Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future Of GNOME: Very Optimistic?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    "Christian sees advancing the Linux desktop as working on the underlying components rather than just hacking on the GNOME Shell."

    that is exactly how i best see gnome improving ~ GS is great (for those who think so) and so is every other Shell or DE built on Gnome, but it is the underlying stuff that should be focused on, as the underlying stuff is what will make gnome better and better. I also like Christian's critique (in his blog post) about 'duplicated efforts', using Gnome's Online Accounts vs. Ubuntu's online accounts as an example.



    Speak for yourself, rather than asserting your opinion as 'fact'... i prefer Gnome 3 (not using GS) over the old Gnome stack any day of the week
    As usual I agree with you. Gnome made huge strides with the move from 2->3. Gtk itself has seen big improvements (like the rather long running project width-for-height), and gdk looks to become more modern by incorporating clutter (the actual way this will be achieved seems unclear, though). Cairo is always improving, and harfbuzz might officially replace the pango shaper. The strength of Gnome is that it is built in a unix like way. The problem for devs is that it has been built in a unix like way but not well enough abstracted so a dev ends up having to understand various libraries that were not developed with tight interoperability in mind. That is the advantage Qt brings. Of course Qt is rather monolithic and it makes the most sense to stay in that ecosystem rather than search out best of breed components. The later is something Gnome should be striving for (the best example I can think of would be offering up skia rather than cairo).
    Regarding duplication of effort, you mentioned goa and ubuntu online, but apparently kde has its own version as well. Does that not seem like a good fdo project? I would love to see fdo work on more standards so we can really reduce this wasted design effort and focus on implementations, or even standalone xplatform .so's if at all possible.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rrohbeck View Post
      I think Mate with Gtk3 and some selectively merged Gnome3 changes/apps would be the right thing to do for RedHat.
      Gnome3 classic is unusable at the moment. *Maybe* if they put some real work into it and re-introduce the features they cut out (and get rid of the non-features.)
      explain this idea of being 'unusable'?!? I could log into classic mode right now, and be able to use my computer just fine - comparably to if i was to use Gnome2 in CentOS at work. but interestingly as someone else pointed out - why do you need gnome on your server? (ie: i never use a GUI on my servers, nor does any other anyone else that i know).

      I think it would make more sense for Redhat to stick with Gnome3 and not be concerned about Mate Desktop, at all. :\ sure, if there is a feature or two that may be needed, re-implement them or provide an alternative. What is even the point of porting Mate to gtk3 - to duplicate work that was already done over the last couple of years? with the time they spent fixing build errors, renaming software to stop conflicts, while also making small changes to nautilus - they could have written the missing components they wanted for Gnome 3 and had time to spare ~ Fork gnome-panel, add a few missing features, etc. Mate at best is a band-aid.

      I highly doubt we will see Redhat take it on, rather than improving Gnome 3 for their purposes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rrohbeck View Post
        Intel graphics? Modern servers have IPMI which excludes built-in Intel graphics at the moment AFAIK.
        How about Matrox G200? ATI ES1000?
        Could you first answer the whole post instead of being selective.

        Why use a GUI on a server? Why ignore llvmpipe? Why ignore fallback mode?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rrohbeck View Post
          I think Mate with Gtk3 and some selectively merged Gnome3 changes/apps would be the right thing to do for RedHat.
          Gnome3 classic is unusable at the moment. *Maybe* if they put some real work into it and re-introduce the features they cut out (and get rid of the non-features.)
          MATE is a dead-software walking. All these times working on a depreciated desktop environment could be done on gnome-shell extensions, some of them fully replicate legacy gnome-panel by taking advantage of GTK3. Gnome-shell was designed to be quasi barebone which can be extended. Panel configuration is in progress, meanwhile gnome-tweak-tools does a decent job to provide more customization.

          Comment


          • #20
            Which is why Cinnamon is taking the bull by its horns and leading with GTK+3. If you don't like GNOME, give Cinnamon a try. It's quite tasty, actually.

