Fedora Proposal To Use Cinnamon Desktop By Default

[kigurai]

Some are better than others, and anything lacking the words "Gnome Shell" is less useful. However we can take some things away from this poll just like the others. What I can't figure out is why you added Gnome2 and Gnome3 together.

The real numbers are (adjusting for win and mac):

Gnome3 666/1655 [40.24%]
Gnome Not Gnome3 528/1655 [31.90%]

It's almost looks like Fedora logged into phoronix.

So 40% instead of 60% then. I can give you that. I'd still say a 40% market share considering the number of alternative DE's is quite impressive.
Hypothetically of course, since the poll is useless.

[log0]

Relax Gnome Shell users and fans. The shitstorm is almost over. Mate, Cinnamon and Consort will fill the Gnome 2 sucessor role nicely. In a year nobody will give a damn about what functionality has been removed from the Shell...

I am somewhat surprised about the poweroff change and the classic mode talk to be honest. But please don't see this as critique, just stating my personal opinion. Stay true to your vision Shell guys. You have got a brand to create!

Former Gnome 2, now Xfce user.

[Hamish Wilson]

The first is, what is it exactly you believe my motivations are? I've made it pretty clear that the reason I'm posting here is because I do not care for Gnome Shell and would like Cinnamon (or a similar DE) to be the default. I happen to believe that Gnome Shell does not provide the features that most people need in a default desktop. If that is a problem for you, then I suggest you review your own motivations and assumptions.

On the face of it you wanting Cinnamon to be the default is not an issue. I am also annoyed that I have to toggle Crtl-Alt-Backspace manually now in my Xorg.conf in order to get a desktop I feel comfortable with. However, there is an undercurrent in this thread which does go beyond you and that is what is making me upset here, which I have already well explored in my past statements. The fact that people feel they can not work with the project even though they have now been given several ample ways of doing show is indicative of this, when it mostly seems to be a matter of egos on both sides.

For years there have been people who wished for KDE to be the default desktop on Fedora (and for awhile KDE was suggested to be the most popular desktop in polls to). And yet, despite our disagreements, I have yet to see this level of uproar from the KDE camp for the most part. As I have said numerous times, it is up to the Fedora Project Board to determine which desktop best suits there vision for their project as default (which does not actually mean much anyway) and they have certainly seen some value in what is going on with Shell. Want to do something constructive and easily within your reach? Try getting people together to make a dedicated Cinnamon spin of Fedora. It is in the package repositories in Fedora 18 already. It would not be that hard.

On the topic of Fedora, I probably didn't make myself very clear. My point was that Gnome Shell does not have majority adoption, being at less than 40%. Together Cinnamon, MATE and XFCE make up a slightly smaller but equally relevant share. This is the highest adoption for Gnome Shell, with the other distributions showing much worse numbers. That matters when compared to historical levels of Gnome adoption. It is obvious that the polls have limited use, they can only predict the popularity of each desktop environment, or lack thereof, among people who actually took the poll. That does not make them completely useless for gauging reception.

Not completely useless, but still pretty useless. As an Xfce user I can also tell you I do not appreciate you lumping Cinnamon, MATE, and Xfce in the same category as they are much different desktops with very different goals. I personally really dislike the look of Cinnamon, and could not imagine using it as my main desktop (which does not make unusable or anything like many here assert against Shell), but I am quite happy with the direction that Xfce is taking. Also, what about these polls suggests that Cinnamon should be the default for you (at 8.33% on the FedorForum)? Gnome is more extendable than Cinnamon with a greater and more active development community, and with the Classic Mode in 3.8 the next release of Fedora is already going to have a Classic Mode available on start up (based on the limited markups I have seen). So they already have most of the benefits of having Cinnamon by default by virtue of that.

That said, feel free to reject all of the provided data and observations that have been shared in this forum without providing any of your own.

I think even you can agree that I have been providing plenty of observations on this subject thalaric. And your data is only as useful as the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

[Guest]

I think all this 'vision' stuff they say is just crap. Just an excuse. There is no vision. They are massively understaffed so they thought to remove as much functionality as possible in order to be able to test the thing properly. Then they created those extensions crap for basic stuff hoping that the ones writing the extension will actually test and make sure there are no bugs. Vision, branding whatever they wanna call it, they simplified everything because of lack of manpower. This is the most reasonable excuse I can come up with for them.

