Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora Proposal To Use Cinnamon Desktop By Default

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
    Well, cars have had the same (many) decades-old UI (steering wheel, brakes, gearbox etc) but i am pretty sure most people don't mind. In other words: Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it is less valuable, AKA change just for the sake of change is bad...
    They are different.
    Cars have over 100 years of history, and have changed much before their "modern" look.
    For Desktop UIs, every major Windows version has visible and invisible improvements.

    I think people can enjoy a 15 years old car but cannot bear the incontinent UI of Windows 98, although it is also 15 years old.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
      Gnome shell isn't designed for tablets, just because it has a black taskbar on top.
      See, that's the thing that puzzles me with that particular piece of Shell criticism - that it's a tablet UI, which is absurd. It's an entirely traditional desktop UI, and the only possible basis for that criticism is, as you say, that the task bar is black like the one in iOS or Android. As someone who actually uses both Shell and Android, there is literally no other point of similarity that I can see.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
        What is more telling is that other major distributions have moved away from it. Ubuntu and Mint, for example, and non-GNOME distros like Mageia and OpenSUSE are also gaining. Fedora is the only major distro where you get GS by default.
        openSUSE doesn't actually have a default setting. It has a screen with both KDE and GNOME presented on equal terms, and it's down to the user to select which one to install:
        http://doc.opensuse.org/documentatio...2_sys_type.png

        According to the discussions, GNOME and KDE users were pretty much in equal halves last time I checked. There are no usage statistics in OBS just yet, but it should be integrated soon enough, so it will be possible to get some harder numbers.

        I think that this is something Fedora could use as well. No default option. Have users select what they like.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by thalaric View Post
          Yes it was. If you go back and read the initial announcements tablets and touch were the rationale for its development. On top of that, look at the similarities to Android:

          1) Dock. Check.
          2) App Drawer and six little squares for the app drawer icon. Check. Check.
          3) No minimizing. Check.
          4) "Notifications" area. Check.
          5) Optimized for single window. Check.
          6) Open existing instance rather than new instance of apps. Check.
          7) etc. etc. etc.

          It shares more UI elements from iOS and Android then it does from the classic desktop, from which it only kept the application panel. They did this on purpose so don't try to rewrite history.
          Um, no? You can minimize applications in Shell, even if the button is hidden by default - just right-click the title bar, and minimize. Nor is Shell optimised for single window (though certain Gnome applications are) - for the most part it behaves identically to G2 or KDE. And half the other features you list are common to almost every desktop - the "dock" is something I first recall encountering in CDE years ago, the "app draw" is pretty much the same thing as the Windows start button, and the "notifications area" is just a variation on the standard system tray.

          Further, it's a hugely keyboard-optimised interface, much more so than it's predecessor. Yes, parts of it are probably quite usable with a touch screen, but not really on a keyboard-less device like a tablet. If aimed at touch devices at all, it's at the same laptop hardware that's becoming common post-Windows8 - i.e with touch support supplementing the conventional desktop.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Akka View Post
            I suppose the default status is important to catch newbies. But besides that I don't think it matter so much outsides of ubuntu and mint(I get the impression that their user bases culture is different from the rest of the linux distros in that they are "loyal" to the default software in higher degree)

            In Arch Linux its look like gnome shell is installed in around 24.5 % of the computer that has the "pkgstats" package installed. kdebase-plasma is installed in 26.5 % of the computers. xfdesktop has 24.5 %. Openbox 24.5 %, i3-wm 6.5%
            Besides the low number for i3 I think the number is as expected. Kde is biggest but it almost even with gnome and xfc.
            https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics
            Arch Linux stats don't mean much. I have installed Gnome AND KDE but currently i am using Cinnamon which , correct me if i am wrong, isn't counted in those stats as it is in AUR at the moment.

            I am using Cinnamon although i prefer KDE's UI. The reason for not using it is that for some reason Kwin stalls when there is serious HD activity and sometimes completely freezes. In other WM i don't face this issue.

            So, just because you have something installed doesn't mean you actually use it or prefer it. I tend to install many packages since i want to be able to have every function available the time i want it, try new things (funny how shell fanbois accuse me of refusing to try) etc...

            The Gnome Shell faces legitimate criticism but as is usual with the Gnome mentality, it is their way or the highway. The funny part is that GNOME's mentality was tolerated for so much time because it was the one Ubuntu used, and because Gnome 2 worked both for casual and productive uses. Now that there are other alternatives and GNOME Shell hinders the productive user, people are fleeing in large numbers. Soon the Shell will be used only by its developers and its sworn fanboys, if this trend continues. There is hope though, since in 3.8 the Classic mode will return. What have the fanboys to say about THAT? Is it the wrong move? Why GNOME devs waste precious resources to go back in time? Will "progress" be destroyed? What?

