Linux Mint 20.2 Released With Cinnamon 5.0 Desktop

[undefined username]

Hate to break it to you MATE/GNOME2 zealots who just can't give it up (but again, do you), but the latest GNOME 3 is the best desktop environment out
...
And yes, I know my setup looks like Windows. I like it. It's very useful and I have more desktop space.

This has got to be a troll.

You configure Gnome 3 to look like MATE/Cinnamon, then say how great Gnome 3 is because it's the default, when you have actually gone to great lengths to change the default setup.

As you love the Windows 95 desktop paradigm (I agree it is excellent) and you like defaults, then MATE's "Redmond" default or Cinnamon's default will do exactly what you want without custom settings.

As you love desktop space so much, they'll also do it without those XBOX HUEG window borders that Gnome 3 adds.

[calc]

It's funny how you resort to ad-homenims to try and make your case.

Telling someone claiming 1 + 1 = 3, which is provably incorrect, that they are incorrect and they then continue to insist they are correct, that they may have dyscalculia is not an ad hominem attack. As there is something wrong with their perception of reality.

Similarly you have insisted that the mid grey color 4D4D4D (33% / 33% / 33%) is "pitch black" which is also easily provably incorrect, as its not even close. Assuming that you aren't just a troll then you likely have a vision issue that you need to see an ophthalmologist about, eg cataracts, glaucoma, or retinopathy.

I suspect you are actually just a troll or you likely would have mentioned why you perceive the mid-grey color as "pitch black".

[skeevy420]

calc
Using GIMP to get the color codes I came up with 262626 (terminal icon) and 474747 (background). IMHO, the difference between the two is very negligible and I'll explain why.

Using CMYK, the CMY is all 0% and K (black) for one is 85% and the other is 73%, or a 15.19% difference in blackness. They're literally different shades of the same (non)color. They're similar enough that if any one of a monitor's contrast, brightness, saturation, gamma, etc is off by just a little bit then they risk looking the same.

[skeevy420]

Telling someone claiming 1 + 1 = 3, which is provably incorrect, that they are incorrect and they then continue to insist they are correct, that they may have dyscalculia is not an ad hominem attack. As there is something wrong with their perception of reality.

Similarly you have insisted that the mid grey color 4D4D4D (33% / 33% / 33%) is "pitch black" which is also easily provably incorrect, as its not even close. Assuming that you aren't just a troll then you likely have a vision issue that you need to see an ophthalmologist about, eg cataracts, glaucoma, or retinopathy.

I suspect you are actually just a troll or you likely would have mentioned why you perceive the mid-grey color as "pitch black".

Dude, it's like a quarter to third grey at best since 808080 is true grey (or at least it's the grey directly between white and black).

[arQon]

The major difference is that xfce (and MATE) has unremovable screen tearing, while Cinnamon doesn't.

erm, wut? MATE has vsync either out of the box or just a couple of mouse clicks away, and was tear-free long before that anyway via Compton etc.

There are plenty of things I dislike about both those DEs, but your statement is flat-out untrue.

[kneekoo]

LM ships two ISOs and has for both the 20.1 and 20.2 releases, one with the original 5.4 kernel and one with the hwe-edge 5.8 kernel.

https://mirrors.evowise.com/linuxmint/stable/20.2/

20.2 Edge comes with kernel 5.11, so it's pretty new.

[kneekoo]

Has it? Or is it polishing its desktop instead of finding new paradigms? Which makes it the most robust and boring desktop at the same time.

Although I don't use Cinnamon anymore, every time I look at it I feel they really spend their time refining their apps and experience, rather than reinventing the desktop.

There's a huge amount of people who are conservative about their work environments. That's the market Linux Mint addresses mainly, so while they do add plenty of functionality for those who care to tinker their settings, the default will stay in line with what people expect from a "modern desktop", which is more in line with Windows than anything. And despite the "boring" look, whoever cares about clicking settings will find a deep rabbit hole to make their desktop look like... almost anything they want.

In terms of defaults there's a lot of choice for those who need new stuff every now and then. But if someone picks an operating system for the default look (not caring about customizing anything) and later expects something new that they also love, they're pretty much set to always be displeased. The developers can never make everyone happy.

[calc]

calc Using GIMP to get the color codes I came up with 262626 (terminal icon) and 474747 (background). IMHO, the difference between the two is very negligible and I'll explain why.

Using CMYK, the CMY is all 0% and K (black) for one is 85% and the other is 73%, or a 15.19% difference in blackness. They're literally different shades of the same (non)color. They're similar enough that if any one of a monitor's contrast, brightness, saturation, gamma, etc is off by just a little bit then they risk looking the same.

I also mentioned the potential for very poorly calibrated screen possibly causing the issue (severe black crush) which they ignored. And when I checked I got 70% 4D4D4D and 87% 202020, so a bit better at 17% difference. Default settings shouldn't crush over 1/3 of the color gamut, but maybe I'm overly optimistic. While the darker color, 87% 202020, isn't really pitch black either poor quality screens tend to have at least some black crush so can look like it. Looking at mine I need to calibrate it as well since I can't easily discern blacks too much below 87%, and my screen is far from high quality. However defaulting to assuming everyone's screen is complete garbage, not being able to distinguish roughly 1/3 of the color space, and only designing for the lowest common denominator isn't really a good solution either, which is probably why there are so many options for the LM theme. This is also part of why Apple's design is nicer as they control the entire stack and calibrate all screens they ship so don't have to water down the colors in their interface.

20.2 Edge comes with kernel 5.11, so it's pretty new.

Great, I was hoping they would update to 5.11, I checked during the beta and it was still 5.8 at that point from what I recall.

[skeevy420]

I also mentioned the potential for very poorly calibrated screen possibly causing the issue (severe black crush) which they ignored. And when I checked I got 70% 4D4D4D and 87% 202020, so a bit better at 17% difference. Default settings shouldn't crush over 1/3 of the color gamut, but maybe I'm overly optimistic. While the darker color, 87% 202020, isn't really pitch black either poor quality screens tend to have at least some black crush so can look like it. Looking at mine I need to calibrate it as well since I can't easily discern blacks too much below 87%, and my screen is far from high quality. However defaulting to assuming everyone's screen is complete garbage, not being able to distinguish roughly 1/3 of the color space, and only designing for the lowest common denominator isn't really a good solution either, which is probably why there are so many options for the LM theme. This is also part of why Apple's design is nicer as they control the entire stack and calibrate all screens they ship so don't have to water down the colors in their interface.

Funny thing is that most of it really isn't that bad on my TV, but I took the time and calibrated my screen to the best of my and it's ability.

IMHO, the problem with the dark icons is when they're smaller (like in the app menus). On my 55" screen they're not very big and I'd have to scale them to ridiculous sizes to get them large enough that it isn't a problem. If the dark background icons had outlines, a different color, or some pop to them they'd be easier to see because I did think that the Backup icon was hard to see and that it sort of looked like a power icon...but if it was larger the arrow it tries to show would be more prominent making that issue moot. So it's really small and dark on dark where the problem lies because that can be an issue on a somewhat decently calibrated monitor. FWIW, this issue goes beyond Cinnamon. I've experienced it with every OS. Right now both GIMP and Epic look like ass in Classic Shell on Win11 Dark Mode due to small and dark on dark.


On the larger, most used side they're easy peasy to see; on the small side they don't look as nice. Tux in Tuxguitar looks like he's fading away. I also see at least two or three programs I need to remove. Ryzen Master does jack squat on a Pro APU.

[xhustler]

Exactly this.

Hate to break it to you MATE/GNOME2 zealots who just can't give it up (but again, do you), but the latest GNOME 3 is the best desktop environment out, for me. But I think for a bunch of others too, seeing as it is the default desktop. Sure, it needs customizations, but that's Linux. Do better. And yes, I know my setup looks like Windows. I like it. It's very useful and I have more desktop space.

Don't use MATE/GNOME2 but GNOME3 was a major disappointment for me. Waited and waited for something cool only to get an eyesore with the Activities crap, weird menu placements, heavy resource usage e.t.c.

Still enjoying XFCE, Enlightenment (yes I said it out loud), and MacOS.