Ubuntu Moves Away From GNOME 514
An anonymous reader writes "It's official: Ubuntu has, with its ironically named 'Unity' interface, chosen to move away from GNOME for Ubuntu Natty Narwhal. Or at least move away from GNOME Shell. Mark Shuttleworth says that Ubuntu will still be 'GNOME,' even if it's not using GNOME Shell. Do you agree?"
For those who wonder what Gnome Shell is ... (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
"GNOME Shell is the interface being developed for GNOME 3.0, which was delayed to spring 2011."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA: "GNOME Shell is the interface being developed for GNOME 3.0, which was delayed to spring 2011."
Probably then they are switching to Unity due to the schedule?
Re:For those who wonder what Gnome Shell is ... (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. More that they're trying to create their own path and they disagree with the way Gnome is going. Ars has a better article [arstechnica.com] than the one in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not terribly informative. What part of GNOME is the interface? The window manager? The desktop? The panel? All of that? One might as well ask what part of GNOME isn't Gnome Shell.
Ordinary people use Ubuntu (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
"GNOME Shell is the interface being developed for GNOME 3.0, which was delayed to spring 2011."
On the plus side: there are now also ordinary people using Ubuntu - people that don't know anything.
On the down side: they still don't understand what a shell is, even after that explanation (see quoted text).
To me, it's not really clear where GNOME starts or stops... So there's at least one Ubuntu user who is quite clueless what this is all about.
The value of this post? I show you all that there are people able to use Ubuntu without even the basic knowledge of the processes or even the names of them running on the computer. I always think of myself as the target group for Ubuntu. The wizkids can use the other Linux systems.
Re:Ordinary people use Ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, because I consider myself in another target group of Ubuntu users. I know all about the guts of Linux, but frankly, computers are not my life. I'm too busy with a wife, kids, social obligations, neighborhood functions, and just living life to bother with all the work that seems to go along with most other distributions. Using Ubuntu allows me to free my time to spend on those things I find important rather than downloading, compiling, and installing the latest kernel once a month. I can just put "aptitude safe-upgrade" in cron to run at 1am on the first Sunday of each month and I know I'm good.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear! Listen, too.
Re:Ordinary people use Ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with you. I've been using linux as my primary OS for work and play since you had to edit x.conf by hand. I had a lot of fun learning about the guts of the system, I just don't have time to do that much anymore. I'm grateful that there are distributions that let me just get work done, and still let me get dirty with it if I really want to.
And after all these years, I'm finally having friends ask me, unprompted, to install linux on their machines because they're tired of Windows. It's only been recently that I've been able to say "sure" and leave off the two page list of caveats.
Heck, I don't even have to install it for them anymore - I just give them an Ubuntu CD and tell them to call me if they have any problems. They're usually just fine on their own.
Natty Narwhal? (Score:2)
What the hell does a sea unicorn have to do with $5.00/case frat boy beer?
Re:Natty Narwhal? (Score:5, Funny)
Beats the hell out of their Hamm's Hippopotamus release.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Beats the hell out of their Hamm's Hippopotamus release.
I was still holding out for Narcoleptic Nightingale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even know why they bother with names. They are confusing and random, and I don't use them. I don't use the Mac OS names either. I just use the version number:
Laptop 1 = Ubuntu 8.0 (first version of 2008)
Laptop 2 = Lightweight Ubuntu 10.1 (second version of 2010)
Mac G3 = 10.4
Mac G5 = 10.5
Not a clue what their "names" are supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even know why they bother with names. They are confusing and random, and I don't use them. I don't use the Mac OS names either. I just use the version number:
Laptop 1 = Ubuntu 8.0 (first version of 2008) Laptop 2 = Lightweight Ubuntu 10.1 (second version of 2010) Mac G3 = 10.4 Mac G5 = 10.5
Not a clue what their "names" are supposed to be.
Names are much easier to google than version numbers, especially if they are unusual words not frequently used in the tech domain. So yes, please keep up using those natty names...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>>>Names are much easier to google than version numbers
???
what?
http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+10.10 [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=mac+os+10.3 [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=mac+os+10 [google.com]
That wasn't difficult at all. In fact it was extremely easy, and I didn't have to remember if 10.10 == busty brassiere or Mac OS 10.3 == ugly unicorn, or whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that's all well and good until you have a problem with running Random Program 10.4 on Mac OS 10.6 and all the search engines give you is advice on how to run Random Program 10.6 on Mac OS 10.4. That's when the names are useful.
