Linked by Allen Boyles on Mon 7th Nov 2011 09:46 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces In the commercial software world, user interfaces are generally designed by one group. Like Microsoft for Windows or Apple for Mac OS. Those desktop environments were designed by one company who did things like user testing and statistical analysis to try and make the desktop they thought would work best. Linux is different. Large groups definitely DO perform user testing and statistical analysis, but one group can also say "Here's what we want" and, if they have the ability to code it, their idea comes into being. It's pretty amazing, when you think about it. Linux lets people create what they want. If you don't like what's out there, fork it! Or start from scratch! You're in control!
Thread beginning with comment 496283
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GNOME 2
by Jason Bourne on Mon 7th Nov 2011 10:54 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

I think it was around Ubuntu 9.10 that GNOME really got to be usable enough. I am sure it was usable before this, but Ubuntu customizations helped in a bit.

I personally think that GNOME should have taken the evolution path, ported to GTK3, sporting new theme, new icons and keeping the same aesthetics. It was good enough for the too stupid, and good enough for the power users. It was not overwhelming like KDE, nor unpolished like XFCE.

All there is now is MATE - and all it needs is a call out support from the big ones - Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond, etc. That is, those unhappy with the state of GNOME 3, Unity or KDE. Simply landing in XFCE does not makes things better, because many people don't like it. Why not embrace MATE and make the new real "GNOME 3" out of it?

I can't code on that level, but I am sure these big fishes can call out, support it and exercise their influence on the community. A new GNOME 2.

Now with GNOME Shell, I can't make use of it since I open too many applications and windows, and usually I can't see what's going on in the background. Perhaps one may like it since all he does is browse the web, check the email, and enjoy the smooth windows transitions done by clutter. But my brain will have an kind of apnea as soon as I get many windows open. Suddendly I don't know where I am, or what I am doing - this is the feel of GNOME Shell.

We all knew that sh1t was going to be thrown against the spinning fan. By the early screenshots of GNOME 3, I could tell - this is going to be really fuckep up.

Come on, big fishes, you thou excels coding, help MATE become the new GNOME 3.

Long live, MATE.

PS: I don't think Linux Mint will be much better with its extensions, although it's a better alternative for GNOME Shell.

Reply Score: 5

RE: GNOME 2
by ddc_ on Mon 7th Nov 2011 12:43 in reply to "GNOME 2"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

There still is a fallback mode i GNOME3 which closely mimics GNOME2. If MATTE people were less ignorant they would better go improve it rather develop a clone for those who are unable to locate "Forced Fallback mode" button.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: GNOME 2
by Sodki on Mon 7th Nov 2011 13:02 in reply to "RE: GNOME 2"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

There still is a fallback mode i GNOME3 which closely mimics GNOME2.


The truth is that the fallback mode has nothing to do with GNOME 2 because it's not GNOME 2. There are no applets and things don't work the way they used to, not even closely. Besides, with news that GNOME 3 can now be run in software mode and doesn't require any kind of special hardware, the fallback mode will simply disappear.

What's really interesting is the work that the Linux Mint people are doing on top of GNOME 3. That's the way forward.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: GNOME 2
by Jason Bourne on Mon 7th Nov 2011 14:03 in reply to "RE: GNOME 2"
Jason Bourne Member since:
2007-06-02

I am sick and tired of people saying "just switch to fallback mode". Why don't you add to your comment that fallback mode is a transitional hack? It is not going to be supported. It's just there to help transition. It will vanish, faster than GNOME 2 itself. You are forgetting this. Talk like fallback mode like it was a saviour, but it's not. It's just there to help the thing run on low-end video chip.

The experience as far as I am concerned, using fallback mode, is terrible. It's not configurable at all. It's far from a GNOME 2 experience. You can't possibly have been using this, can you? I doubt.

But next time you mention fallback mode, please, attach the line [which is not going to be supported for very long, and it is a transitional hack, apart from the fact that is going to be removed in the future of GNOME 3 releases.]

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: GNOME 2
by Yoko_T on Tue 8th Nov 2011 02:06 in reply to "RE: GNOME 2"
Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

There still is a fallback mode i GNOME3 which closely mimics GNOME2. If MATTE people were less ignorant they would better go improve it rather develop a clone for those who are unable to locate "Forced Fallback mode" button.


You're nothing but a Gnome 3 troll who's never actually use the utterly worthless fallback mode. It actually acts nothing like Gnome2.

it's a useless piece of crap just like the rest of Gnome 3

Reply Parent Score: 3