            Comment


            • #21
              Gnome Shell not for tablets

              I keep reading the constant rehash that Gnome Shell is a tablet interface. Rubbish. Gnome Shell is way too mouse centric. A tablet shell could be created, and that is what Gnome 3.x is all about. A framework that can be made into anything. Some people see the way it works, that is why we have Cinnamon. Cinnamon for Gnome 2.x die-hards. Cinnamon is just an alternate shell for Gnome 3. Others can be created, it only takes imagination and you have your own DE. Cinnamon is only about 4mb of packages. You can use extensions to bend Gnome Shell in all sorts of ways. If you look at http://extensions.gnome.org you find an ever growing list of extensions for all sorts of gizmos and gadgets and UI changes.

              You can guess that I use Gnome 3.4. I have a selection of extensions to make my desktop the way I like it. With Gnome Tweak Tool and a few extensions you can make a DE that mimics Gnome 2.x, if that is your want. But, you have to take the time to learn how it works, try things out, change it again, then settle on your creation. "But, I should not have to do all that just to make it work" - funnily enough most of us who use 3.4 like the default more than 2.x. Then fiddle with it to make it a bit different.

              How to make Gnome Shell act like Gnome 2.x

              Install Gnome Tweak Tool and use it to have the file manager control the desktop - then spread your icons everywhere (shudder!)
              Install extensions
              Axe menu
              Window List Extension
              Hot Corn Dog
              User Themes - manually copy the themes into ~/.themes
              Frippery Shutdown
              Frippery Move Clock

              That is a good start point, you would end up with one toolbar along the top, a traditional menu (but more like the Mint Menu), a task switcher, and shut down as a default item. And a traditional desktop.

              "But, I should not have to do all that just to make it work" - easier than installing Mate and you have all the latest versions of Gnome libs and programs.

              Embrace the future or not, it is up to you

              Off soapbox for now.

              Comment


              • #22
                While just 4 days ago

                The outlook for Gnome3 wasn't so optimistic http://www.osnews.com/story/26227/GN...nto_the_abyss_

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bkor View Post
                  Could you first answer the whole post instead of being selective.

                  Why use a GUI on a server? Why ignore llvmpipe? Why ignore fallback mode?
                  There are, unfortunately, some tools that require X. SMclient for example. It is also handy to have a bunch of terminals open.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rrohbeck View Post
                    There are, unfortunately, some tools that require X. SMclient for example. It is also handy to have a bunch of terminals open.
                    you need Gnome for that?! lol.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ninez View Post
                      you need Gnome for that?! lol.
                      I don't need Gnome for that, but I need X-Windows.
                      But in any case this discussion moot. RedHat will keep having a GUI which will need to support old graphics cores because they're integrated into the BMC.
                      I just checked a Dell R910:
                      VGA compatible controller: Matrox Graphics, Inc. MGA G200eW WPCM450

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ninez View Post
                        with the time they spent fixing build errors, renaming software to stop conflicts, while also making small changes to nautilus - they could have written the missing components they wanted for Gnome 3 and had time to spare ~ Fork gnome-panel, add a few missing features, etc. Mate at best is a band-aid.
                        This +1.

                        I must admit that I am disappointed at the state of the panel in Gnome 3 Fallback Mode as it is currently in Fedora 17, but other than that I have little to no complaints about the classic interface.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by rrohbeck View Post
                          I think Mate with Gtk3 and some selectively merged Gnome3 changes/apps would be the right thing to do for RedHat.
                          Yeah, and maybe that'll happen in four or five years time, if they developers haven't given up by then. The only way the MATE developers are going to get to Gtk 3 is by throwing out most of the Gnome 2 code they've inherited, and starting again based on the work the Gnome 3 devs have already done.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by grege View Post
                            I keep reading the constant rehash that Gnome Shell is a tablet interface. Rubbish. Gnome Shell is way too mouse centric
                            Not at all... I find Shell to be just as good as the old Gnome 2 UI as far as keyboard support is concerned. What is it that you want to do, that can't be done without a mouse?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                              The outlook for Gnome3 wasn't so optimistic http://www.osnews.com/story/26227/GN...nto_the_abyss_
                              Yes, well - heaven forbid that different people have different opinions. Benjamin Otte might be unhappy with Gnome direction (or lack thereof), but that doesn't mean others can't hold more positive views.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                                This +1.

                                I must admit that I am disappointed at the state of the panel in Gnome 3 Fallback Mode as it is currently in Fedora 17, but other than that I have little to no complaints about the classic interface.
                                Umm, "fallback mode" was dropped in favor of offering gnome shell through llvmpipe in 3.4, was it not?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X