And you can still use the version numbers if you prefer.
"Random Program 10.4" on "Mac OS 10.6"
The biggest problem I have is with Google thinking punctuation is white space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Natty Narwhal? (Score:4, Informative)
There never was an 8.0 or 8.1. They're all x.4 and x.10, since they're released in April and October. Though they used to be x.6 and x.10 when they released in June and October. That bit seems to confuse the most people; the numbering scheme.
Also the Mac Gs refer to the hardware, not the OS.
Re:Natty Narwhal? (Score:5, Informative)
Though they used to be x.6 and x.10 when they released in June and October.
The only June release was 6.06, and that was only because it wasn't ready for release in April. The goal has always been releases in April and October.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just wait for Orgasmic Octopus.. it's everywhere you want it to be..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unity has it's problems (Score:4, Insightful)
I know some people say you can't configure Unity (running it on a netbook) the one thing it really needs is the ability to auto-hide as I've now got this big column of desktop real estate on the left of the screen I can't do anything with anymore.
NB: To those complaining about lack of configurability - try dragging icons around or right clicking them - you can modify it...
Re: (Score:2)
I want something that looks like Windows (start button, trashbin, tabs on bottom or top, etc). I tried to find Unity screenshots but found nothing. Does it look/feel like a Windows PC?
Re: (Score:2)
There's some screens below.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/10/ars-reviews-ubuntu-1010-wip.ars/7
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if that's what you want, you have plenty of choices. If you want something full-featured, both Gnome and KDE will fit the bill, and you can download themes that even make the icons and windows look similar to Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unity as shipped with 10.10 was not ready for prime-time (slow, glitchy). Your best bet for a decent UI on 10.10 is to use the regular GNOME interface, delete the bottom panel, and replace it with Docky (which is an OSX-looking launcher/task switcher).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seconded :) I also install Gnome Do as well to get back the functionality it had while Docky was part of Gnome-Do. I tend to launch things with Gnome Do, and use Docky for a task manager/trashcan.
Re: (Score:2)
I was using it on a netbook. It's is a pita. I know this might sound stupid and maybe I was missing something obvious but I couldn't get files/folders on my desktop. In fact it was a bit of a struggle just to get a navigation window open so I could go to my Windows partition. I would exactly call it a very intuitive interface. I don't plan on trying unity again for a very long time if ever.
I agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that the summary is far from unbiased. It's making it sound like Ubuntu is dropping Gnome, which isn't quite what's happening.
A more reasonable way to look at it, in my opinion, is that Gnome is currently undergoing a large set of changes in the 3.0 release. The people running the Gnome project are planning a radical shift from the current UI to something called "Gnome-Shell". Ubuntu is apparently not sold on this dramatic redesign, so instead they'll be going their own way with a UI that is, in some ways, closer to the current UI.
Having tried Gnome-Shell out for a little while, I have to say I'm not excited about the change. I appreciate that they're trying something very new and trying to be innovative, but at the very least it didn't feel ready for use.
Re:I agree... (Score:4, Interesting)
The people running the Gnome project are planning a radical shift from the current UI to something called "Gnome-Shell". Ubuntu is apparently not sold on this dramatic redesign, so instead they'll be going their own way with a UI that is, in some ways, closer to the current UI.
I don't really see how Unity is much closer to the current UI. It looks just as much a "we have a totally new idea on how to break stuff again!" thing as Gnome Shell is.
Aero (Score:5, Funny)
Mark Shuttleworth says that Ubuntu will still be "GNOME," even if it's not using GNOME Shell.
I've got a mole in the Ubuntu organisation. The word is that mr. Shuttleworth has been in secret talks with Darth^WSteve Ballmer to negotiate the rights for Vista's Aero interface. It was available for pennies due to the number of unsold Vista licenses. The next version of Ubuntu will sport the familiar Aero interface, with features such as the nifty and user-friendly Deny/Allow-widget, grafted straight onto the Linux Kernel.
Open source community, what more do you want?
Re:Aero (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got a mole in the Ubuntu organisation. The word is that mr. Shuttleworth has been in secret talks with Darth^WSteve Ballmer to negotiate the rights for Vista's Aero interface. It was available for pennies due to the number of unsold Vista licenses. The next version of Ubuntu will sport the familiar Aero interface, with features such as the nifty and user-friendly Deny/Allow-widget, grafted straight onto the Linux Kernel.