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
              They are different.
              Cars have over 100 years of history, and have changed much before their "modern" look.
              For Desktop UIs, every major Windows version has visible and invisible improvements.

              I think people can enjoy a 15 years old car but cannot bear the incontinent UI of Windows 98, although it is also 15 years old.
              People really enjoyed the UI of Windows 98 back in the day. It once holded the vast majority of OS market share for a time... If they really couldn't bare it, they wouldn't use it.

              The reason people can't bare Windows 98 UI TODAY, is simply because it has less eye candy and it was designed with lower resolutions in mind. Its design principles are the same with Windows 7: Start menu, system tray, open windows showing in the middle etc. When you are using Windows 7, 99% of your actions are the same you would be using if you had Windows 98, just with less eye candy and no grouping for open windows.

              Comment


              • #97
                Switch to another one of 3 major DE and shut up already

                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                It's absolutely hilarious how little fanboys get their panties in the bunch that some people out there do not like their "official" and "only correct" desktop. If you prefer something else, you are wrong and evil There are no two ways to skin a cat, only the GNOME developers' way, or the electric chair. Just use it if you like it and let other people use what they prefer, FFS.
                What's hilarious is:
                - GS-haters prefer to use GS and whine instead of switch to Xfce, LXDE or the, praised by glass-plastic-90s-fetishists, KDE. It's easy on Linux to switch to another desktop environment, even to have them installed on one system!
                - if they don't use GS, then what's left? They bash it and don't use it?

                I can't decide on my own which one is more pathetic. Please, help.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Bucic View Post
                  What's hilarious is:
                  - GS-haters prefer to use GS and whine instead of switch to Xfce, LXDE or the, praised by glass-plastic-90s-fetishists, KDE. It's easy on Linux to switch to another desktop environment, even to have them installed on one system!
                  - if they don't use GS, then what's left? They bash it and don't use it?

                  I can't decide on my own which one is more pathetic. Please, help.
                  This is a forum. A forum is a place where people gather to say their opinion about a matter. Sometimes they like a thing, sometimes they don't. As long as they provide arguments in the discussion, both are welcome.

                  A forum isn't a place where everything needs to be written only by people who like a particular subject, and avoid criticism at all costs. If that is what you need, create a GnomeShell-is-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread blog and gather all similar minded people and share your passion for this UI and rejoice!

                  If you don't understand what is a forum, do not participate in one... I am tired of all these politically-correct "if you don't like it don't use it but don't say your opinion" BS...

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                    If you don't understand what is a forum, do not participate in one... I am tired of all these politically-correct "if you don't like it don't use it but don't say your opinion" BS...
                    So, do you think it is a good use of a forum to spew hate and (in some cases) disinformation?
                    I don't think any of us "Gnome-fanbois"(sic!) have anything against a good discussion. The problem is that there is no discussion.
                    I see very little actual arguments on why GNOME3 is bad. Only a lot of emotional/subjective opinions.
                    I think I also speak for a lot of GNOME3-users that we are geting kind of tired of hearing that we are only "casual" (read "stupid") users who don't do real work.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                      Um, no? You can minimize applications in Shell, even if the button is hidden by default - just right-click the title bar, and minimize. Nor is Shell optimised for single window (though certain Gnome applications are) - for the most part it behaves identically to G2 or KDE. And half the other features you list are common to almost every desktop - the "dock" is something I first recall encountering in CDE years ago, the "app draw" is pretty much the same thing as the Windows start button, and the "notifications area" is just a variation on the standard system tray.

                      Further, it's a hugely keyboard-optimised interface, much more so than it's predecessor. Yes, parts of it are probably quite usable with a touch screen, but not really on a keyboard-less device like a tablet. If aimed at touch devices at all, it's at the same laptop hardware that's becoming common post-Windows8 - i.e with touch support supplementing the conventional desktop.
                      By your rationale we must determine that there is nothing substantively different between any classic desktop and Android/iOS, since they all share the same basic elements. Except that isn't true, there is a large functional and look a feel difference between a mobile OS and a desktop OS. A mobile OS, due to having to fit on small form factors, tend to use the entire screen, while desktops use parts of a larger screen. In gnome shell the task bar is moved from part of the desktop screen to an overlay that uses the entire screen. The App Drawer is a mode change within the overlay that takes up the entire screen, not a collapsible menu such as on the desktop. This is what Android/iOS do. Minimize is hidden. You have to switch to overview to switch applications, like in Android. Indeed, many of the responses here have claimed the right method for using gnome shell is not to minimize but just open the app again.

