Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

tech.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#11

Post by nknight »

thristian wrote: post #3

I remember reading a computer-magazine columnist back in the mid-90s talking about how Windows 95's interface was too revolutionary and different, and that we should expect Microsoft to have a parallel "Windows Classic" release with the same superior technical underpinnings as Windows 95, but with the traditional Windows interface that their millions of users were familiar with. Obviously that didn't happen, and I do…

> I doubt that this "GNOME 3 with a GNOME 2 interface" will get very far either

It's already the default in the current release of Linux Mint, they've just been hamstrung by the limitations of extensions in fully realizing their vision.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#12

Post by DanBC »

Tomek_ wrote: post #6

So we have Gnome3, Gnome2, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, Unity, this + gazillions more I don't even remember about. Anyone still believes Linux has any chance on a desktop market?

Most office workers spend very little time interacting with the desktop. They'll have some office suite open, or they'll have their niche piece of software, or they'll be using some manufacturing / accounts (I'm trying to describe things like Sage Line 50, Line 100, etc) open.

The barrier to Linux on the desktop in that situation is not the desktop being used, but the main bit of software being used.

Provide Line 100 in Linux, or EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems or similar) on Linux with some decent support system and you'd get a lot of uptake.

Remember that small offices (under 20 people) often have no IT department, they have the guy who knows about computers and a support contract. Other people won't know how to CC or BCC, or how to sort a column of numbers in a spreadsheet. See also Google showing that the vast majority of people were using the + operator incorrectly.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#13

Post by edu »

He's not forking the whole Gnome 3, just the shell so it looks more like Gnome 2. Keeping the backend untouched should keep the compatibility issues to a minimum and guarantee that libraries are up to date and no work is unnecessarily duplicated.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#14

Post by Tomek_ »

darklajid wrote: post #8
Tomek_ wrote: post #6

So we have Gnome3, Gnome2, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, Unity, this + gazillions more I don't even remember about. Anyone still believes Linux has any chance on a desktop market?

Gnome2 is dead. Sure, it's still installed all over the place (just like Windows 98 and XP might be), but it is by all means a dead project. Unity (and this fork, as I understand it) are based on Gnome (3!) and just replace the shell. So your list becomes - Gnome (Gnome-Shell, Unity, this fork) - KDE - (list of minorities) For me - while being a Gnome guy and preferring the gnome-shell option from that list - the cho…

1) think the differences between those shells are much bigger than between Luna and classic in XP

2) that it's a different shell, not a fully different desktop environment isn't really that important, for a normal user it will already cause confusion (maybe even more as it requires additional explanation what's the difference between the two).

Don't get me wrong: the thing that you have a choice is one of the virtues of Linux, but at the same time what it causes is that:

a) Linux is doomed to fail on a mainstream desktop market

b) none of the available choices is and probably will never be as polished as commercial competitors (and fragmentation is one of the reasons of that)

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#15

Post by darklajid »

Tomek_ wrote: post #14
darklajid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gnome2 is dead. Sure, it's still installed all over the place (just like Windows 98 and XP might be), but it is by all means a dead project. Unity (and this fork, as I understand it) are based on Gnome (3!) and just replace the shell. So your list becomes - Gnome (Gnome-Shell, Unity, this fork) - KDE - (list of minorities) For me - while being a Gnome guy and preferring the gnome-shell option from that list - the cho…

1) think the differences between those shells are much bigger than between Luna and classic in XP 2) that it's a different shell, not a fully different desktop environment isn't really that important, for a normal user it will already cause confusion (maybe even more as it requires additional explanation what's the difference between the two). Don't get me wrong: the thing that you have a choice is one of the virtues…

1) ~Maybe~. In absolutes, I agree. I don't think it matters much though.

2) Sticking with Windows comparisons: Moving from 98 to XP was different in quite some ways, to Vista and beyond was another change in lots of things.

We agree that choice is good. We disagree about whether there's too much choice right now. I see only two technical choices, KDE or Gnome, with the Gnome-Shell/Unity variants for the latter. No idea if this fork will prevail and be part of the list in the future.

The average user, the "grandma" that often comes up during these discussions, doesn't care. My gut feeling says that she'll end up with Ubuntu or Kubuntu installed (Maybe Mint. Maybe Fedora) and use what is available.

And quite frankly, what _is_ available is ready for every casual/average home user, in my opinion.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#16

Post by nyellin »

This (Cinnamon) is different than MATE, another GNOME fork that Mint was involved in. As far as I can tell, MATE extends GNOME 2 and Cinammon plans to build an alternative GNOME 3 shell.

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=205&t=89411

https://github.com/Perberos/Mate-Desktop-Environment

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#17

Post by jsnell »

thristian wrote: post #3

I remember reading a computer-magazine columnist back in the mid-90s talking about how Windows 95's interface was too revolutionary and different, and that we should expect Microsoft to have a parallel "Windows Classic" release with the same superior technical underpinnings as Windows 95, but with the traditional Windows interface that their millions of users were familiar with. Obviously that didn't happen, and I do…

Is there any supporting evidence for GNOME 3 being great for most people? My experience with it was so bad that I can't really imagine that being true. And it's much easier to find negative than positive comments about it on the net. Clearly the dislike isn't quite universal, but my impression is that it's the most hated "upgrade" ever.

Also, recommending the fallback mode as a solution is disingenous. At least performance doesn't suck as badly as with the real shell, and it's not totally alien to existing users. But it still has a number of totally ridiculous and gratuitous differences to both GNOME 2 and every existing UI I've ever seen. For example how could the way panels are configured make sense to anybody?

And if that's not enough, the word is that the fallback mode is going to get killed once performance without hardware acceleration is good enough. (And the bar for that has to be pretty damn low).

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#18

Post by rbanffy »

Tomek_ wrote: post #6

So we have Gnome3, Gnome2, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, Unity, this + gazillions more I don't even remember about. Anyone still believes Linux has any chance on a desktop market?

Linux is a kernel. Your question could be rephrased as "We have Gnome 2, 3, KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Unity, Cinnamon, Android, WebOS, ChromeOS. Has any of these any chance on the desktop market?" and become meaningful.

Right now, I don't even think PCs as we know them - where we manage locally stored data and applications rather than the curated experiences popularized by Apple - will be a meaningful chunk of the market.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#19

Post by keithpeter »

darklajid wrote: post #15
Tomek_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) think the differences between those shells are much bigger than between Luna and classic in XP 2) that it's a different shell, not a fully different desktop environment isn't really that important, for a normal user it will already cause confusion (maybe even more as it requires additional explanation what's the difference between the two). Don't get me wrong: the thing that you have a choice is one of the virtues…

1) ~Maybe~. In absolutes, I agree. I don't think it matters much though. 2) Sticking with Windows comparisons: Moving from 98 to XP was different in quite some ways, to Vista and beyond was another change in lots of things. We agree that choice is good. We disagree about whether there's too much choice right now. I see only two technical choices, KDE or Gnome, with the Gnome-Shell/Unity variants for the latter. No id…

Agreed. If "grandma" were to choose Ubuntu, she would have a good quality 140 page manual ready to download and dip into. See the Ubuntu-Manual project on launchpad for the Unity version (currently at alpha).

https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-manual/msg02859.html

Is there a comparable tome ready for Gnome Shell based workflows? I'd really like to find one.

Re: Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

#20

Post by paol »

davidw wrote: post #10

Speaking of which, anyone know what the state of Focus Follows Mouse is on all these various platforms? I could not live without it.

Works well in Gnome 3 fallback mode.

Works well in unity as well, provided you get rid of the global menu which is fundamentally incompatible with FFM.

Post reply on HN