Open source community, what more do you want?
The WPS from OS/2, prettied up for the
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Open source community, what more do you want?
(1) Amiga OS. I miss it.
(2) Or if I can't have that, a clone of the Windows OS so I'm no longer locked into the Microsoft Monopoly when running MS software. Something like Wine but bigger.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The last update to AmigaOS 4.1 was just 5 months ago. It doesn't seem to be dead.
2)
Re:Aero (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding, not aware of AROS and ReactOS, or just commenting on how they both still have a ways to go?
Assuming the second, check these out(and possibly contribute, if you want to help speed development):
(1) AROS Research Operating System [sourceforge.net] - The AROS Research Operating System is a lightweight, efficient and flexible desktop operating system, designed to help you make the most of your computer. It's an independent, portable and free project, aiming at being compatible with AmigaOS at the API level (like Wine, unlike UAE), while improving on it in many areas.
(2) React Operating System [reactos.org] - ReactOS® is a free, modern operating system based on the design of Windows® XP/2003. Written completely from scratch, it aims to follow the Windows-NT® architecture designed by Microsoft from the hardware level right through to the application level. This is not a Linux based system, and shares none of the unix architecture.
The blurbs next to each link are quoted from the homepages of AROS and ReactOS, respectively, and are not my personal opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Darth who? Darth Maul?
Sounds fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks to desktop standards, people have been doing this for years... makes sense that a major distro is following suit.
My desktop pretty much only uses gdm and gnome-terminal from GNOME, and occasionally nautilus (though I turn off the desktop handling).
Using Enlightenment DR16 or occasionally compiz as the window manager, and awn ("Avant Window Navigator") as the panel, with compatible taskbar and notification area.
Re: (Score:2)
So why not run Kubuntu or Xubuntu and avoid some of the GNOME bloat?
Bye bye (Score:2, Interesting)
Do i agreee? Do whatever works. (Score:3, Interesting)
The times when i used not-the-standard-configuration-of-whatever distribution i installed to save memory are gone with my last laptop below 512MB of Ram. If Canonical thinks its easier to maintain it in a different way, fine with me. If it does'nt work i can tune, switch, get into the details and fix it. Until that point i would be happy not to figure out about changes......
If they do weird things, i am happy to use debian again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The nice thing about light weight GUIs is that it's a lot easier to tune and fix than a giant stack of software is. Saving memory isn't the only reason to use Fluxbox, etc. Once you settle on a good configuration (which doesn't take that much time), you never have to worry about the choices your distro will make in the future. It's much nicer to sit down and figure out your GUI once, than to relearn every time they release a new version.
Semantic questions... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one hand, it is trivially obvious that if you aren't running the GNOME desktop environment, you aren't runnning GNOME. On the other hand, if you are running a set of programs, and depending on a set of libraries, essentially identical to that of a GNOME desktop, just window managed by something else, it is much more meaningful to say that you are "running GNOME" or "running a GNOME derivative" than it is to say much else.
Unless you want to actually come up with some set-based definition of what "Running GNOME" means, you won't really be able to conclusively answer the question one way or the other.
I'm confused (Score:2)
So the news is that they're moving away from something that doesn't exist yet?
Maybe they just want to wait for it to exist and test it and shake the bugs out before they decide to use it ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they just want to wait for it to exist and test it and shake the bugs out before they decide to use it ?
Why would they do that when Pulse Audio has worked out so well?
And this is why people stick with other OSes (Score:4, Insightful)
When you product changes all the time, people are going to have to deal with these changes. When I "upgraded" versions of Ubuntu, I had to deal with a completely different looking interface. WHY? Change for the sake of change seems to be a big driving force in this project. Honestly, the UI that I am using now is no different than it was in 2004. I could have made something in 2004 look exactly like what Ubuntu looks like today. So there really isn't even an excuse that things are being changed to add features. We get a "new look" every rev because some dev thinks that it looks cool. It gets really old when your task bar is moved to the other side of the screen, your menus are all reorganized, and the terminal session shortcut that used to be on a particular convenient context menu is now gone.
Up until recently (Vista/Ribbon interface) and arguably even now, Microsoft has been able to provide more consistency than a lot of these Linux distros.
Are we going to see a Gubuntu now?
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, and other operating systems NEVER change...
Re:And this is why people stick with other OSes (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, I am free to use the same UI I was using in 1998. This won't quite fly with either MacOS or Windows.