It couldn't be said better. It's so true and sad about them. Furthermore, they're just perfect example of an iphone syndrome I've pointed before. It's quite funny to see gnome ruining itself.

[Akka]

It couldn't be said better. It's so true and sad about them. Furthermore, they're just perfect example of an iphone syndrome I've pointed before. It's quite funny to see gnome ruining itself.

Because you don't use it? Why should they care? Are you a big provider of funds or something?

[thalaric]

On the face of it you wanting Cinnamon to be the default is not an issue. I am also annoyed that I have to toggle Crtl-Alt-Backspace manually now in my Xorg.conf in order to get a desktop I feel comfortable with. However, there is an undercurrent in this thread which does go beyond you and that is what is making me upset here, which I have already well explored in my past statements. The fact that people feel they can not work with the project even though they have now been given several ample ways of doing show is indicative of this, when it mostly seems to be a matter of egos on both sides.

That's because it is not possible to work with the project. Their policy has been to reject all additions that don't meet the criteria of their design documents, and indeed to remove existing functionality and mark requests to address them as WONTFIX.

For years there have been people who wished for KDE to be the default desktop on Fedora (and for awhile KDE was suggested to be the most popular desktop in polls to). And yet, despite our disagreements, I have yet to see this level of uproar from the KDE camp for the most part. As I have said numerous times, it is up to the Fedora Project Board to determine which desktop best suits there vision for their project as default (which does not actually mean much anyway) and they have certainly seen some value in what is going on with Shell. Want to do something constructive and easily within your reach? Try getting people together to make a dedicated Cinnamon spin of Fedora. It is in the package repositories in Fedora 18 already. It would not be that hard.

During the time when Gnome was selected as default desktop on Ubuntu and Fedora it was a similarly positioned desktop to KDE with similar metaphors. Gnome Shell is not a traditional desktop, it is a complete departure. Since it uses inefficient metaphors from mobile computing, users of Fedora would be better served by any other desktop, KDE included. I do not feel comfortable advocating Fedora to new people because of the default experience. A Cinnamon spin might help some, but I doubt it would be placed prominently enough to prevent incoming users from stumbling into the mess that is Gnome Shell and the backlash that I've experienced from that, anecdotally. Obviously some people react differently to it, but none that I personally have met.

Not completely useless, but still pretty useless. As an Xfce user I can also tell you I do not appreciate you lumping Cinnamon, MATE, and Xfce in the same category as they are much different desktops with very different goals. I personally really dislike the look of Cinnamon, and could not imagine using it as my main desktop (which does not make unusable or anything like many here assert against Shell), but I am quite happy with the direction that Xfce is taking. Also, what about these polls suggests that Cinnamon should be the default for you (at 8.33% on the FedorForum)? Gnome is more extendable than Cinnamon with a greater and more active development community, and with the Classic Mode in 3.8 the next release of Fedora is already going to have a Classic Mode available on start up (based on the limited markups I have seen). So they already have most of the benefits of having Cinnamon by default by virtue of that.

They are all traditional desktop environments for the purpose of this debate. Cinnamon has the same underpinnings of Gnome Shell, since it was forked from Gnome Shell. It has the same advanced features (compiz style hot corner) extensions, keybindings, etc. but is a traditional desktop that can be configured to taste. If you don't like the default theme there are others. It is not true that Gnome Shell is more extendible, in fact Cinnamon can be extended in nearly an identical way and has a easier to use applet plugin system. Gnome Shell style extensions can be ported to it by changing a few resource calls in the extension. Unfortunately, MATE and XFCE are Gnome2 based. The only desktop that might be positioned better as a default for Gnome3 is Consort, and it has just been announced with no packages released yet.

