Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MATE 1.26 Desktop Released With Some Wayland Support, Other Improvements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Charlie68
    Senior Member

  • Charlie68
    replied
    Take it as my personal opinion ... when I started using Linux, it was the time of Ubuntu 10.04 with Gnome 2 (obviously), well I thought that was the worst GUI I had ever seen. Just having two panels that needed to add the title panel, static launchers ... it was awful! The only positive thing is that it could be configured easily, even if personally I had never managed to get something decent and modern.
    Then came Gnome Shell and here I stop.
    KDE wasn't much better at the time and I didn't like it, really bad GUI.
    While I understood why Mate was born (Gnome Shell to some was unacceptable), today I believe it is largely outdated and all the surveys I have seen, give Mate with a laughable percentage of users, although in some cases better than other small ones. DE.
    In short, I find that there is too much fragmentation and I think the fault lies with Gnome Shell, all these projects, forks and anything else are born with the arrival of Gnome Shell and are all GTK, it is evident that there was a large part of users who do not they liked it.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mez'
    Senior Member

  • Mez'
    replied
    Originally posted by ajparag View Post
    The developers should focus on more critical problems then going backwards to keep alive a legacy environment. Linux has ~2.5% market share. Out of that hardly a significant number will be using MATE desktop. If they can use these resources in improving the user experience in general by contributing to gtk/kde plasma development or wayland itself that would be commendable.
    That's not how it works.
    You assume GTK (or Gnome) development wants to be improved. I think it's wrong to assume so. They've set a direction, they're holding to it no matter what, and you're not going to be welcome if you come and say "I want to bring in some ideas to improve the user experience". That's what led Canonical to Unity in the first place, if I may remind you. Disbanding MATE and the likes wouldn't change a single thing to the direction set for Gnome/GTK, those resources wouldn't be used anymore in any sort unless they accept to develop things that actually led them elsewhere initially, and users would have lost a DE that might be a good fit for them. Complete lose-lose situation.
    The idea that GTK or Plasma (don't know the latter mindset though) would welcome everyone who's willing to contribute is just incorrect. They're willing to accept only those who accept their views. And it wouldn't improve user experience then as it locks the vision even further, with more indoctrinated disciples behind the ayatollahs.

    For example, Solus devs (behind Budgie) re-expressed their support for theming. Imagine the clash if they were to migrate resources to Gnome...
    Mez'
    Senior Member
    Last edited by Mez'; 19 August 2021, 06:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • In_Mint_Condition
    Junior Member

  • In_Mint_Condition
    replied
    Originally posted by domih View Post

    Welcome to the shiny new concept of Activities. This thing brings nothing other than making access to apps a modal affair while in other DE like Mate access to apps is a one click and move trough an hierarchical menu affair. In addition if a user wants to put on the main menu bar or on the desktop her most used apps, OS applets and documents, she should be free to do it intuitively, without having to read the DE desktop manual nor having to extend it with additional plug-ins. The conclusion is obvious: add well established and proven UX solutions to modern GNOME and you see right-away that Activities are useless.....

    ...Windows can have no borders. If for instance you are a Teams user, you're reading a thread, there is no border at the bottom and it seemingly continues with whatever is in the window below the Teams window. It is guaranteed that sometimes this contents will look like text or graphics continuing the Teams thread and it's only after a few seconds you start to wonder what the *&^%$#@! the totally out of content data is. ..... There is a reason why the original UX engineers concluded that windows need borders on a desktop PC.

    Same thing with V and H scroll bars: not needed on portable desktop because users use their fingers. ... . This means that the poor smuck with her mouse has to know and "trust" that there must be a scroll back down arrow in the bottom right hand corner of the windows contents. Totally *&^%$#@!
    Couldn't have said it better!! 100% correct

    Leave a comment:

  • topolinik
    Junior Member

  • topolinik
    replied
    Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
    Your whole post boils down to "I do not want to learn or even try something new, everything has to stay exactly as it was" and "it was all better in the past".
    I don't really think so.
    The post is showing the user's opinion AFTER he/she has actually used different DEs, which brings some facts: DEs need to be helpful and as less-noticeable as they can, there are indeed some good new ideas into modern DEs BUT when users need more steps to do the same old things, well, that's NOT progress.
    When I turn ON my notebook, it is because I need to do things, not staring at my DE. When I need to explore my DE searching for some moved features I need, that's the feeling of *&^%$#@! towards the DE developers domih was talking about.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sethox
    Senior Member

  • Sethox
    replied
    Originally posted by Turbine View Post
    Why is Mate still even a thing. 🤔
    Besides what everyone has said as arguments to answer you, really there is only one answer that makes this a "thing".
    Supply and demand, because you know that it wouldn't continue to bring new releases if no one was using it.

