Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 20:43 UTC
Gnome "The team is proud to announce the release of MATE Desktop 1.6. This release is a giant step forward from the 1.4 release. In this release, we have replaced many deprecated packages and libraries with new technologies available in GLib. We have also added a lot of new features to MATE." Look at those screenshots. This is what GNOME is supposed to be: elegant, understated, to-the-point. I should try this.
Thread beginning with comment 557563
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Thu 4th Apr 2013 08:13 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

Really is simple, If you look at the age of most Linux users, chances are their first operating system was Windows95. Microsoft reinforced this as all subsequent Windows versions carried on the Windows95 interface (except finally a break with Win7).


I've been using computers since DOS 3.3. I spent my formative years on Windows 3.1 and Macintosh System 7.1. That doesn't change my preferences. (Plus, I run LXDE... not GNOME or MATE. I'm slowly piecing together my own variant of the desktop paradigm which doesn't quite match ANY of the options out there.)

The OSX Dock/Ubuntu Launcher concept where running apps and favorite apps are accessed in the same way is much more intuitive. Especially on OSes with good virtual memory management, where leaving a program running for a long time doesnt matter.


The Dock/Launcher pushes the desktop further toward the Application-Centric end of the GUI spectrum. I prefer to be closer the Document-Centric end of the GUI spectrum.

And computers with SSDs where launching an app is nearly as quick as switching windows to an already running app.


Not all of us have the budget to buy every upgrade that would help us and I haven't had time to get comfortable enough with the SSD market to trust a purchase to not fail at the worst possible time.

LXDE does everything I need, is cheaper than an SSD, and wastes fewer resources elsewhere too... which further speeds things up since less RAM usage means more disk cache.

"Newer" doesn't automatically mean "better". Unity, Gnome 3 and other new DE/WMs can be slow, buggy and complicated [when it comes to their architecture].
So ... some people risk and choose them, others go with the things that ain't broken and work for them.


I used to consider KDE 3.5 the greatest desktop in the world. This is exactly what made me give up on KDE 4 and move to LXDE.

(Among other things, they admitted that Konqueror is on life-supported, bitrotting aside from maintenance patches from the KHTML guys... I used Konqueror 3.x as the world's greatest tabbed, splittable, general harness for KParts and KIOSlaves. Konqueror 4 has a ton of papercut-class bugs that make it unusable.)

I agree with Intuitive as a bad description. But given the last two points (VM, SSD) in my OP these allow the interface to be less complex because launching an app and switching to an app is the same action.


That's the #1 reason I could never stand Unity. If I already know what I want to do, having the UI second-guess me just increases the friction.

I prefer to have an auto-hide launcher panel full of icons on the right edge of my screen which always opens a new process rather than launching an existing one.

Also, Unity's approach feels like it's delegating the reinvention of managing multiple documents to the applications... and I don't WANT every application to be tabbed. I definitely want some to be, but some I want tiled instead.

Should every application also implement splittable windows? ...and the ability to choose whether the split or the tab bar is more top-level?

Elegant? Understated?? Are you serious?? It's fine if you like it but I'd hardly call gnome 2 elegant or understated. Configurable sure but elegant it is not not.


I suppose it's all relative, but I wouldn't say GNOME 2 is configurable. Sure, it's more configurable than GNOME 3, but that's like calling Tea "caffeine-free" because it has less caffeine than Coffee. KDE is configurable. Desktops built from scratch using loosely-coupled components and rcfiles are configurable.

I could never get comfortable with GNOME 2 because it lacked certain config tweaks, I was told that not even an "Advanced..." button was un-confusing enough for granny, and they seemed to be hard-coded since they weren't in the gconf browser either.

It looks dated IMO. Also my biggest gripe with Gnome 2 is still there: not enough padding in the panels. This bugged me to no end when I used it.


Honest question: Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

GNOME 2 disagreed with me on many things, but the one I remember most clearly is how every single theme I tried that wasn't horrendously ugly had too much padding everywhere. (Conversely, KDE 3.5 had too many eye-searingly glossy/glassy icon themes)

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by zcal on Thu 4th Apr 2013 18:08 in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
zcal Member since:
2012-07-27

The Dock/Launcher pushes the desktop further toward the Application-Centric end of the GUI spectrum. I prefer to be closer the Document-Centric end of the GUI spectrum.

This. It drives me nuts how far modern UIs go in trying to obstruct the file system from the user. Seems to me that it's an initiative driven by marketing concerns. I believe there was a story posted a while back regarding GNOME 3 developers' brand-based decision making. Why should a brand have to act as a middle man between me and my content?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by Yoko_T on Mon 8th Apr 2013 08:47 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

"The Dock/Launcher pushes the desktop further toward the Application-Centric end of the GUI spectrum. I prefer to be closer the Document-Centric end of the GUI spectrum.

This. It drives me nuts how far modern UIs go in trying to obstruct the file system from the user. Seems to me that it's an initiative driven by marketing concerns. I believe there was a story posted a while back regarding GNOME 3 developers' brand-based decision making. Why should a brand have to act as a middle man between me and my content?
"

More importantly, why would they even want to?

Reply Parent Score: 1