I think even you can agree that I have been providing plenty of observations on this subject thalaric. And your data is only as useful as the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

No one said the polls were perfect. Most do not differentiate between Gnome Shell and Fallback mode. In the Phoronix poll KDE was way underrepresented and XFCE was grouped into "Other". Yet, the only observations you've drawn is that "all data is incorrect". The trend remains that Gnome Shell is seeing more resistance from alternative Gnome based desktop environments than I have ever seen before. Not with Gnome2, KDE, or any other DE. As a result of the number of forks, Gnome Shell is less popular than Gnome2 ever was. My assumption is that that trend will continue, not based on data but based on my personal experience with how terrible Gnome Shell is. Feel free to disagree, but then, you don't even use Gnome Shell.

[Hamish Wilson]

That's because it is not possible to work with the project. Their policy has been to reject all additions that don't meet the criteria of their design documents, and indeed to remove existing functionality and mark requests to address them as WONTFIX.

Then why they are taking suggestions on board now then is it? Have these people actually tried working with the structure of the project rather than just submitting inappropriate bug reports? When Gnome 3 was under development a lot of effort was done to receive feedback and work community wishes into the design. This was in no way hidden and was done in a transparent manner. Maybe if people actually tried to become a part of the project rather than dealing with it at an arms length some of this mess could have been avoided.

During the time when Gnome was selected as default desktop on Ubuntu and Fedora it was a similarly positioned desktop to KDE with similar metaphors. Gnome Shell is not a traditional desktop, it is a complete departure. Since it uses inefficient metaphors from mobile computing, users of Fedora would be better served by any other desktop, KDE included. I do not feel comfortable advocating Fedora to new people because of the default experience. A Cinnamon spin might help some, but I doubt it would be placed prominently enough to prevent incoming users from stumbling into the mess that is Gnome Shell and the backlash that I've experienced from that, anecdotally. Obviously some people react differently to it, but none that I personally have met.

Saying that something works differently is not to say it does work at all. That is the main problem with your premise here - you assert it is unusable when clearly it is not because people use it (and I have used it also). You may not like it but that is besides the point about whether or not it should be the default desktop or not. The whole idea that Gnome Shell is a tablet interface is also a misnomer anyway, as it is not touch oriented. It responds to traditional desktop inputs like keyboards and mice and was in fact designed around these devices. It is certainly not unusable. You just find it uncomfortable. That is a big difference.

You feeling that you can not recommend Fedora is fine as it is a personal choice, but if it is really a matter of desktops and you like Cinnamon why not just recommend Mint to people? Why not recommend what you like to people instead of attacking what you don't? If you were just promoting Cinnamon I would not be getting into this debate here. It is this incessant need to attack Gnome as if it were taking something away from you, and that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You act like it is your way or the highway. That is why it comes across as arrogant.

They are all traditional desktop environments for the purpose of this debate. Cinnamon has the same underpinnings of Gnome Shell, since it was forked from Gnome Shell. It has the same advanced features (compiz style hot corner) extensions, keybindings, etc. but is a traditional desktop that can be configured to taste. If you don't like the default theme there are others. It is not true that Gnome Shell is more extendible, in fact Cinnamon can be extended in nearly an identical way and has a easier to use applet plugin system. Gnome Shell style extensions can be ported to it by changing a few resource calls in the extension.

Okay, but other than a different arrangement of the desktop layout does it really offer anything substantial over Gnome3? Especially with Gnome 3.8? Is there enough of an argument to say that it has anymore of a right to be a default than Gnome 3, other than the fact you personally prefer it? It certainly does not appear to be due to user share.

Unfortunately, MATE and XFCE are Gnome2 based. The only desktop that might be positioned better as a default for Gnome3 is Consort, and it has just been announced with no packages released yet.

Xfce is not Gnome 2 based and is in fact older than both Gnome and KDE. It makes use of the GTK2 toolkit, but that is quite a bit different than saying it is based on Gnome 2, and actually saying so is in fact a disservice to the Xfce developers. I do admit to having a certain soft spot for the idea of Consort though.