    Leave a comment:

  • Alexmitter
    Senior Member

  • Alexmitter
    replied
    Originally posted by domih View Post

    Because the desktop UX concepts invented in the 1980s-90s are still very well relevant to this day. Mmm?

    It is totally OK for new generations of UX developers to try to top and change the GUI paradigms as long as it brings progress. The problem is while they are attempting to change them, it does not bring much better GUI solutions and very often makes them worse.

    A desktop environment should be a helper, offer fast access to as many as possible features but MOST importantly do it while NOT getting in the way.

    GNOME today does not really shine in this matter. And this is not only GNOME.

    The arrival of smart phones and tablets brought new requirements: restrained graphical real estate, no keyboard, no mouse, touch interface. The GUI software engineers came up will very smart solutions for the portable Desktop. The problem started when these solutions started to overflow to the desktop. A portable device using touch is utterly different from a PC with keyboard and mouse.

    Trying to wed both into common solution is an abysmal error, e.g. Windows 10 where they are mostly spending their time these days to bring back PC desktop ways of doing things.

    A real appraisal of a "new" GUI is:
    - How many steps do it take to do the same thing compared to others.
    - How easy is it to discover new features/commands without RTFM (Read the Fonderwul Manual).
    - How long does it take to learn to use it, again without RTFM.
    - A desktop environment is a utility that gives you fast and simple access to apps and documents, not a goal in itself although it is natural to appear to be a different view from the people writing DE (la "tête dans le guidon" as the French say.)

    The Windows/Menus concepts were pretty good at it. Then icons. So a user could easily customize a stock DE with built-GUI to add menu options, icons on the desktop or main menu bar and so on. GNOME 3 did not bring anything in this matter, rather removed features.

    Welcome to the shiny new concept of Activities. This thing brings nothing other than making access to apps a modal affair while in other DE like Mate access to apps is a one click and move trough an hierarchical menu affair. In addition if a user wants to put on the main menu bar or on the desktop her most used apps, OS applets and documents, she should be free to do it intuitively, without having to read the DE desktop manual nor having to extend it with additional plug-ins. The conclusion is obvious: add well established and proven UX solutions to modern GNOME and you see right-away that Activities are useless. You could get rid of them and would not change anything in the usability of the DE.

    Windows 10 is also good at disorientating the user. The Settings "panel" is a mess. Windows can have no borders. If for instance you are a Teams user, you're reading a thread, there is no border at the bottom and it seemingly continues with whatever is in the window below the Teams window. It is guaranteed that sometimes this contents will look like text or graphics continuing the Teams thread and it's only after a few seconds you start to wonder what the *&^%$#@! the totally out of content data is. The *&^%$#@! also applies to what I think (for a second) of the UX engineers that came up with this. Rhaah! Great job UX designers, you fracked it up beyond what I thought was possible in the name of "unifying" the GUI through all devices. There is a reason why the original UX engineers concluded that windows need borders on a desktop PC.

    Same thing with V and H scroll bars: not needed on portable desktop because users use their fingers. Let's show the thumb to express the relative position you are in a document, but that's it.

    Again, while this is very good and perfect on a portable DE where in addition the real estate is limited, the thing had to overflow on PC desktop. This means that the poor smuck with her mouse has to know and "trust" that there must be a scroll back down arrow in the bottom right hand corner of the windows contents. Totally *&^%$#@! And it only works because people have seen scroll bars with their 5 active areas for decades. BUT it does not work with embedded scrollable areas which a user might miss not realizing that the area has more data. Same story with the windows growth box. It's ironic that the time, human resources and money spent to imagine and invent a mouse driven UX get thrown to the trash by the inheriting generations. Even worse: the scrollbars appear as a half-with gray area with a barely color differentiated color thumb, with not indication about what they are for. The only effect is to make it more difficult to click on them with a mouse. That's an improvement?

    The wrong reasoning: mopeds and 18-wheel trucks are doing the same thing: moving on the road, in addition trains are very close cousins. Fiat Lux! Let's make a "unified GUI" that will work for all of these. Predicted result: a disaster.

    It's obvious that many companies do NOT want to have to spend money on multi-UX teams: one for the PC desktop, one for the portable and one for the browsers. So the UX designers are not 100% guilty.