Sure, you can try to enable "legacy interfaces" with other operating systems but their GUIs simply aren't built to be modular.
Linux is. That's why I can run whatever I want despite what the "guys in charge" think. Changing or keeping my own customizations is also pretty trivial.
If you think "everything has changed" from one version of Ubuntu to the next, I suspect that you are only looking at a clean install.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I agree but thats one of the things I like about Gnome/Linux. If you dont like the way something looks there is probably a way to do it. If you want it to look like OSX or Vista http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=490398 [ubuntuforums.org] you can do that too.
They're just trying different things to see what people like best.
Re:And this is why people stick with other OSes (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu makes it easy to do this; fvwm is available from the default package set, then select it as your "session" at the login screen.
My point being, I share your dislike of needless changes, but I don't feel I've been forced to change.
Mwahaahaaa! (Score:3, Insightful)
Good one. Either you are very young or sarcastic.
Windows 1-3. Complete changes. 3.1 to 95. Complete change. 95-98 the look didn't change, just where everything was. 98 to 2000... don't get me started. 2K to XP, lots of changes again. Vista so many changes many did not bother. W7, must have been a big change because people don't hate it as much as Vista.
Every single version of Windows has changed the layout and organization of basic configurations until the point where messing with your disks is so many la
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows 7's naming of directories as "libraries" is inexcusable. It was a well-defined term!
Re:Mwahaahaaa! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most halfway computer literate persons will be able to use in some fashion all of the following: all Windows version from 95 to 7, all Mac OS versions from 7 up to 10, and all Ubuntu version starting from the very early ones (don't think I've personally witnessed the first release). They're all essentially the same in far more ways than they are different. It's all WIMP.
Whether or not any OS has been "consistent" over the years is really just semantics. You're cherry picking certain aspects (the mere existance of a start menu, for instance). I think claiming that the user interface of Windows and Mac OS haven't changed significantly in those years is ridiculous. I can tell you that despite being a excessive user of all Windows versions up to XP, I now have difficulties accomplishing simple tasks such as disabling a network connection in Win7; not because the user interface is worse (I assume it's better), but simple because it's really different, particularly if you've developed a kind of second sense for the previous versions. I'm sure the first Ubuntu version resembles the current Ubuntu release more closely than Windows 95 resembles Windows 7. But that is hardly fair, since Ubuntu isn't all that old.
Re:And this is why people stick with other OSes (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no. The window controls moved from the right top of the window to the left top of the window, some icons look slightly different, and the default theme is a slightly different shade of brown. My world, she is rent asunder.
The interface changes from the last few years of Ubuntu updates are in the same order of magnitude as XP to Vista, or Win98 to XP. The "consistency" of Windows is an artifact of them not releasing a new OS for over 5 years. When they do, they of course make different decisions than what they made years before in a previous release. They only maintain "consistency" in the broadest scope, like there's still a Start menu and window frames still have a Close, Minimize, and Maximize buttons. Ubuntu has this too.
I understand that consistency is something people desire in the abstract. I do not believe that lack of consistency is a reason anyone stayed away from Vista. They stayed away because it was crap. Now people are happily using Windows 7, and the fact that some icons look different. Similarly, the Ubuntu releases are not so dissimilar as to actually cause significant confusion. Maybe for 5 seconds -- "where did Minimize go? Oh, there it is."
And frankly, if those 5 seconds of confusion cause a panic, or a desire to avoid that OS from then on, then I believe that you need to be exposed to some inconsistency in the form of new GUI interfaces. Learning to use one and exactly one specific interface is a recipe for obsolescence. Exposure to multiple GUIs results in generalizing your understanding, so then when you sit down in front of a new and seemingly completely different GUI (like your friends Macbook), you aren't lost.
That said, consistency is good, and randomly changing the interface (considered in isolation from why) is undesirable. But that is not why people are avoiding Ubuntu and Linux in general. They're avoiding it for other OSes because those other OSes come pre-installed by OEMs, and support all the software they want to run.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He said that if you do a Ubuntu 9.10 > 10.04 upgrade, the result looks very different from a fresh 10.04 install... even if you made no tweaks to the original 9.10.
That has been my experience, as well. Now I always do a full reinstall so that everything is as it is intended to be.
