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...
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.
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.
Originally Posted by phoronix
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.
Originally Posted by ChrisIrwin
That would be really Windows-like, sort of like having a registry with a bunch of hidden set... oh wait :\
Originally Posted by Delgarde
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.
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?
If that's the only point, then why don't KDE3 lovers just make KDE4 behave like KDE3? It's not as if the old theme's, desktop behavior, old AmaroK interface and old kicker isn't available for KDE4...
Originally Posted by RealNC
That said, Plasma can easily be configured to work the same as Gnome 2, while being technologicaly better. I'd say you need a 'whopping' 2 months to hack and slash KDE4 into a Gnome 2-panel desktop, but with way better technology. In fact: the very purpose of Plasma was to be a canvas for desktops. I don't mean changing panel behavior; I mean creating new ones. Then strip away various options related to KDE4 and you have Gnome 2 classic. Because what exactly is Gnome 2? A couple of menu's, panels and tiny config widgets. That's pretty much it...
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...
Originally Posted by DanL
Yes, I was somewhat referring to gconf, but more to the maddening practice of not having options configurable via a GUI for GUI programs.
Originally Posted by Delgarde