Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 10.10 To Not Use GNOME Shell By Default

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

  • Ubuntu 10.10 To Not Use GNOME Shell By Default

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 10.10 To Not Use GNOME Shell By Default

    Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu and its parent company Canonical, has answered a number of questions via IRC from the Ubuntu community today during the Ubuntu Open Week. The first question asked to Mark was whether the GNOME Shell would be used by default in Ubuntu 10.10 (a.k.a. the Maverick Meerkat) and here is the response:..

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODIxNg

  • #2
    cue the flamewar

    Comment


    • #3
      I hate how ubuntu wikis are https, I can never see them from this HTC Incredible or my dad's Droid.

      Comment


      • #4
        Reminds me of the "new Ubuntu theme" which has been postponed several times with the "next time for sure" motto. Gnome 3 was about to be released last year, but since then "next time for sure, we'll have time to fix more bugs". Obviously the time schedules and plans have been unrealistic right from the beginning. Remember how Gnome devs planned by 2010 to have 10% world market share? haha

        Comment


        • #5
          2014 might be realistic. No I am not kidding.

          Comment


          • #6
            Good. Gnome shell is pointless. I vote never to use it at all.

            Comment


            • #7
              If there's one benefit to come out of the KDE 4.0 debacle it's the clear demonstration that some things (especially base infrastructure) shouldn't be deployed too early.

              While I'm keen to have Gnome 3 for my desktop I'm not interested in using it day to day till it's ready and am glad it'll not be deployed as default too early. Because KDE 3.5 had some fundamental flaws for my particular uses and Gnome at the time wasn't very compelling to me, I was one of the many early adopters of KDE 4.0 and paid for that mistake with much instability and quirkiness. I think the Ubuntu guy's have rightly delayed it until 11.04 at least. It's going to save a lot of damage to the Ubuntu brand, that's for sure.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                If there's one benefit to come out of the KDE 4.0 debacle it's the clear demonstration that some things (especially base infrastructure) shouldn't be deployed too early.
                I don't know what you're talking about KDE 4.0.
                All major Linux distributions except Fedora kept KDE 3.5 and did not ship 4.0 by default. Kubuntu had an unsupported Technology Preview with 4.0, but it was clearly marked as such. Similar for openSUSE and Debian.
                If you chose to use a technology preview and override the defaults, it's your fault. Don't whine about it then.

                As for Gnome 3.0: The base infrastructure is still basically the same as Gnome 2.x.
                Gnome 3.0 is not a massive rewrite.
                It's still the same old stuff, just will a new desktop panel.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                  I don't know what you're talking about KDE 4.0.
                  Well there's certainly a story to be told regarding the wisdom of giving a technology preview a .0 release number but this has been discussed to death in other places. Anyone who sees value in doing that isn't going to be able to take on board my view of that so probably doesn't bear discussion here.

                  Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                  All major Linux distributions except Fedora kept KDE 3.5 and did not ship 4.0 by default. Kubuntu had an unsupported Technology Preview with 4.0, but it was clearly marked as such. Similar for openSUSE and Debian.
                  Yes, in Kubuntu 8.04 I believe. For Kubutnu 8.10 there was KDE 4.1.2 which was better the the .0 version, but was still far from usable in many peoples opinion. Many who are prepared to put up with breakage will defend 4.1 and 4.2 but for those who use there computers to get some work done instead of experiment with OS's, they were still unimpressed. The broken releases of the KDE 4 series weren't just restricted to tech preview distros.

                  Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                  If you chose to use a technology preview and override the defaults, it's your fault. Don't whine about it then.
                  If you're going to try to argue that the KDE 4 series was viable before 4.3 (some will even argue not until 4.4) then you probably have fairly flexible usage requirements I'd say.

                  Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                  As for Gnome 3.0: The base infrastructure is still basically the same as Gnome 2.x.
                  Gnome 3.0 is not a massive rewrite.
                  It's still the same old stuff, just will a new desktop panel.
                  But dosn't mean there's not breakage in it, and when your desktop environment is buggy it will usually impact the day to day things you use a computer for.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                    If you're going to try to argue that the KDE 4 series was viable before 4.3 (some will even argue not until 4.4) then you probably have fairly flexible usage requirements I'd say.
                    Some of us would argue it's STILL unusable. I know that I personally can't get the plasma desktop to work correctly in my monitor setup (dual-monitor, different sizes). It might switch resolution correctly, but it's glitches galore once it does.

                    Anyway, on the subject of Gnome Shell, I think it's fantastic and can't wait to see it used as the default.

