upgrade to GTK 3, and even with a GTK 2/3 mix you can bring in all the little GNOME bits you want/need (GNOME terminal, NetworkManager, Gedit, etc.) but stick with Xfce.
If the backlash against GNOME 3 (and Unity, for that matter) continues to grow, I bet we'll see distributions and packages that seek to offer an "enhanced" Xfce experience, or a more GNOME 2-ish GNOME 3.
And the code is there to be forked, so if there's the will, that's the way.
Caitlyn, woosh! Do we really need sarcasm tags? Or are you so glad that I did exactly where people were trying to push me to, that the context doesn't matter anymore. I said Gnome Shell is moronic, I never said people using it were moronic. Anyone who wants to infer that, be my guest.
FOSS, where every piece of code not monetary remunerated is above criticism. Yeah, come on, just tell me to use Windows or Mac. I'm expecting it.
Holiday cheer? Not with the current human condition.
The world is crazy, I'm just joining in.
FOSS, where every piece of code not monetary remunerated is above criticism. Yeah, come on, just tell me to use Windows or Mac. I'm expecting it.
Holiday cheer? Not with the current human condition.
The world is crazy, I'm just joining in.
If other choices don't work out for you there are plenty of choices again in the distros that will continue to support GNOME 2.x for like 10 years. I seriously doubt calling anything moronic is advancing the conversation. If you insist, feel free to. I just dont see the point.
If only RHEL/CentOS/Scientific Linux had the desktop support in terms of applications that Fedora has ...
There are some pretty good third party repositories for desktop apps. EPEL and RPMFusion come to mind immediately.
EPEL and RPM Fusion are nowhere even close to offering what's in Fedora (or Debian or Ubuntu).
EPEL baffles me -- there's barely anything there:
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/epel/6/x86_64/repoview...
RPM Fusion is great for codecs, but as far as apps go, it's not all that:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/el/updates/testing/6/x86...
You really don't have anywhere near the flexibility on the desktop that you have in the average desktop distribution (Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.) or even BSD project (FreeBSD, OpenBSD).
EPEL baffles me -- there's barely anything there:
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/epel/6/x86_64/repoview...
RPM Fusion is great for codecs, but as far as apps go, it's not all that:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/el/updates/testing/6/x86...
You really don't have anywhere near the flexibility on the desktop that you have in the average desktop distribution (Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.) or even BSD project (FreeBSD, OpenBSD).
I must admit to being a bit baffled by the Gnome Shell and the users that the environment is aimed at.
Are they trying to make a pitch for the touch crowd on tablets? If so, they don't seem to be making a direct play for that section of computer users.
Are they trying to make traditional desktop use more efficient? That's patently untrue, since it is less efficient on a number of fronts. As stated by others before, standard tasks require more effort than on Gnome 2.
Sorry, I just don't see what problem the Gnome developers are trying to solve with their Gnome Shell and in the end have created something that suits no-one.
Desktop users generally come down to two camps: consumers (mail, youtube, etc, etc) and developers.
Consumers tend to spend most of their time on the web: they will be superficially impressed by the glitz of the compositing features but for the most part will not actually have much need of a "useful" desktop.
Developers tend to have many windows and desktops open at once and are constantly moving between them. Efficiency in this regard is paramount. Any slight friction in this process is noticed and leaves a bad feeling for the user.
For me as a developer type, Gnome 2 was ideal. It doesn't get in the way, my way of working is modelled very closely with the way it works. The Gnome Shell does not satisfy this type of user and so is not for me.
--
@caitlyn: "Why should the GNOME foundation apologize for anything? Do you pay their bills? Do they work for you? No desktop project is going to satisfy anyone. The fact is that the GNOME developers owe you absolutely nothing. If you don't like where they are going then use something else. Demanding an apology is ridiculous."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, Gnome "belongs" to the community at large. The Gnome Foundation may technically own the code (and I'm not entirely sure that is actually true, I stand to be corrected on this) but just because you look after it at some point in time doesn't make you God, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make you right. If you like Gnome Shell, then good for you. What is true however, is that something that a great many people loved (yes I do mean that) has been unceremoniously killed and replaced with something else that is not.
Are they trying to make a pitch for the touch crowd on tablets? If so, they don't seem to be making a direct play for that section of computer users.
Are they trying to make traditional desktop use more efficient? That's patently untrue, since it is less efficient on a number of fronts. As stated by others before, standard tasks require more effort than on Gnome 2.
Sorry, I just don't see what problem the Gnome developers are trying to solve with their Gnome Shell and in the end have created something that suits no-one.
Desktop users generally come down to two camps: consumers (mail, youtube, etc, etc) and developers.
Consumers tend to spend most of their time on the web: they will be superficially impressed by the glitz of the compositing features but for the most part will not actually have much need of a "useful" desktop.
Developers tend to have many windows and desktops open at once and are constantly moving between them. Efficiency in this regard is paramount. Any slight friction in this process is noticed and leaves a bad feeling for the user.
For me as a developer type, Gnome 2 was ideal. It doesn't get in the way, my way of working is modelled very closely with the way it works. The Gnome Shell does not satisfy this type of user and so is not for me.
--
@caitlyn: "Why should the GNOME foundation apologize for anything? Do you pay their bills? Do they work for you? No desktop project is going to satisfy anyone. The fact is that the GNOME developers owe you absolutely nothing. If you don't like where they are going then use something else. Demanding an apology is ridiculous."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, Gnome "belongs" to the community at large. The Gnome Foundation may technically own the code (and I'm not entirely sure that is actually true, I stand to be corrected on this) but just because you look after it at some point in time doesn't make you God, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make you right. If you like Gnome Shell, then good for you. What is true however, is that something that a great many people loved (yes I do mean that) has been unceremoniously killed and replaced with something else that is not.
Business users fit neither your definition of consumers nor your definition of developers. I think you are way overgeneralizing.
You need to read a copyleft license (i.e.: the GPL) more closely. The GNOME developers do own their code and they can develop it any way they see fit. You have the right to take the old code you loved and fork it, which is what the MATE developers did. You have no right whatsoever to dictate to the GNOME developers what they should or should not do.
The community are users and, quite often, freeloaders who give nothing back to the developers. The idea that they somehow own the code is laughable at best.
You need to read a copyleft license (i.e.: the GPL) more closely. The GNOME developers do own their code and they can develop it any way they see fit. You have the right to take the old code you loved and fork it, which is what the MATE developers did. You have no right whatsoever to dictate to the GNOME developers what they should or should not do.
The community are users and, quite often, freeloaders who give nothing back to the developers. The idea that they somehow own the code is laughable at best.
Isn't that indeed part of the problem with the model that open source gives us?
The Gnome Foundation is answerable to noone but themselves. Therein lies the rub. We embrace open source software to free us from the tyranny of proprietary software and here we find ourselves at the beck and call of another set of meritocratic masters.
The free software movement of Stallman's dreams is more than just a method whereby you can see the source. It is also about a social movement to better and benefit the community and human world at large. I doubt he was envisaging a system whereby a group wold take control of a significant part of the free software eco system and hold it hostage to the fulfil some fanciful wet dream of one of their glorious leaders.
And the most intellectual thought that they (and caitlyn might I add) can muster is "if you don't like it, you can f*** off" then I have wonder whatever happened to Mr Stallman's brave new software world...
The Gnome Foundation is answerable to noone but themselves. Therein lies the rub. We embrace open source software to free us from the tyranny of proprietary software and here we find ourselves at the beck and call of another set of meritocratic masters.
The free software movement of Stallman's dreams is more than just a method whereby you can see the source. It is also about a social movement to better and benefit the community and human world at large. I doubt he was envisaging a system whereby a group wold take control of a significant part of the free software eco system and hold it hostage to the fulfil some fanciful wet dream of one of their glorious leaders.
And the most intellectual thought that they (and caitlyn might I add) can muster is "if you don't like it, you can f*** off" then I have wonder whatever happened to Mr Stallman's brave new software world...
@ skelband, Hear Hear!
I must ask here: What about those who likes it?
I gave an example from myself before somewhere here: I started using Gnome with Gnome 3 and hated Gnome 2. Don't I have a right to have and use something I find beautiful, productive and usable? I should first say that my work is about academics in social sciences. Like caitlyn said, I don't fit your classes of users. I have my own needs and Gnome 3 is the first pre-made environment which fulfills my needs. I was using an Openbox setup I cooked myself before it.
In order to make a good argument you have to start with this and then explain why you don't think Mate is not promising to offer what you want and therefore Gnome 3 should not be.
I gave an example from myself before somewhere here: I started using Gnome with Gnome 3 and hated Gnome 2. Don't I have a right to have and use something I find beautiful, productive and usable? I should first say that my work is about academics in social sciences. Like caitlyn said, I don't fit your classes of users. I have my own needs and Gnome 3 is the first pre-made environment which fulfills my needs. I was using an Openbox setup I cooked myself before it.
In order to make a good argument you have to start with this and then explain why you don't think Mate is not promising to offer what you want and therefore Gnome 3 should not be.
As I opined in another thread, these things are completely subjective. Everyone likes/wants different things. No one thing will please everybody.
So everyone stop arguing about it. Find something you like and use it. If you can't find something that's 100% to your liking, then pretend to be a Linux user and bend it to your will.
So everyone stop arguing about it. Find something you like and use it. If you can't find something that's 100% to your liking, then pretend to be a Linux user and bend it to your will.
Some people on this thread are seriously dissapointing. Anyone with 2.5 braincells and no agenda could see the meaning of my Gnome Shell users are moronic, brainless amoebas post. (No I'm not accusing people of being stupid (2.5 braincells), I accuse them of having a pro Shell agenda).
I could spell the sequence out step by step, but why bother. Whatever people. Shell just became irrelevant to my world.
Rest assured that any machine where I function as the "admin" will get spiced up with Cinnamon.