Ubuntu is *NOT* ditching gnome (Score:5, Informative)
There is going to be some questions about this decision in relation to GNOME. I want to make something crystal clear: Ubuntu is GNOME distribution, we ship the GNOME stack, we will continue to ship GNOME apps, and we optimize Ubuntu for GNOME. The only difference is that Unity is a different shell for GNOME, but we continue to support the latest GNOME Shell development work in the Ubuntu archives.
Jono Bacon from http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/10/25/ubuntu-11-04-to-ship-unity/ [jonobacon.org]
Forking GNOME! (Score:2)
This apparently is a common refrain when asked, no one will EVER admit to it.
Why? (Score:2)
I like the idea of Unity somewhat, but it really isn't much more than an omni-present dock, some shiny effects, and icons. GNOME Shell uses less horizontal space and equal vertical space, scales well for netbooks as well as desktops, has much better notification organization than Unity [gnome.org], is supported upstream much more, it has extensions [gnome.org] which allow great control over the system (including this very nice and extremely lightweight dock extension [blogspot.com]), an Application Menu [gnome.org] which lets you quit all windows of an appl
Ubuntu is dead to me. (Score:2, Funny)
Ubuntu had a great deal of promise. But they have failed to deliver. It's been years, and they still cause hard drives to crash, they still fail to support hardware, and they still have shitty updates that break things. I'm done with Ubuntu and it makes me sad, because I can't go back to Windows now. My next computer is going to be an Apple and I don't give a damn about the apple tax, because apparently it is the only way to get a real unix desktop with well-supported software and hardware, that works. Sha
Re:Ubuntu is dead to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would use MacOS if not for that whole "failing to support hardware" thing that you like to give Ubuntu flack for.
Seriously. I run Linux on Apple gear because Linux hardware support is better.
If your thing is "everything is supported", then Apple really isn't the platform for you.
GNOME is going downhill (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't blame distributions for not following the GNOME project in all their technical decisions - some parts of GNOME are (and continue to be) neat, but several, particularly those bits tied with Mono and other attempts to wear Microsoft's leash, are lousy (plus some bits duplicate functionality better done elsewhere, e.g. Empathy over Pidgin).
GNOME is still a pretty decent development environment, and there are a lot of nice applications that use the GNOME libraries. Still, there's no reason distros need the detault GNOME desktop to run them, and people/distros can be perfectly happy taking GNOME components and standards piecemail.
Isn't this the point of FOSS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this the point of FOSS? (Score:4, Insightful)
When Microsoft or Apple put something in their product that people don't like, FOSS proponents respond, "The beauty of FOSS is you if you don't like what someone is doing, you can just go off and do your own thing." When someone actually does this the FOSS proponents seem to respond with, "We can't afford to splinter into tiny interest groups or we won't be able to compete with Microsoft and Apple."
You are assuming that these two groups of FOSS proponents are the same folks. This is not necessarily the case. Just as the community is large enough to favor different preferences for the software itself, the community is large enough to foster different ideas about how the software development should proceed.
Jack.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Jeez. Ubuntu is becoming the jack of many trades and master of none.
Let the dedicated desktop guys at Gnome work on the UI. Last thing Linux needs is yet another implementation of a desktop.
I think we are about to witness the "Jumping the shark".. (Happy Days reference)
Don't freak (Score:4, Interesting)
Ubuntu Minimal (Score:4, Informative)
Ever seen this? https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD [ubuntu.com]
There is no need to spend time with packages you won't use.
I don't mind change. (Score:4, Interesting)
I really *want* to like KDE, but every time I try it, it is always broken. Take 4.5 for example. They finally have the desktop to a pretty stable level, and then for some reason decided to rewrite Kwin from the ground up, and caused a severe performance regression. It's not as noticeable on new hardware, but on an older machine it means not being able to play 720p HD movies without major performance issues. The same machine runs 720p just fine under Gnome.
After using KDE4.5 for a week, I uninstalled it and went back to Gnome. It might be plain looking, but it works. I really hope that Gnome Shell doesn't carry a lot of this sort of baggage.
Re:I don't mind change. (Score:4, Informative)
The Samba shares feature is the big reason they're still using Ubuntu at this non-profit where I installed it on some Pentium M notebooks.
For my personal use though, I think features like not opening a new Nautilus window when you click on a folder, should be configurable though options (without having to fire up gconf-editor). But that beats a crashing KWin any day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gnome Shell - YES, I have tried this in Beta - is a real drag.
