MATE 1.8 Is Now Available On Gentoo Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: MATE 1.8 Is Now Available On Gentoo Linux

For Phoronix readers running Gentoo Linux, you can now easily install the MATE 1.8 GNOME2-forked desktop environment...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY4MTY

[cube]

Why don't they port/rewrite only gnome-panel and keep rest from Gnome3 ? Does keeping whole Gnome2 with all old libraries (GTK2 etc) make any sense?

[ssam]

Why don't they port/rewrite only gnome-panel and keep rest from Gnome3 ? Does keeping whole Gnome2 with all old libraries (GTK2 etc) make any sense?

Why throw out something that still works?

[Azpegath]

Why don't they port/rewrite only gnome-panel and keep rest from Gnome3 ? Does keeping whole Gnome2 with all old libraries (GTK2 etc) make any sense?

Strangely enough, one of the current development goals of MATE is to rewrite it, using GTK 3 instead.

http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/status:gtk3

[PiotrDrag]

Strangely enough, one of the current development goals of MATE is to rewrite it, using GTK 3 instead.

Which GNOME already did 3 years ago. Talk about eye candy.

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-p...qt=grep&q=gtk3

[schmidtbag]

Why throw out something that still works?

A mindset like that prevents innovation. It's also a very naive phrase to use in the technology world, and only applies if getting a newer/better product isn't more cost, time, or performance effective. For example, if you run Windows XP on an i7, you will lose a tremendous amount of performance due to the lacking hardware support and crap multi-threaded scheduler. So yes, it works, but throwing out XP will allow you to take advantage of your hardware. On the flip side, if you've got a Core 2 Duo, XP will likely run better than any other version of Windows, in which case there wouldn't be a need to throw it out, BUT, what if you wanted something like linux on it!? . Would you still ask your question then?

In the case of desktop environments, they too are affected by and have an impact on your hardware. AFAIK, MATE isn't GPU accelerated at all, it has no support for wayland, it uses an outdated toolkit, and probably is disastrous on 4K screens. Depending on your hardware and what you have installed, maybe none of these things will matter at all. But if MATE could be merged with GNOME 3 (or at least a GTK3 environment) then it'd open doors to extending its lifespan. The problem I see is the entire purpose of MATE (in my opinion, I could be wrong) was to retain compatibility with older GTK2+ software and retain the old GNOME 2 panels while still remaining somewhat up-to-date. Unless the MATE developers can find a way to get GTK2 programs to work using GTK3 libraries, I don't see an easy practical way to port any of MATE to work with GNOME 3.

[Rallos Zek]

A mindset like that prevents innovation.

If by innovation you mean coming out with something like Gnome3 then we do not want nothing to with it.

[schmidtbag]

If by innovation you mean coming out with something like Gnome3 then we do not want nothing to with it.

I'm referring more to GTK3 as being innovation. Besides, gnome 3 is fine. The problem is they called it gnome, which for the longest time has been assumed to be the linux default environment and it isn't ideal as a default environment - too bloated, too different, too touch-focused, too hardware dependent, and too locked-down. Same goes for Windows RT - it'd have been a higher rated product if they didn't call it Windows, because people expected it to behave like x86 versions.

[strcat]

Why don't they port/rewrite only gnome-panel and keep rest from Gnome3 ? Does keeping whole Gnome2 with all old libraries (GTK2 etc) make any sense?

They are doing exactly this. They're porting to the up-to-date GNOME libraries, and use the vanilla GNOME applications when there's no disagreement about the UX. Header bars are likely going to limit that, unless the Mate people like header bars (Elementary OS loves them).

[Azpegath]

If by innovation you mean coming out with something like Gnome3 then we do not want nothing to with it.

Well great, then you can use it happily! Unless you meant the opposite of what you wrote, then it's good you have a choice, and that's simply not to use it. Sorry to hear about your schizophrenia though.