No one said the polls were perfect. Most do not differentiate between Gnome Shell and Fallback mode. In the Phoronix poll KDE was way underrepresented and XFCE was grouped into "Other". Yet, the only observations you've drawn is that "all data is incorrect". The trend remains that Gnome Shell is seeing more resistance from alternative Gnome based desktop environments than I have ever seen before. Not with Gnome2, KDE, or any other DE. As a result of the number of forks, Gnome Shell is less popular than Gnome2 ever was. My assumption is that that trend will continue, not based on data but based on my personal experience with how terrible Gnome Shell is. Feel free to disagree, but then, you don't even use Gnome Shell.

Actually, while I am primarily a Xfce user because it supports Zaphod Mode, I use Gnome Shell frequently as well as several other DEs such as LXDE on a variety of machines. So I do have quite a bit of experience with several desktops (which definitely leads me to conclude that Gnome Shell is not more unusable than the rest). As to your comment that the poll does not differentiate between Gnome Shell and Fallback mode, that is irrelevant because the default desktop being shipped was Gnome 3, which is more than Shell.

And as to the rest of your points, yes Gnome3 has it's detractors, and it will not be making peace with everybody. Some people clearly do not like it. That is not my issue. My issue here is with the attitudes being put on display and the wild assertions by people claiming that opinion equals truth, and that people are making these very personal attacks against the Gnome developers while showing much of the same failings that they allege them to have. That is my issue. I do not like KDE that much as a desktop personally, but that does not mean I wage a war of personal attacks against them or somehow allow myself to feel like KDE has somehow stolen something from me by not being exactly how I would like it to be. That is primarily my issue with this.

Fedora really does not have much of a default - so with the desktop it is mostly about your own personal choice in DE. That is what makes all of this hatred all the more startling.

[thalaric]

Then why they are taking suggestions on board now then is it? Have these people actually tried working with the structure of the project rather than just submitting inappropriate bug reports? When Gnome 3 was under development a lot of effort was done to receive feedback and work community wishes into the design. This was in no way hidden and was done in a transparent manner. Maybe if people actually tried to become a part of the project rather than dealing with it at an arms length some of this mess could have been avoided.

I'm not completely convinced they are. As for your follow ups, they aren't worthy of response since many of the people affected were part of the structure of the project and other stakeholders such as the people integrating Gnome for distributions.

Saying that something works differently is not to say it does work at all. That is the main problem with your premise here - you assert it is unusable when clearly it is not because people use it (and I have used it also). You may not like it but that is besides the point about whether or not it should be the default desktop or not. The whole idea that Gnome Shell is a tablet interface is also a misnomer anyway, as it is not touch oriented. It responds to traditional desktop inputs like keyboards and mice and was in fact designed around these devices. It is certainly not unusable. You just find it uncomfortable. That is a big difference.

I didn't say it was unusable, I said it was inefficient. And that is empirically true, since it takes an extra motion to do everything under the Shell (you have to bring up the Overview, which is a mobile construct).

You feeling that you can not recommend Fedora is fine as it is a personal choice, but if it is really a matter of desktops and you like Cinnamon why not just recommend Mint to people? Why not recommend what you like to people instead of attacking what you don't? If you were just promoting Cinnamon I would not be getting into this debate here. It is this incessant need to attack Gnome as if it were taking something away from you, and that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You act like it is your way or the highway. That is why it comes across as arrogant.

I do suggest Mint to people. Very astute of you. Personally I'm more at home in an RPM based distro, so I am still a stakeholder in Fedora. I never said everyone else is wrong, only those who believe Gnome Shell should be the default desktop on a general use distribution.

Okay, but other than a different arrangement of the desktop layout does it really offer anything substantial over Gnome3? Especially with Gnome 3.8? Is there enough of an argument to say that it has anymore of a right to be a default than Gnome 3, other than the fact you personally prefer it? It certainly does not appear to be due to user share.

Gnome Classic for 3.8 doesn't exist anywhere but source control, so when it is released I'll evaluate it. My feeling is that if extensions solved the problem that we would not have so many forks. It's unclear how easy they will make restoring a complete classic desktop and if all areas of Gnome Shell will be on the table for alteration. Most likely, their refusal to commit to a rational transition to begin with will cause this effort to be too little too late. That said, if they were to do a complete reversal in behaviour and started being inclusive and accepting of other user's of gnome's needs, instead of suggesting they go elsewhere, it could be that there's time to undo most of the damage.

