Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Consort Desktop: A New Fork Of GNOME Classic

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    What is the difference between Consort Desktop and MATE?
    According to the Consort devs:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    Mate is based on 'dead technology' and a 'complete fork of GNOME2' yet 'incompatible with GNOME itself(!)'. Consort only forks the fallback parts.
    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    This is the problem with open source. Since you can't tell some idiots that they are wrong and users don't want their shit and tell them to do it right, you're only option is to either fork or start from scratch. It would be much better if the gnome 3 idiots would admit their mistake and fix it instead of maintaining so many forks, but we can't force them to fix the issues. So more wasted manpower.
    Wasn't choice and freedom, which you are seeing here right now one of the 'main advantages' of open source? Besides, you don't HAVE to use the other forks. And about wasted manpower, dude look around in this society. I see people slaughtering other people based on religion/politics/ethnicity. At least these developers are not wasting their time in bothering other people. They are actually convinced they have a better alternative and do what they say, without needing other peoples consent. How does that bother you in any way? Perceived wasted manpower on other projects, the world does not revolve around you u know...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    Frankly, out of all of the forks, this is the one that has it's developers heads on the straightest. MATE will always be troubled due to it's dependence on older technologies and incompatibility with modern GNOME components, and I am still not convinced that Cinnamon really adds anything that could not be accomplished using Shell Extensions. This is a fork of Gnome Classic/Fallback that hopes to update and expand it while still being fully compatible with the regular GNOME stack - meaning that they have full access to modern and maintained internals which should reduce their maintenance burden considerably. This makes me think that this project has a much brighter future than both MATE and Cinnamon, and can develop a much better relationship with upstream Gnome. Quite frankly, this is how this should have been handled by these people from the beginning.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    Frankly, out of all of the forks, this is the one that has it's developers heads on the straightest. MATE will always be troubled due to it's dependence on older technologies and incompatibility with modern GNOME components, and I am still not convinced that Cinnamon really adds anything that could not be accomplished using Shell Extensions. This is a fork of Gnome Classic/Fallback that hopes to update and expand it while still being fully compatible with the regular GNOME stack - meaning that they have full access to modern and maintained internals which should reduce their maintenance burden considerably. This makes me think that this project has a much brighter future than both MATE and Cinnamon, and can develop a much better relationship with upstream Gnome. Quite frankly, this is how this should have been handled by these people from the beginning.
    Exactly!
    I'm glad someone said it ..
    Isn't one of the perceived advantages of opensource the sharing of code anyways? I think those guys are doing it right ..
    I personally believe, as much code as possible should be shared between opensource projects .. It would benefit everyone, the writers and the users .. But in many cases it's not done.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleid View Post
    I'm reading between the lines, that they'll port gnome-panel to GTK+3, or am I mistaken? That would justify a fork.
    Their website isn't exactly clear on the subject, but no. There's no need to port gnome-panel to GTK+3, because the Gnome guys already did that job - the panel might not be used by Shell, but it was ported and maintained as part of the fallback mode. And it appears that these guys are smart enough to take advantage of the work that's already been done - forked versions of the post-GTK3 panel and related packages, and using the upstream Gnome3 versions of other stuff.

    This puts them in the same category as Cinnamon - a minor fork of Gnome 3, rather than the MATE approach of adopting the entire Gnome2 legacy codebase.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Agree with Hamish also. It seems to be a good direction and I definitely like the idea of shared code/compatibility.

    Ikey and the Solus OS gang seem to be pretty good at what they do.

    PS. how long before we see Consort in the Arch AUR? Haha.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    This is the problem with open source. Since you can't tell some idiots that they are wrong and users don't want their shit and tell them to do it right, you're only option is to either fork or start from scratch. It would be much better if the gnome 3 idiots would admit their mistake and fix it instead of maintaining so many forks, but we can't force them to fix the issues. So more wasted manpower.
    This is not the problem with Open Source. It's its big advantage. Think about different Open Source developers groups as a different companies and you've got a point. You can't force apple to work on ms windows etc. However, when comes to gnome 3 part I'm with you.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    This is not the problem with Open Source. It's its big advantage. Think about different Open Source developers groups as a different companies and you've got a point. You can't force apple to work on ms windows etc. However, when comes to gnome 3 part I'm with you.
    But they're not doing what he wants! That's a problem! He wants it!!!

    Assholes!


  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    17

    Default

    If the Gnome Team was at fault here for not doing what is, apparently, so obviously right then there wouldn't be so many forks, just one doing things like they were supposed to be done. The reason there's so many forks is because everyone wants to have their few minutes of fame. All these forks will eventually fade away as the hatred cools down.

    Gnome 3.8 doesn't need 3D acceleration, so building over the new Gnome Shell would be an easier and better way to acomplish those goals I guess. Mint is already doing something similar and the Gnome Team said it would replace the fallback mode with a set of official extensions that would imitate the classic Gnome. These projects have more future than the other forks trying to take the old orphaned code back.

    The more forks they start the more wrong and shameful they look.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by berarma View Post
    Gnome 3.8 doesn't need 3D acceleration, so building over the new Gnome Shell would be an easier and better way to acomplish those goals I guess. Mint is already doing something similar and the Gnome Team said it would replace the fallback mode with a set of official extensions that would imitate the classic Gnome. These projects have more future than the other forks trying to take the old orphaned code back.
    I agree for the most part, but I do not think that leveraging Shell over llvmpipe is really equivalent to running without 3D acceleration. Although, for machines were llvmpipe does not work, I would be much more comfortable setting up LXDE or Xfce on them anyway. I still stand by what I said though, in that out of all of the forks Consort has the best idea of how to go forward.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default I like Gnome 3 and gnome-shell

    I am really liking Gnome 3 and gnome-shell. But, I admit that the Gnome 3 has been quite unstable, and 3.6 seems to be about ready for use.
    But I can see the desire for old interfaces, and this sounds it might have some future.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •