Debian Switching Back To GNOME As the Default Desktop 403
An anonymous reader writes: Debian will switch back to using GNOME as the default desktop environment for the upcoming Debian 8.0 Jessie release, due out in 2015. The decision is based on accessibility and systemd integration, along with a host of other reasons. Debian switched away from GNOME back in 2012 .
Why not KDE (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Gnome is friendlier for noobs or something. Are there noobs left in the world?
Re:Why not KDE (Score:5, Interesting)
Gnome is drastically different than any other environment out there. I can't imagine it being a good choice for noobs. MATE is a better choice because it is more familiar to Windows users. Unity is a good choice for Mac OS X users because of some similarities. GNOME is like neither. A noob would be lost.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
MATE is also more familiar to users of previous versions of Debian, which is why I use it on my netbook.
Re:Why not KDE (Score:5, Informative)
Unity is a good choice for Mac OS X users because of some similarities.
Clearly you've never used OS X for any amount of time to make such a ridiculous claim. Unity is almost nothing like OS X beyond a couple of superficial similarities that, outside of the left hand buttons, don't even functionally act the same as the OS X counterpart it is trying to mimic. Long-time OS X users tend to despise Unity for its superficial cargo cult look.
Re:Why not KDE (Score:4, Insightful)
I've used OS X for 4-5 years and have used Unity since it came out, and I find them very similar. There's differences, but they're much more like each other than they're like Windows. My wife, who isn't a computer person and has always used Macs, occasionally uses Unity on my laptop, and finds it almost the same as Mac except the colors are different.
Jeff
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I always laugh my ass off when I hear someone make that claim. Having lefthand window buttons and a half-ass clone of the Mac OS global menus does not mean that OS X users will like Unity.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux noobs generally do NOT use Debian. :)
They start with ubuntu or some of it's derivative like Mint.
On a personal note, I use Linux Mint as my primary OS and recommend it to any noob who asks me on how to start using Linux. I have no qualms admitting myself as a Linux noob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and non noob Debian users generally do NOT use a GUI. So, what's the issue?
And, in my experience, neither Gnome nor KDE are particularly robust. I got tired of fighting graphics drivers and configurations, and have XFCE installed to run those things which simply won't work without.
Server or Workstation (Score:2)
Such sweeping generalizations. Servers may not have desktop GUIs installed, but we have plenty of people running Linux as a desktop for their workstation with a VM running Windows if they need a Windows only application.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you insult me claiming I need to run Windows on my Linux desktop ? ;-)
I don't run Windows VMs on my desktop machine.
There are no Windows applications I need or depend on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been using Linux since 1997 (pretty much exclusively since 2009). I still prefer MInt over anything else. Eye candy is good, package management is good - and it is the primary platform for Cinnamon which removes all the retarded aspects of Gnome 3 to make it back into a decent desktop UI.
Re: (Score:3)
...said the AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beat me too it. It is beyond me why the Debian priests insist on continued dead horse beating.
Re:Why not KDE (Score:4, Funny)
Are there noobs left in the world?
For some reason some people keep creating new ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why KDE? KDE sucks for noobs and oldfags alike. Gnome is still better, and a simple text console is the best.
Then man up and run slack.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh.................. troll on.... troll on.
Re:Why not KDE (Score:5, Insightful)
KDE has features that Gnome has refused to implement. Gnome 3 promised Kiosk features similar to what KDE has had since version 2.0, never happened. They refuse to allow root access to the Window manager, and sometimes it's needed (CAD/CAE applications). To top all that off, it's far less flexible than KDE.
Desktop control is required in some environments, which rules out all of the Linux desktops except for KDE. So maybe for you KDE sucks, but from a enterprise and compliance perspective it's both exceptional and essential.
Further, I have had better experiences with KDE all the way around. I don't have issues controlling menus, location of "start" items, window tiling, multiple displays and desktops, sounds, or any of the other areas where Gnome and Unity are both problematic and inferior in my experience. KDE's speed has always been better than Gnome as well. I'm sure my hardware selection plays a role in that, so again your experiences may differ from mine.
You can claim that emacs is better than vi just like you can claim that Gnome is better than KDE. Different people have different experiences, and will claim the opposite. Neither side is wrong necessarily.
Re: Why not KDE (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand what you mean by desktop control and root access.
Care elaborating?