    Maybe these same companies should revise their unofficial hiring policy of avoiding to hire over 50-yo people and enjoy the guidance, the DO's and the DONT'S of UX from people who had to invent it from scratch who could also deal with portable and browser UX with their past experience. Because man, there is a desperate need given the current state of affairs that looks like the remains of a battle field from the WWI Eastern Front before they cleaned up the destroyed hardware and gather the thousands of dead bodies.

    This is how modern GNOME and Windows 10 Desktop should be seen: two DE that tried to revolutionized DE concepts and crashed somewhere in the middle of the flight. Both utterly failed with anti-patterns that negate the advancements created by the people who originally came up with with windows with actual containing borders, menu bars, round corner buttons, modal vs floating dialogs, etc.

    Microsoft started with menus, then added the icon bar for the common functionalities. Somehow this transmuted into no more menus and replace them with ribbons. I'm still trying to see the improvement here for a PC DE in terms of UX. Think for example about how you learn the keyboard shortcut for each command. Menus were so good, weren't they?

    I noticed the same evolution in the browser versions. In Firefox for example, what are the new major features/functionalities that appear in the last decade? On the other hand, the GUI "flavor" always changes. One can wonder why and (like the story above) the number of steps to do something often increases.

    That's why people use Mate in this particular context: they know that there is something better than UX regression.

    Hopefully I answered your question.

    Although I use GUI and UX interchangeably in a few sentences. The former is mostly about the look and elements such as windows, the latter is about ergonomics. The latter is more important. The apparition of portable devices threw a wreck into the ergonomics of desktop PC.

    So thank you Mate developers for making Mate exist and flourish.

    The saddest thing is that Gnome vs. Mate hotly discussed threads will continue to happen. Pop-corn still has its usage.

    PS: pardon my English, it is not my mother tongue.
    Your whole post boils down to "I do not want to learn or even try something new, everything has to stay exactly as it was" and "it was all better in the past".

    Basically having to repeat all the horrible UI sins committed by the past forever because some people have already gotten them into muscle memory and now a better solution is not "discoverable" to them without "RTFM". The audacity.

    You can fix everything with a hammer, its easy and you for sure need no one explaining you how a hammer works. The classic Windows 95 UI scheme is a hammer.

    Leave a comment:

  • waxhead
    Premium For Life

  • waxhead
    replied
    I am on XFCE and very happy with it, in but I am glad MATE exists and I will not hesitate to switch if XFCE goes sour like so many other DE's ....

    ...Oh and @domih: thanks for an mostly excellent post. Could not have said it better myself.

    Leave a comment:

  • jacob
    Senior Member

  • jacob
    replied
    Originally posted by Turbine View Post
    Why is Mate still even a thing. 🤔
    Because there are people who like it and want to devote their time to developing it?

    Leave a comment:

  • domih
    Junior Member

  • domih
    replied
    Originally posted by Turbine View Post
    Why is Mate still even a thing. 🤔
    Because the desktop UX concepts invented in the 1980s-90s are still very well relevant to this day. Mmm?

    It is totally OK for new generations of UX developers to try to top and change the GUI paradigms as long as it brings progress. The problem is while they are attempting to change them, it does not bring much better GUI solutions and very often makes them worse.

    A desktop environment should be a helper, offer fast access to as many as possible features but MOST importantly do it while NOT getting in the way.

    GNOME today does not really shine in this matter. And this is not only GNOME.

    The arrival of smart phones and tablets brought new requirements: restrained graphical real estate, no keyboard, no mouse, touch interface. The GUI software engineers came up will very smart solutions for the portable Desktop. The problem started when these solutions started to overflow to the desktop. A portable device using touch is utterly different from a PC with keyboard and mouse.

    Trying to wed both into common solution is an abysmal error, e.g. Windows 10 where they are mostly spending their time these days to bring back PC desktop ways of doing things.

    A real appraisal of a "new" GUI is:
    - How many steps do it take to do the same thing compared to others.
    - How easy is it to discover new features/commands without RTFM (Read the Fonderwul Manual).
    - How long does it take to learn to use it, again without RTFM.
    - A desktop environment is a utility that gives you fast and simple access to apps and documents, not a goal in itself although it is natural to appear to be a different view from the people writing DE (la "tête dans le guidon" as the French say.)

    The Windows/Menus concepts were pretty good at it. Then icons. So a user could easily customize a stock DE with built-GUI to add menu options, icons on the desktop or main menu bar and so on. GNOME 3 did not bring anything in this matter, rather removed features.