                    That said, I think Mark is making the right choice here. I know from personal experience that Gnome Shell currently only works in very narrow circumstances; it seems to only work when video settings out-of-the-box are already perfect, and in my experience it won't run properly at all with fglrx.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pdusen View Post
                      Some of us would argue it's STILL unusable.
                      Yes, if it was as good as some say I personally wouldn't of switched to Ubuntu for the 10.04 version.

                      Originally posted by pdusen View Post
                      I know that I personally can't get the plasma desktop to work correctly in my monitor setup (dual-monitor, different sizes). It might switch resolution correctly, but it's glitches galore once it does.
                      Up to and including 9.10 I was using two 24" monitors with Kubuntu and found it to work perfectly as far as Kwin was concerned but...
                      I was using two screens of the same size which is different to what you're using and,
                      I was using an nVidia card with the blob. I believe people are still having crashes with 4.4.3 and fglrx 10.4.

                      Originally posted by pdusen View Post
                      Anyway, on the subject of Gnome Shell, I think it's fantastic and can't wait to see it used as the default.

                      That said, I think Mark is making the right choice here. I know from personal experience that Gnome Shell currently only works in very narrow circumstances; it seems to only work when video settings out-of-the-box are already perfect, and in my experience it won't run properly at all with fglrx.
                      I'm for one glad Mark is no longer CEO and can now invest more time at the engineering level. He seems to be really on the ball as far as making the right strategic choices and I hope this continues. He's a smart man who's surrounding himself with good people and the Linux desktop is the winner in all of that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I personally don't like Gnome Shell. I feel like they are trying to shove it down our throats. The perhaps I will just switch to KDE instead. I just want my plain old desktop.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                          For Kubutnu 8.10 there was KDE 4.1.2 which was better the the .0 version, but was still far from usable in many peoples opinion.
                          Everybody knows that Kubuntu is the worst KDE distro out there.
                          openSUSE officially offered side-by-side installation of KDE 3.5 and SC 4 up to openSUSE 11.1 with KDE SC 4.1.
                          Debian didn't officially adopt SC 4.x before 4.2. Same with Pardus. Don't know about Mandriva.


                          Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                          Many who are prepared to put up with breakage will defend 4.1 and 4.2 but for those who use there computers to get some work done instead of experiment with OS's, they were still unimpressed.
                          There was a reason why the KDE project released 3.5.10 after 4.1.

                          4.2 was pure awesome. It was praised across the board by reviewers.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                            Everybody knows that Kubuntu is the worst KDE distro out there.
                            And from time to time when I hear people say that I'll actually setup a test machine and take differnt distros for a ride and you know what? I don't believe it.

                            Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                            OpenSUSE officially offered side-by-side installation of KDE 3.5 and SC 4 up to openSUSE 11.1 with KDE SC 4.1.
                            Debian didn't officially adopt SC 4.x before 4.2. Same with Pardus. Don't know about Mandriva.
                            And these distros contained bugs in their roll-outs of KDE as did Kubuntu.


                            Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                            There was a reason why the KDE project released 3.5.10 after 4.1.

                            4.2 was pure awesome. It was praised across the board by reviewers.
                            If you regard 4.2 as pure awesome you are easier to please than a lot of people. I can understand it if you had a feeling of relief when you began to use it after suffering through 4.1 because by 4.2 KDE was starting to suggest that it might one day be a robust desktop.

                            Those that praised it were obviously fairly easy to please. People want to bitch and moan about Windows Vista but aside from Vista's ridiculously hight memory footprint it was vastly more reliable than even KDE 4.3 and really also 4.4. What functionality Windows has at least works for the most part. If it doesn't they have millions upon millions of people bitching so I guess that's a great motivator to get things fixed not to mention the billions they rake in.

                            KDE 4.4 is probably satisfactory enough for some proportion of people but it still has usability issues (or at least did in 4.4.2) 4.4 had chucks of goodness in it but depending on how sophisticated your use case was you could uncover situations that would leave you faced with breakage. There are by now a range of situations I'd be prepared to deploy it in, but not if the user was a highly demanding one.

                            I see the direction of KDE 4 series and largely like their vision but it has had implementation weaknesses that, if present in Windows would have had the haters out in droves.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It depends what you want from a DE, when you want immediate response then KDE 3.5 beats KDE 4.x with ease. Those extra animations, compiz like features and the menu (which can be switched to classic mode at least) just slows down every step. The longer you use KDE 4 you maybe get used to slowness but when you compare both then you see the differences. These effects also need extra ram/cpu/gpu and when you use desktop search - which is enabled by default in some distros then it will be definitely too slow for old systems. Awesome is really something else.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X