Re: (Score:3)
How many of you are still using Gnome? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have stopped using Gnome ever since the developers decided to stop listening to the users and fucked up the whole thing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're in luck then, Debian is still way back in the days when GNOME 2 was new!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am at a complete loss as to why I should have to use a click-and-drag "swipe" gesture to unlock the screen on my workstation in the default configuration of GNOME 3 that comes with Jessie. I'm also not too fond of the default on for all the smart--phone centric gestures that mess up all of my window positioning if I accidentally mouse to the corner
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't want to switch to MATE because all the executables have been renamed and I'd lose compatibility with my legacy systems that run GNOME 2.
Okay, my advice to you: switch to MATE.
They renamed all the executables because they had to. For some reason that I don't understand, GNOME cannot have 2.x and 3.x on the same system; somehow they screwed the library versioning all to hell and it doesn't work. So the MATE developers renamed everything, so that people could install MATE and GNOME on the same system
Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with GNOME was that they also didn't listen to usability experts.
The problem is that usability experts are actually few and far between. Usability experts have been replaced with User eXperience experts and they kind of kicked off this nightmare of crap design. I like the Microsoft story of how the "Start" button came to exist. Without a requirement for usability experts to weigh in they actually beta tested many versions of windows with various designs, and each time wondered how to get users to click on the thing. Put the word "Start" on the button and suddenly everyone instinctively knew what to do.
Now we are in a world of UX design where people don't seem to care anymore what the users think but only seem to care about how their product looks like. I'm going to buck the trend and actually say I like the theme of Windows 8. Flat and trendy works for me, but the UX design is a nightmare without any of the queues that a user needs to identify how something should happen.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe the UX guys are right and we're not optimally using the desktop. But if a user can't figure out how to use your desktop (see and endless stream of youtube how-to videos on Windows 8 showing people such advanced things like .... turning their computer off) then you have failed. The users absolutely need to be part of the equation.
Re:How many of you are still using Gnome? (Score:4, Insightful)
KDE 4.0 was bad, so lots of people switched to Gnome 2.
KDE 4.3 was decent, and Gnome 3 was awful, so lots of people switched to KDE.
Gnome 3.10 and KDE 4.13 are both fine. If they both keep working on polish and extension support for a while rather than trying to reinvent themselves again then everything will be peachy.
Re: (Score:2)
well, Debian is taking that to the next level and adopting systemd which ignores serious sys admins and fucks up the whole system init thing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? (Score:3)
I use XFCE as well.
XFCE 4.10 came out in April/2012. I'm honestly worried maybe things have stalled. I use Funtoo(/Gentoo) Linux, so I see from time to time things get updated in the various applications that make up XFCE, but I'm still worried about its future.
Re: How many of you are still using Gnome? (Score:5, Insightful)
I use XFCE as well.
XFCE 4.10 came out in April/2012. I'm honestly worried maybe things have stalled. I use Funtoo(/Gentoo) Linux, so I see from time to time things get updated in the various applications that make up XFCE, but I'm still worried about its future.
Just a simple question - if it works for you, unless there are some major security bugs or something, why does it matter if it gets 'updated'?
Re: (Score:3)
Because a desktop environment ties into a lot of the rest of the system infrastructure - from volume controls to disk mounting to power management - and the system infrastructure keeps moving forward. Therefore, you need to maintain the desktop environment in order for it to keep working well. A typical case is that xfce + new upower tends to suspend twice when you close the lid (i.e. when you open the notebook lid, it re-suspends right away). This is because noone updated xfce's power manager to a new upow
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It uses GTK+ libaries, so what? unlike GNOME it uses them for a UI that doesn't suck.
Re: (Score:3)
Help me Slackware (Score:2, Funny)
You're my only hope!
Re:Help me Slackware (Score:5, Funny)
Much fear I sense in you...
Help you we can. Install FreeBSD we must.
Systemd integration counted as a positive thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why on earth would you do that?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the people that are the reason Linux lives in the enterprise and on so many servers, and are the ones who can kill its presence there too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Scripts are understood, easy to search and edit, debug and maintain. Systemd adds a layer of complexity that's not wanted. Journald means extra work as well, that nobody asked for.
Execution speed? Not relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny I've never had an init script "break" in 25+ years of Unix and Linux administration. Tell me does it make a snapping sound? Does it break because the summer weather made it get wet and soft? Can they be glued back together?
Re: (Score:2)
s/scripts/software
Re: Systemd integration counted as a positive thin (Score:2)
Go back to Windows. If you can't cope with people wanting to choose how to run their system, you don't deserve software that's all about choice. If insults are the best reason you have for living, do everyone a favour.
Re: (Score:2)
That is false, most of your Linux distro written by people that have nothing whatever to do with systemd. Plenty of kernel developers think it is pure shit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go back in time 5 years and tell everyone Linux would be using binary log files, watch the fireworks. Systemd is from the same people who brought you the sometimes working Pulseaudio system. If init scripts did suck so badly then why were they in use for decades? Why was a replacement this long in the making?
Next you guys are going to be talking about this great binary system for config files like the guys in Redmond use.
Re: (Score:2)
And good lord have you ever heard of mySQL? I hear thats binary too!
PST, its all binary.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused, the logging in a Linux system is text. So are configuration files.
Mysql is for people who occassionally like to use data, so funny you picked that for example.
Binary logs (Score:2)
No logging from systemd is now in binary form and needs special viewers and processing tools. So all the classic text programs like tail or grep or awk can no longer be used. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I was talking about things as they are now, not with the goatfuck that is systemd. And for even more hilarity the systemd wankers claim text logging can be used, but forget that will only start working if certain other parts of systemd get going
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of Systemd (Score:5, Interesting)
I used GNOME as my primary desktop environment for almost a decade starting with 2.4 on Fedora Core 1. I watched as many features I cared for were either hidden or removed for simplicity's sake, but I kept with it because for the most part I could restore the features with minimal hassle and I liked the overall look & feel. I even put up with early GNOME 3 as I felt 3.4 & 3.6 were progressively improving. However by 3.8 I was getting fed up of having to constantly figure out how to restore features I want, and I had absolutely no interest in running systemd just to run a damn GUI. I had enough, jumped to XFCE4 and have it customized to a very similar setup to GNOME 2 and have been very satisfied.
It takes a lot to alienate someone who has used the same software for a decade, but they've managed to it. I felt like each released "dumbed" the product down more and more and I kept thinking to myself that old saying, "If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot". I don't know what kind of consumer they want to attract, but apparently I'm no longer it.
At least with Debian, the default desktop doesn't necessarily mean much as it's quite simple to install an alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, your comment about leaving Gnome 3 speaks nothing at all about systemd. I can certainly understand your dislike of Gnome 3. I also share it, and use the Mate desktop.
Again, though, what does any of this has to do with systemd? Can you state your specific problems with it (I mean actual problems, not hypothetical, philosophical ones)? Many folks are running distros using systemd under the hood, using a variety of desktop interfaces (Gnome, KDE, Mate, XFCE, etc) for a couple of years now. Seems t
Re: Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of System (Score:3, Insightful)
Software that is designed correctly separates out what it does, how it does it, and how it interacts with the outside world.
Ergo, software that is correctly designed is user-agnostic. If the user thinks in a particular way, whatever that way happens to be, it is the job of the software to accommodate that. If it does not, it is not software for users, it is software that has users. Possession is everything.
Software that is correctly designed is configuration-agnostic. If the configuration file states someth
Re: Funny, I Left GNOME 3 Mainly Because of System (Score:4, Insightful)
It's impossible to design something that is 'agnostic' to everyone as everyone thinks differently and makes different assumptions. Therefore, designers have to make certain assumptions of their own and expect users to stretch out a bit and learn them. Good designers will write reasonable documentation or build intuitive hints into their designs to facilitate this, but going too far makes it difficult to be efficient with the tool. Unfortunately, designs like gnome 3.x, metro, osx, unity, and mobile interfaces clearly show this has become a trend.
While tools that are difficult to use for no good reason aren't great, especially when the task is relatively simple, tools that make too many assumptions about complex tasks under the guise of simplicity often prevent user skill growth and understanding. The inflexibility that comes with this just pisses the experienced users off. It shouldn't take 6 clicks to do something that should take 1, nor does it make sense to remove all the functionality except that which only takes 1 click just to make it less 'confusing' to do easy things. Who is the target user for interfaces like these? bonobos?
Cinnamon (Score:4, Informative)
Come, join us, Cinnamon is what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, Cinnamon uses the GTK+, a library.
A special kind of stupid... (Score:3)
Running Debian Jessie (testing) right now, and KDE is the ONLY way to go... At least the default XFCE was not too bad, but I always prefer KDE over pretty much ANY other DE, but going to that piece of shit Gnome is a special kind of stupid... The only DE worse than Gnome is Unity or Windows 8.... What with all the crap software that many distros are trying to shove down our throats (like systemd and Gnome), I'm beginning to think its back to my Linux roots, namely Slackware... Cut my teeth on that distro back in 1994... Glad its still around and hopefully not going down the shithole like everybody else in the Linux world...
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a tip: when you're installing your system, don't pick the default DE and choose anything else. No one is going to force you to use gnome.
Enlightenment (Score:2)
enlightenment.org. Best desktop.