Before anyone accuses me of forcing anyone onto anything (which probably will happen anyways), the machines I admin are used by people who are not enamoured with Shell and are half way happy with MGSE.
This freeloading, trash talking pariah will keep donating to Linux Mint. They put the money to good use.
I could spell the sequence out step by step, but why bother. Whatever people. Shell just became irrelevant to my world.
Rest assured that any machine where I function as the "admin" will get spiced up with Cinnamon.
Before anyone accuses me of forcing anyone onto anything (which probably will happen anyways), the machines I admin are used by people who are not enamoured with Shell and are half way happy with MGSE.
This freeloading, trash talking pariah will keep donating to Linux Mint. They put the money to good use.
Ciminun....uh, cimmimom.....ciminim....he!!, I can't spell it any better than I pronounce it...then again, two drams of MacAllan with lunch might have had something to do with that.
Regardless of the name, I am greatly looking forward to this project maturing.
Regardless of the name, I am greatly looking forward to this project maturing.
I'm afraid some of you misunderstand me.
If some people like Gnome Shell, more power to them I say and I have no objection to people trying radical new designs. That's how progress is made.
Just leave me my old Gnome desktop as well. After all, it is all about diversity isn't it?
I look with hope towards Cinnamon and Mate (or even KDE) for my answer.
If some people like Gnome Shell, more power to them I say and I have no objection to people trying radical new designs. That's how progress is made.
Just leave me my old Gnome desktop as well. After all, it is all about diversity isn't it?
I look with hope towards Cinnamon and Mate (or even KDE) for my answer.
I guess I don't understand the drive behind Cinnamon. Why keep investing in projects that don't want your help when so many other functional desktops out there would odds are welcome you with open arms?
LXDE, XFCE, E17, KDE - they all have TODO lists and I'd be willing to be any of the above will accept more code than the Gnome-Grinches will.
~Jeff
LXDE, XFCE, E17, KDE - they all have TODO lists and I'd be willing to be any of the above will accept more code than the Gnome-Grinches will.
~Jeff
@myself: "...another set of meritocratic masters."
I would contrast the stance of the Gnome Foundation with the Document Foundation.
I keep getting mail shots from these guys telling me how great things are going and numerous variations of "How can we make it even better for you? Let us know!"
That's how it's supposed to work.
I would contrast the stance of the Gnome Foundation with the Document Foundation.
I keep getting mail shots from these guys telling me how great things are going and numerous variations of "How can we make it even better for you? Let us know!"
That's how it's supposed to work.
@Steven -
What's wrong with Fuduntu? It's modern, and it uses GNOME 2.
@Jeff91 -
In my opinion, the mentality is that we had a desktop that worked and worked well. The GNOME team completely devastated it in the name of "improvements". Cinnamon aims to take the bad in GNOME 3 and replace it with a classic interface, it is exactly what it needs. Beyond that, Clem probably views the remainder of GNOME 3 as a step forward.
The interface is what keeps us using GNOME 2 at Fuduntu. We evaluated other options, and the community unanimously chose to keep GNOME 2 rather than try to shoe horn something that wasn't ready onto their desktops.
If Clem can solve the interface usability issue with Cinnamon, more power too him. I'll be first in line to test viability at Fuduntu when it's ready for primetime.
@Thread - I'm not a GNOME 3 fan, but my biggest complaint is that they created the new environment without some form of "classic" mode (fallback mode did not really count). H#ll, even Windows 7 still has the classic Windows 95 look and feel for those few people that want it.
There is absolutely NO legitimate reason for killing off the classic desktop look and feel as an option in GNOME 3 other than the GNOME developers wanting everyone to use their shiny new shell.
Quoting:If only RHEL/CentOS/Scientific Linux had the desktop support in terms of applications that Fedora has ...
What's wrong with Fuduntu? It's modern, and it uses GNOME 2.
@Jeff91 -
Quoting:I guess I don't understand the drive behind Cinnamon. Why keep investing in projects that don't want your help when so many other functional desktops out there would odds are welcome you with open arms?
In my opinion, the mentality is that we had a desktop that worked and worked well. The GNOME team completely devastated it in the name of "improvements". Cinnamon aims to take the bad in GNOME 3 and replace it with a classic interface, it is exactly what it needs. Beyond that, Clem probably views the remainder of GNOME 3 as a step forward.
The interface is what keeps us using GNOME 2 at Fuduntu. We evaluated other options, and the community unanimously chose to keep GNOME 2 rather than try to shoe horn something that wasn't ready onto their desktops.
If Clem can solve the interface usability issue with Cinnamon, more power too him. I'll be first in line to test viability at Fuduntu when it's ready for primetime.
@Thread - I'm not a GNOME 3 fan, but my biggest complaint is that they created the new environment without some form of "classic" mode (fallback mode did not really count). H#ll, even Windows 7 still has the classic Windows 95 look and feel for those few people that want it.
There is absolutely NO legitimate reason for killing off the classic desktop look and feel as an option in GNOME 3 other than the GNOME developers wanting everyone to use their shiny new shell.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post