Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contributors: GNOME equal to KDE

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #1
    Let us know how it works out.

    Comment


    • #2
      Except 2010 was the year that KDE switched over to Git from SVN, and that was in October in correspondence with the beginning of the change from stability to a downturn, which basically means that Ohloh is only tracking SVN which means that there are as many KDE developers working in the old SVN repo as Gnome has overall...

      And don't expect that graph to grow anymore past July 1st http://sysadmin.kde.org/move-to-git-now/ because while they're not completely shutting down SVN just yet they're saying okay no new people in SVN.

      So Better Luck Next Time
      Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 06-06-2013, 09:22 PM.

      Comment


      • #3
        Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
        Except 2010 was the year that KDE switched over to Git from SVN, and that was in October in correspondence with the beginning of the change from stability to a downturn, which basically means that Ohloh is only tracking SVN which means that there are as many KDE developers working in the old SVN repo as Gnome has overall...
        Ohloh also tracks the Git repos of KDE. Here's the list of what it's tracking:

        https://www.ohloh.net/p/kde/enlistments

        And it doesn't matter when a repo is added in Ohloh; it considers the whole history and date of addition doesn't matter. So the graph seems valid and KDE is indeed dropping like a rock.

        Comment


        • #4
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          Ohloh also tracks the Git repos of KDE. Here's the list of what it's tracking:

          https://www.ohloh.net/p/kde/enlistments

          And it doesn't matter when a repo is added in Ohloh; it considers the whole history and date of addition doesn't matter. So the graph seems valid and KDE is indeed dropping like a rock.
          given the coinciding number with the dates of events I don't trust it isn't counting something wrong. Although another option is that given that KDE has been doing restructuring that it's not tracking all of the Git Repos although I'm not going to spend the effort checking through those 38 pages...

          Comment


          • #5
            Originally posted by Honton View Post
            And you should be happy for Gnome making bold but smart moves. RHEL7 beta is soon here and we should all be happy to see Gnome3 power this future enterprise level OS.
            Yes and I'm sure everyone will happily open PackageKit or the terminal and install another DE.

            Comment


            • #6
              It's too bad that the Classic Mode is more of a superficial makeover than anything else, it still doesn't address the underlying problems of GNOME 3.

              IMHO Red Hat are stuck between a rock and a hard place, if they include GNOME 3 with the default settings out of the box they will likely receive a lot of criticism and ridicule. However if they offer the choice of switching to the Classic Mode at install time etc. no doubt that will be seen as Red Hat admitting that the GNOME Shell etc. is not good enough.

              Comment


              • #7
                Originally posted by Honton View Post
                Gnome is a GREAT product and you should be happy about that.
                IMHO GNOME 2 was/is a great product but GNOME 3 is not. Given the lukewarm reaction to the GNOME Shell, the number of projects that have came about (i.e. Cinnamon) to fix its shortcomings, I'm sure there is a large proportion of users who would agree with that standpoint.

                Comment


                • #8
                  GNOME 2 was a great product due to its flexibility. Unfortunately now the devs seemed to have taken a "less is more" and "its our way or the highway" approach and assume that they know what is best for the user. Unfortunately the seem to be polluting GTK+ with the same ethos as well.

                  I don't have any problems with them trying out now things but their execution has been flawed and ultimately alienating. As I've said in another thread, I'm pleased to see that they have re-introduced a Classic Mode but it seems to be merely an attempt to apease their critics rather than a genuine attempt to change the overall direction of the GNOME project for the better.

                  I'm sure that MATE and Cinnamon will be around for a long time yet and if anything you should be thankful they are doing well as otherwise we might be seeing a faster exodus to Qt land.

                  Comment


                  • #9
                    cinnamon is a windows xp clone. not that there's anything wrong with that, but the design principles are not anything new. the problem is that it's essentially designed by hobbyist amateurs, who are not professional UI designers like the ones in Gnome or KDE projects.

                    Comment


                    • #10
                      Originally posted by Honton View Post
                      Just like Gnome 3 is becoming. History repeats it self. And you should be happy about that. Gnome 3 is becoming the new Gnome 2. Smile.
                      Not quite, GNOME 2 was more flexible by design i.e. the End user could edit and/or re-arrange the user interface by default, that is not the case with GNOME 3 without the use of extensions.

                      A side note: it is never a good idea to tell people what they should or shouldn't like. You won't win many arguments that way.


                      Originally posted by Honton View Post
                      That is fine I guess. Everybody knows XP. Cinnamons problem is it started as a protest. Most protests go nowhere.
                      GNOME was a "protest" against the old Qt licencing issue. Perhaps you would care to elaborate how you think Cinnamon is merely a protest, because I see it more as a response to legitimate concern.

                      Comment


                      • #11
                        I'm sorry but you seem to have entirely missed the point. Perhaps you could probe your point by trying to move the upper left hand menus in Gnome Classic to the bottom panel. I would be very curious to know if you are successful or not.

                        Comment


                        • #12
                          Originally posted by danielnez1 View Post
                          GNOME 2 was a great product due to its flexibility.
                          How is that? Considering that Gnome-Shell extensions can basically change *anything* in the Shell, I fail to see how Gnome 2 was more customizable.

                          Comment


                          • #13
                            Originally posted by kigurai View Post
                            How is that? Considering that Gnome-Shell extensions can basically change *anything* in the Shell, I fail to see how Gnome 2 was more customizable.
                            Given that you can change the layout of your default GNOME desktop by right clicking on the panels and changing them and/or removing them. That is what I meant by flexibility. I agree that Gnome-Shell is extendible by using extensions, but I don't see why it is necessary to have to resort to use them in the first place to do something as simple as re-arranging the desktop panels.

                            Comment


                            • #14
                              the problem is that it's essentially designed by hobbyist amateurs, who are not professional UI designers like the ones in Gnome or KDE projects.
                              You're appealing to authority--they're professionals so they know better. Professional just means you get paid for it, it doesn't mean you're good at it. In any case, Clem pays himself through Linux Mint sponsorship revenue, and he works on UIs, so he is a professional UI designer as well.

                              But really there's no need to try to infer the UI quality from the number of professional UI devs working on it. It's both easier and more accurate to just try them and judge for yourself which is best. To me that's Cinnamon*. And naturally I also like the Windows Vista UI which Cinnamon resembles closely. KDE might be able to match Cinnamon if you changed the theme, replaced the start menu, and disabled the cashew, activities, 90% of the widgets/applets--basically every feature they've been working on since KDE3. But that's way too much customization to have to do, and KDE themes I like are hard to find.

                              *Only in Ubuntu-based Linux Mint though, with the theme changed to Clearlooks, and hot corners disabled. In LMDE I can't change the GTK+ theme, so it's fugly!

                              Comment


                              • #15
                                Originally posted by Honton View Post
                                Being flexible is also a matter of maturing. Gnome 3 is maturing and getting more flexible. Mature and flexible enough for RHEL. Now it is disclosed. http://worldofgnome.org/rhel-7-is-sh...-classic-mode/

                                Be happy at least one free desktop is good enough make it.
                                You completely lost me "Being flexible is also a matter of maturing" bit. Perhaps you could elaborate in a way that makes sense.

                                I guess one way to take the decision to ship with the Classic Mode by default is it is an admission that the standard GNOME shell is not up to the job.

                                I think you will find there are plenty of desktops good enough to make it, especially if Red Hat sets the bar so low

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X