Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Fork Of GNOME 2: The Mate Desktop

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

  • A Fork Of GNOME 2: The Mate Desktop

    Phoronix: A Fork Of GNOME 2: The Mate Desktop

    A lot of people hate Canonical's Unity desktop, but a lot of people also hate the current state of the GNOME 3.0 Shell too. For those that are still fond of the GNOME 2.x environment, there is a fork of GNOME2 that's been little talked about up to this point. This fork is called the Mate Desktop Environment...

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

  • #2
    Fork for kde3 also

    Since it's a project related to the same kind of issues with the desktop, I feel mentioning this might be prudent. http://www.trinitydesktop.org/. It's a fork of KDE3 to keep it working and up to date.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      there's talk of developing a new control panel and other original work to the project.
      I'm not one to tell somebody what to spend their time on, but it would be great if they put that effort into working on the missing parts of the gnome 3's control panel and used the already-existing gtk3 port of gnome-panel ("fallback" mode) to provide the classic-style interface.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ChrisIrwin View Post
        I'm not one to tell somebody what to spend their time on, but it would be great if they put that effort into working on the missing parts of the gnome 3's control panel and used the already-existing gtk3 port of gnome-panel ("fallback" mode) to provide the classic-style interface.
        I definitely agree on the latter... no point in trying to preserve the gtk2 code when the gtk3 port exists. The control panel is trickier though, as there *are* strong opinions on the Gnome dev mailing lists over what goes into the control panel - they don't want it to become a dumping ground for random stuff that doesn't fit their strategy.

        Comment


        • #5
          ^Yeah, that seems like a better idea to me as well. Either that, or working on xfce as a traditional desktop because they need devs too.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
            The control panel is trickier though, as there *are* strong opinions on the Gnome dev mailing lists over what goes into the control panel - they don't want it to become a dumping ground for random stuff that doesn't fit their strategy.
            That would be really Windows-like, sort of like having a registry with a bunch of hidden set... oh wait :\

            Comment


            • #7
              Happened to KDE 3 (http://www.trinitydesktop.org) after KDE 4 came out. Forking Gnome 2 was just a matter of time, IMO. Many people want to keep using their computer the same way they did for years.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DanL View Post
                That would be really Windows-like, sort of like having a registry with a bunch of hidden set... oh wait :\
                Are you referring to the way GConf stores settings in human-readable (albeit XML) text files? And the way it's successor dconf stores settings in standard properties files? You're right, that's a *lot* like the way Windows puts everything in a binary blob...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                  Are you referring to the way GConf stores settings in human-readable (albeit XML) text files? And the way it's successor dconf stores settings in standard properties files? You're right, that's a *lot* like the way Windows puts everything in a binary blob...
                  Yes, I was somewhat referring to gconf, but more to the maddening practice of not having options configurable via a GUI for GUI programs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Titanic

                    It'd be a good way to offload the current load of arrogance attatched to gnome. It's apparent none of the developers are listening to the community. Next, whole distributions can be forked because it's widely known their developers ignore their community participants.

                    On a side note I really wish these jokers would polish their products before they released them to the public. Recently we hear Cox, Alan relased an Intel Graphics Driver which had no hardware acceleration. So now distributions are going to incorporate it therefore giving a false sense of support to the community once again.

                    But that is the sort of thing you sign up for in the Linux community. Half-assed because the alternative is full support but with the benefits of accepting a Washington USA company's agreement stipulations. Comparisions abound, but right off the top I'd say would you rather have cake with icecream or just a cake and no icying.

                    Sex buddy with benefits or an arranged marriage, dowry, and no clue to the brides' asthetics?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I support a fork. I had my own one-night-long fork of GNOME "Fallback Mode" called EXDE before the gin worked its way out of my system and I remembered I like doing games, not desktop software. If only I were a multi-millionaire like Shuttleworth, then I could pay a bunch of people to make my pet OS too.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't think a full fork of everything is needed. After all, most changes were to nautilus, the desktop, and the control panel.

                        It would be nice if instead you could install half a dozen extra packages and continue to have the classic gnome desktop co-existing with gnome3 and unity.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          interesting development but not so good.
                          Keeping old code (gtk2) alive when their is a way better gtk3 version is just being plain ignorant. They should fork the latest gnome version, drop the default gui and develop and upgrade the fallback mode. In the end that will also benefit Gnome. Note that this isn't the first time a "fork" is attempted. A couple years ago their where a bunch of patches that gnome wouldn't accept. Those where all put on a site and where kept up to date for some time. It never came to a full fork and it eventually died.

                          as for "dash" .. That's both smart and stupid of canonical. Smart, the use of QML since that way they both have software and hardware rendering depending on the used hardware. That's very smart! However, they are using a Gnome environment with Gnome apps but with this they add a huge Qt dependency.. That is not so smart. But hey, they can't rely on cairo for this stuff

                          Yeah, two interesting developments but both aren't that good in their current form.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I wonder: why so much hassle in forking Gnome2, when you have xfce that's also using gtk and it's quite lighter, still following the traditional desktop paradigm?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by spidernik84 View Post
                              I wonder: why so much hassle in forking Gnome2, when you have xfce that's also using gtk and it's quite lighter, still following the traditional desktop paradigm?
                              There is a loud and vocal minority of Linux users that piss and moan every time somebody decides to change something.

                              According to these people Gnome 1.x was crap because all we need Unix for is xterms.
                              Then Gnome 2.x was crap and Gnome 1.x was the bomb because Gnome 2.x got rid of Sawfish and removed a huge amount of script-ability and comparability to 'dumb it down'.
                              Then it Linux desktops developers were unreasonable because they started to try to take advantage of video acceleration and everybody knows that this is bad.

                              so on and so forth.

                              Gnome 3 kicks ass. That's all I have to say.

                              XFCE is just the same old BS. that has been around since Windows 98. I didn't like it much then and I don't like it much now. A UI should be used, not seen.

                              Anyways.... 'The Mate Desktop' will go on to be as popular GoneME and other failed forks. Most of these 'protests' get about as far as a website and mailing list before they evaporate into the ether.


                              People just can't get over the fact that the Gnome developers have the freedom to do what they please for the Gnome desktop for the sole reason that they are the ones that are willing to put in the time and work to get what they want done.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X