    Welcome to the shiny new concept of Activities. This thing brings nothing other than making access to apps a modal affair while in other DE like Mate access to apps is a one click and move trough an hierarchical menu affair. In addition if a user wants to put on the main menu bar or on the desktop her most used apps, OS applets and documents, she should be free to do it intuitively, without having to read the DE desktop manual nor having to extend it with additional plug-ins. The conclusion is obvious: add well established and proven UX solutions to modern GNOME and you see right-away that Activities are useless. You could get rid of them and would not change anything in the usability of the DE.

    Windows 10 is also good at disorientating the user. The Settings "panel" is a mess. Windows can have no borders. If for instance you are a Teams user, you're reading a thread, there is no border at the bottom and it seemingly continues with whatever is in the window below the Teams window. It is guaranteed that sometimes this contents will look like text or graphics continuing the Teams thread and it's only after a few seconds you start to wonder what the *&^%$#@! the totally out of content data is. The *&^%$#@! also applies to what I think (for a second) of the UX engineers that came up with this. Rhaah! Great job UX designers, you fracked it up beyond what I thought was possible in the name of "unifying" the GUI through all devices. There is a reason why the original UX engineers concluded that windows need borders on a desktop PC.

    Same thing with V and H scroll bars: not needed on portable desktop because users use their fingers. Let's show the thumb to express the relative position you are in a document, but that's it.

    Again, while this is very good and perfect on a portable DE where in addition the real estate is limited, the thing had to overflow on PC desktop. This means that the poor smuck with her mouse has to know and "trust" that there must be a scroll back down arrow in the bottom right hand corner of the windows contents. Totally *&^%$#@! And it only works because people have seen scroll bars with their 5 active areas for decades. BUT it does not work with embedded scrollable areas which a user might miss not realizing that the area has more data. Same story with the windows growth box. It's ironic that the time, human resources and money spent to imagine and invent a mouse driven UX get thrown to the trash by the inheriting generations. Even worse: the scrollbars appear as a half-with gray area with a barely color differentiated color thumb, with not indication about what they are for. The only effect is to make it more difficult to click on them with a mouse. That's an improvement?

    The wrong reasoning: mopeds and 18-wheel trucks are doing the same thing: moving on the road, in addition trains are very close cousins. Fiat Lux! Let's make a "unified GUI" that will work for all of these. Predicted result: a disaster.

    It's obvious that many companies do NOT want to have to spend money on multi-UX teams: one for the PC desktop, one for the portable and one for the browsers. So the UX designers are not 100% guilty.

    Maybe these same companies should revise their unofficial hiring policy of avoiding to hire over 50-yo people and enjoy the guidance, the DO's and the DONT'S of UX from people who had to invent it from scratch who could also deal with portable and browser UX with their past experience. Because man, there is a desperate need given the current state of affairs that looks like the remains of a battle field from the WWI Eastern Front before they cleaned up the destroyed hardware and gather the thousands of dead bodies.

    This is how modern GNOME and Windows 10 Desktop should be seen: two DE that tried to revolutionized DE concepts and crashed somewhere in the middle of the flight. Both utterly failed with anti-patterns that negate the advancements created by the people who originally came up with with windows with actual containing borders, menu bars, round corner buttons, modal vs floating dialogs, etc.

    Microsoft started with menus, then added the icon bar for the common functionalities. Somehow this transmuted into no more menus and replace them with ribbons. I'm still trying to see the improvement here for a PC DE in terms of UX. Think for example about how you learn the keyboard shortcut for each command. Menus were so good, weren't they?

    I noticed the same evolution in the browser versions. In Firefox for example, what are the new major features/functionalities that appear in the last decade? On the other hand, the GUI "flavor" always changes. One can wonder why and (like the story above) the number of steps to do something often increases.

    That's why people use Mate in this particular context: they know that there is something better than UX regression.

    Hopefully I answered your question.

    Although I use GUI and UX interchangeably in a few sentences. The former is mostly about the look and elements such as windows, the latter is about ergonomics. The latter is more important. The apparition of portable devices threw a wreck into the ergonomics of desktop PC.

    So thank you Mate developers for making Mate exist and flourish.

    The saddest thing is that Gnome vs. Mate hotly discussed threads will continue to happen. Pop-corn still has its usage.

    PS: pardon my English, it is not my mother tongue.
    domih
    Junior Member
    Last edited by domih; 19 August 2021, 01:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • jacob
    Senior Member

  • jacob
    replied
    Are they developing their own compositor or using an existing one?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X