                      We don't have to argue, we can look at some of the design considerations for Gnome Shell from 2009: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...8IIBIY1AkePikA

                      Among a larger list of goals and rationale you will find:

                      [QUOTE]
                      Manage Complexity and Encourage Flexibility
                      - Allow the experience to adapt to the usage
                      - Work as well for the user that uses only two applications and the one that uses tens on
                      multiple workspaces
                      - Core concepts should scale to capabilities of devices other than "desktop" computers
                      - Must be usable with a touch or single button input device
                      - Must be usable in when rotated or resized
                      [Quote]

                      Mobile/touch computing was a core design principle from the beginning of the project, and it shows in the result. This is good but their mistake was trying to unify the experience instead of taking a two prong approach. Now the interface isn't optimized for either mobile or a workstation.

                      Comment


                      • OK I haven't read the entire thread so maybe someone else mentioned this but, if Gnome looses it's support from major distributions out there (Ubuntu, Mint and for the sake of the argument let's say Fedora) how do you think that will reflect on Gnome development and what would become of "DE's" that are based on Gnome such as Cinnamon and Unity. THIS is why I wasn't too keen on distro's having their own DE's/WM. And right now, if someone asked me what DE/Distro should I use for deployment in enterprise enviroment I wouldn't know what to say, Xfce probably on Ubuntu or Fedora or Debian with Gnome 2.

                        Xfce dev's will profit from all of this, their code base is relatively small and easy to maintain, they don't rush the features in and you are more or less certain that what you are using today won't change in the near future that much. And they are light on the hardware requirements wich is very important in the enterprise segment.

                        I, for one, don't like GS or G3 for that matter, but nevertheless I think that Fedora shouldn't change anything and continue to ship G3 as a default desktop enviroment and to show strong support for it's respins.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                          Arch Linux stats don't mean much. I have installed Gnome AND KDE but currently i am using Cinnamon which , correct me if i am wrong, isn't counted in those stats as it is in AUR at the moment.

                          I am using Cinnamon although i prefer KDE's UI. The reason for not using it is that for some reason Kwin stalls when there is serious HD activity and sometimes completely freezes. In other WM i don't face this issue.
                          If you look in the last category it's its counted there. Cinnamon has 2.3% installation base in there stats.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by thalaric View Post
                            You have to switch to overview to switch applications, like in Android. Indeed, many of the responses here have claimed the right method for using gnome shell is not to minimize but just open the app again.
                            What's the use case here? If I have multiple apps open (which I usually do) I either use Alt-tab or Super->Overview->click. Not much different from what I do in Windows or GNOME2.
                            If there is an app that I need to have opened, but I don't want to be shown, I put it on another workspace. Easier to find than using minimize, IMHO.

                            Mobile/touch computing was a core design principle from the beginning of the project, and it shows in the result. This is good but their mistake was trying to unify the experience instead of taking a two prong approach. Now the interface isn't optimized for either mobile or a workstation.
                            Whether something is optimized or not is probably hard to measure. I feel that G3 is just as optimized as G2 though. I do things differently, but not slower or worse.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                              It doesn't even have a goddamn taskbar. Here is a reason. That I've stated hundreds of times. And don't give me yet again the alt-tab or going to that corner to change between applications. A taskbar is good and necessary. They removed it -> they are evil and try to fuck my workflow -> fuck them I'm not using it -> complain on forums hoping if we reach critical mass the idiots will listen to the users.
                              I don't miss the taskbar at all. I find clicking Super and then a big window works just as well (or better?) than trying to click a small area at the bottom of the screen. Especially when I am using a touchpad.
                              Also, I kind of like freeing up vertical space
                              Not sure why everyone is so obsessed with the hot corner either. Use the keyboard dude :P

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kigurai View Post
                                I see very little actual arguments on why GNOME3 is bad. Only a lot of emotional/subjective opinions.
                                How many actualy arguments do you see on why it is good?

                                Since you were replying to me earlier, I explicitly welcome choice -- as long as the big players cooperate on common desktop infrastructure so things interoperate. However, when people actually argue that there is only one way to use a computer and running anything else is wrong (like the guy I was replying to earlier), then these people have lost all sense of reality.

                                Once a desktop stops doing what people need it to do, people will not spend years changing their habits, people will flock to software which lets them do what they want. KDE learned and has listened to people's complaints after early KDE 4 versions removed functionality, and it changed for the better as a result. Now it seems like GNOME will have to learn the same lesson.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X