KDE4 was a cock-up. It's taken, what? 2 years to get back to everyday, usable? Gnome is great. The Gnome Shell will only take 1 year to do the same.
I don't know about Unity. But Gnome shell is a productivity / usability killer.
Example: Gnome Application Menu in the current Panel. Sure, it doesn't scale when you have 30 audio applications and as many "Internet" apps. But Gnome Shell? Only a handful available - in a non scrolling, apparently
Re: (Score:2)
I can't freakin' STAND KDE. I never really understood the appeal of it...just seemed like a convuluted mess to me.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, Gnome's stock look is visually similar to the interface of MacOS while KDE's stock look is similar to Windows, but even there the resemblance is pretty superficial for both.
I think I like Gnome better, but I'm not sure how much of that is "KDE isn't as good" vs. "Canonical doesn't put together Kubuntu releases as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that sort of the point? Disrupt the user experience minimally when shifting from one OS to another?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're telling me.
I don't know about the others, but I'm savvy enough to use linux on the desktop for 90% of the time (I likes my Guild Wars). If I wanted to use a Mac, I'd use a Mac, dammit.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Wait a minute, have you ever tried to configure gnome-screensaver? They basically removed ~all configuration besides "which screen saver do you want and when do you want it?" It does have better encapsulation than xscreensaver, but ironically enough, all the settings that they nicely encapsulated are now hidden behind various semi-standard text files.
</rant>
Gnome != Windows
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe because it doesn't work well for him?
I played with KDE 4 and felt that it was too buggy and slow. What should a Desktop do for me? Launch applications and maybe manage files.
That is really about it. I may pick a wall paper but that is it. Even widgets don't really thrill me.
I think that KDE has a lot of detractors because they don't find any benefit to it for them. Gnome actually works as a good compromise for IMHO between a bare bones and and overly complex desktop environment.
But then I may be just
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I use Gnome, because most of the programs I use tend to work better in it. I'm a bit compulsive with making things look the way they should.
KDE is, IMO, a knockoff of Windows (though I haven't used it much since 4.0 came out).
Gnome is also like Windows, but with a few things that make it more Mac-like. I can figure out both of them, but for me, Gnome "just works" and has fewer bugs.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
KDE 4.5 is to KDE 4.0 as a Maglev is to a trainwreck.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you are upset that KDE is not a copy of basically Windows XP/MacOS/Solaris/every other GUI?
How far we have come. When I started using linux, the complaint was that KDE was "just" a badly implemented copy of windows.
Is there something wrong with the Common User Access [wikipedia.org] interaction design lineage? The very reason the document was put forth was to reduce user ramp-up time learning a new product.
WordPerfect 5, on the other hand, was a shining example of how to confuse the hell out of a new user by not working remotely like anything else out there. I used it for quite some time, even wrote applications with its macro language, and still couldn't get by without a key binding cheat sheet.
On the other hand, you could actuall
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Plasma Desktop (the KDE project underwent a rebranding a year ago -- that's now the name of the DE) looks in its default layout somewhat like Windows but behaves actually very differently. The differences begin with the use of a single click to open files and end with Activities, newspaper views, etc.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone with a three digit /. ID should know that Gnome took several years from the release of 2.0 (2002) until it was back to the usability level of 1.4. Gnome 2.6 (2004) was even forked by a couple of rather incompetent optimists. Of course, Gnome had usability experts from SUN who would claim that inability is two letters better than ability, since the ability to do things only would confuse those who don't understand why and how.
When did the 2.x series start coming good again? 2005? 2006? Or 2010, when they finally ditched Nautilus' obnoxious spatial mode? Or when GTK finally got an acceptable (it's still only half-decent) file selector?
The responsibilities of a low User ID (Score:5, Funny)
Someone with a three digit /. ID should know that Gnome took several years from the release of 2.0 (2002) until it was back to the usability level of 1.4.
Hm, I wasn't aware having a low user ID carried such burdens...
Perhaps we should institute a system of tests, in which low-UID users are periodically challenged on their knowledge, and demoted if they fail - and other users are given an opportunity to filter up the ranks via the same system?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps we should institute a system of tests, in which low-UID users are periodically challenged on their knowledge, and demoted if they fail - and other users are given an opportunity to filter up the ranks via the same system?
We already have one. I started out in the high 800,000s.
Re:The responsibilities of a low User ID (Score:5, Funny)
You're in the difficult 50K to 100K segment, which demands some knowledge and lots of genuine, honest curiosity. If you had only waited a week or two, you would be in the 100K+, which only requires a 50% troll ratio.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I waited about 2 years before actually making an account.
It wasn't laziness, no sir...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Not 2005 or 2006. That's about when I ditched GNOME due to being sick of Havoc Pennington's reign of "usability" terror. There was a constant crusade to make sure that no user could have edge flipping of multiple desktops, even as a buried option or as an "addon". (I basically stuck with GNOME until they broke Brightside so many times that the Brightside author gave up - Brightside somehow managed to add edge flipping to most GNOME WMs.)
Pretty much everything he did in the name of "usability" was to remove functionality. People bitch about KDE4, but KDE4 is far more feature-complete than GNOME was when I ditched it, and GNOME was actually trending downwards. (Admittedly, I didn't do the KDE 3.x to 4.x transition until around KDE 4.2 or 4.3.)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is that people still bitch about KDE4 as if it still was stuck on 4.0. Mac OS X 10.0 was a pile of shit. Gnome 2.0 was shit. Windows Vista -- somehow, people stopped bitching about Vista when service pack 1, AKA Windows 7, came out. Some people have forgotten even how bad Gnome 2.0 was.
KDE? Oh, it's become pretty damn good in a very short time, works fine out of the box and you can configure it to hell and back if you don't like it. But people simply can't forgive the project for doing the same thing that Steve "can do no wrong" Jobs did with OS X 10.0: released too early. Hypocrites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think people = people. Some people can't let KDE 4.0 go, even though they're perfectly capable of shutting up about practically all competing desktops. And on the contrary to what you claim, its unfinished status was in fact known, and the lack of features wasn't celebrated as a breakthrough in usability, which it was in Gnome 2.0.
It was made clear, and it was well known to everyone who considered installing it, that KDE4 wasn't ready for prime time at release. Yet you think it's in any way credible t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember the Window-manager-of-the-month club. Beginning with Enlightenment and finally sticking with Metacity, except when its Compiz that used to be Emerald.
I remember Big, default "CDE" panel, and the new, slim defaults. I remember difficulty in transition - but...
It was not so dramatic. Nautilus was always, pretty much a centrepiece - accessible as the Desktop - since the Andy Hertzfeld/Easel involvement 9-10 years ago.
This is crap navigation for phones/limited memory devices, shoveled up onto the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There seem to be a lot of people complaining about it, but I *like* the current Gnome interface. It's simple, straightforward, has plenty of information available in minimal space and is pretty enough. OSX drives me nuts and I don't like the idea of GnomeShell or Unity. I like having a taskbar. I don't like having to click buttons or move my cursor to see which windows I have open. Evolution rather than revolution please.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gnome has held GNU/Linux back for nearly 10 years now.
Started 1997, first release 1999, more like 11 to 13 years rather than nearly 10 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gnome has held GNU/Linux back for nearly 10 years now.
What's wrong with it? How do you think we would have been better off without it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, really, has nothing to do with this. Anyone who doesn't know what Aero or Aqua are doesn't need to know whether they are using Unity or GNOME either, both will just work. For some of us, though, it's interesting news.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Informative)
"Not a clue what any of this means. I'll just stick with Windows or Mac. You buy it, turn it on, and it works." - Joe Q Public
"I hope my neighbour's kid can make my damn Windows machine work again." -Joe Q Public, 2 weeks and 10 malware infections later
Re: (Score:2)
"As it is now, I tend to use XFCE the most."
It IS fast. Given the convenience, everyone ought to try a few window managers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW, I wish there was a window manager that set it's own paradigm.
There are several families of window managers that are pretty much unique to UNIX environments. Someone already mentioned Window Maker, there's also Afterstep if you like NextStep. There's also the Fluxbox/Openbox family. There's Enlightenment too.
Although if you want a wholly new paradigm that simply doesn't exist on other platforms, try a tiling window manager. Ratpoison/Awesome/evilwm/wmii/ion, there's actually a lot of these. Nobo
Re:NETBOOKS ONLY!!!!! (Score:4, Informative)
You are confused. Nowhere in the article it says that this is for netbooks (indeed, Ubuntu already ships with Unity for Netbook Remix, so this wouldn't be news). Heck, the second sentence of TFA is:
Moving to Unity as the default interface for Ubuntu Desktop with Natty Narwhal (11.04), rather than GNOME Shell.