Xfce is not Gnome 2 based and is in fact older than both Gnome and KDE. It makes use of the GTK2 toolkit, but that is quite a bit different than saying it is based on Gnome 2, and actually saying so is in fact a disservice to the Xfce developers. I do admit to having a certain soft spot for the idea of Consort though.

Sorry, I only meant that XFCE made use of Gnome2 libraries. I did not mean to suggest it was a fork of Gnome2. Porting XFCE to Gnome3 is on the roadmap, so it could be that it is the correct answer going forward.

Actually, while I am primarily a Xfce user because it supports Zaphod Mode, I use Gnome Shell frequently as well as several other DEs such as LXDE on a variety of machines. So I do have quite a bit of experience with several desktops (which definitely leads me to conclude that Gnome Shell is not more unusable than the rest). As to your comment that the poll does not differentiate between Gnome Shell and Fallback mode, that is irrelevant because the default desktop being shipped was Gnome 3, which is more than Shell.

It is absolutely relevant. The backlash isn't against Gnome3, which is by all accounts a strong iteration of the gnome libraries. The problem is the user facing Desktop that they've selected to be default.

And as to the rest of your points, yes Gnome3 has it's detractors, and it will not be making peace with everybody. Some people clearly do not like it. That is not my issue. My issue here is with the attitudes being put on display and the wild assertions by people claiming that opinion equals truth, and that people are making these very personal attacks against the Gnome developers while showing much of the same failings that they allege them to have. That is my issue. I do not like KDE that much as a desktop personally, but that does not mean I wage a war of personal attacks against them or somehow allow myself to feel like KDE has somehow stolen something from me by not being exactly how I would like it to be. That is primarily my issue with this.

Fedora really does not have much of a default - so with the desktop it is mostly about your own personal choice in DE. That is what makes all of this hatred all the more startling.

This is only your perception. I have not attacked any singular person or even have a problem with Gnome Shell existing for people who opt to use. My criticism is of the systemic execution of the Gnome Shell transition and the exclusionary vision it has followed.

[Hamish Wilson]

You know what? I am actually going to start this post by agreeing with you on something - the transition could have been handled better. I agree that GNOME 3.0 should have shipped with a supported classic interface like what is being done in 3.8 (or at the very least they could have been more supportive of Fallback mode) and I agree that certain things were handled badly, partly due to actions on both sides. It is the the assumptions of malice perpetuated here that are constantly getting to me. The fact is that GNOME 3 was developed in an open and transparent matter, and feedback was collected and usability tests were conducted back before it was even released. They were in no way trying to force anything on anyone. This was not hidden.

The project is ran in an open fashion and while it is true that the leadership does have a certain sway over the projects directions, everyone can still in theory get involved and contribute what they want to the project. And yet people are constantly alleging that GNOME has been stealing there desktops from them, that they are deliberately abusing them, and other such nonsense. You may or may not have said X or Y thalaric, but these allegations have all been said by someone, and it weakens whatever potentially legitimate arguments you may be wanting to perpetuate.

Fedora is also an open project, which has never kept there goals hidden and allows anyone to participate. Cinnamon is in the repos now because someone stepped up to support it in Fedora, for instance. The best things people could have done to make GNOME what they wanted it to be, and to make Fedora what they want it to be, is to actually participate and add something to it.

You state that my belief that Fedora does not force defaults on anyone is only my perception. Your unhappiness with what the current defaults are is also only your perception. That statement basically hits at the heart of the matter - most of this argument here are based on personal perceptions which are not a fit use case to change anything. Come up with a strong rationale for Cinnamon as default and maybe you could accomplish something here, although I myself personally would be against the switch as is granted by my own perception of the situation. As it stands much of this thread stands as a disservice to us all, with very little of constructive note. But I guess I should not be surprised, this is Phoronix after all. I think I will leave it at that.

[tomato]

Another lovely day in gnome dream land, lalalala.

True, it starts to look like the Gnome developers rent the Jobs's Reality Distortion Filed Engine from one fruity tech company which must not be named.