Re: Enlightenment (Score:5, Funny)
It's definitely one of the cleanest. It needs a rewrite, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Please not another rewrite! 1.6 to 1.7 took 12 years!!!
It did not help that instead of using other common libraries they had implemented their own from scratch (EFL).
What E needs is to work on stability: It is the only desktop environment that crashes. Sure it is very fast and seamless at restarting right away, but it shouldn't crash in the first place!
Debian GNOME needs some attention (Score:4, Interesting)
After something like 20 years I finally found a system that won't run Debian unstable right now. My Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1 magnesium tablet + iKey Jumpseat magnesium keyboard. Systemd and GDM break. Bought (for less than full price) because I am a frequent traveler and speaker and really do need something you can drop from 6 feet and pour coffee over have it keep working.
But because of this bug I have ubuntu at the moment, and am not having fun and am eager to return to Debian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find Unity to be diseased crap, for people who think Windows 8.x UI is wonderful also. It impedes workflow for those who work with multiple applications, it tries to turn the desktop into a cell phone, badly.
Re:Debian GNOME needs some attention (Score:4, Insightful)
omg, there's a bug in an unstable release?
I thought Gnome was the default desktop already? (Score:2)
I haven't included the "desktop system" or whatever dselect offers you in a Debian install since probably the turn of the century. I usually just install the minimum base system and apt-get the stuff I want, which resulted in wmaker up till about 2002, and XFCE since. I'm not saying this to sound l33t or anything, but I remember doing it this way all along to avoid installing Gnome.
What was Debian's default desktop before now?
Horses for courses (Score:2)
It's times like this that I'm glad that I use Debian exclusively for headless servers that never see a GUI.
Re:Horses for courses (Score:4, Insightful)
That is why a certain navel gazing tard with no engineering sense or real world experience, with a long and tragic history of failures and of fucking up GNU/Linux, decided the headless server realm needed a good fucking up too, and so he wrote systemd
kind of irrelevant (Score:2)
i don't think anyone runs debian as a desktop friendly distribution. In my case, i have a small server on it, and installed a GUI not for me, but for everyone else that may use it and get lost without a GUI. I chose XFCE.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things I like a lot about NetBSD is that the 'default' GUI is the Tab Window Manager. The base install ISO for NetBSD-i386 is still only 321MB. You add what you want to using Pkgsrc. No croft, no unneeded shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I have with the BSDs is that they can't handle large ext4 partitions...which is where I have all my data. I'd considered switching to them (in a dual boot mode) but that limitation made it out of the question.
Re: (Score:2)
So why not put your data on a more robust and higher performance file system? Even in Linux land, that's not ext4
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that I still have most of my data in ntfs. I've not tried it but I guess the BSDs would read/write it fine, if FUSE is working correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be why the BSD folk don't use it, but that rather lets BSD out for my use. I need to share an existing large partition with a Linux install, because I'm not going to switch entirely to BSD without first trying it to see if it fits my use case. I didn't even do that when switching from MSWind to Linux back in 99.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It is a french expression, systemd means "système débrouillardise".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
.. which would be more congruent with a series of anarchical low tech hacks on top of hacks hanging together with strings. So "Système D" would describe the old inits, whereas "systemd" is a big top down and corporate project.
The name "systemd" has arrogance and octopus-like conquest buit-in : the letter "d" classically means a daemon (e.g. sshd is a SSH deamon, in other terms a SSH server) and "system", well that's the "S" in "OS".
So it's the daemon that takes over most all administration of your OS.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Debian stable is an outdated distro, except maybe for a few monthes in its lifecycle. So it is better to use on 10 to 15 year old PCs where it can excel at both grandma computing and PhD computing. Except that those old computers will have trouble running a 3D accelerated desktop. Really, that's a bad idea : it exposes you to driver crashes, hardware instability, overheating or things like 100% CPU use.
So, use a recent computer? Fine, but if the graphics card or CPU with integrated graphics is too recent, t
Re: (Score:2)
I think "power users" know that they don't have to go with the default DE when installing Debian, and they probably also know that they can install most any DE they wish.
Re: So, systemd integration is suddenly a good thi (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. It's not tested or validated for every possibility. Hell, given how easily I can break Debian, I wonder if it's tested at all these days. There is no point in using unvalidated setups with a distro, if you're at that point then you should roll your own.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I read it, Systemd is mainly a hail mary from the gnome cabal to try to jumpstart a stalled heart. The words "walking dead" come to mind.
CoreOS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you got that backwards. Canonical started using systemd because Debian picked it. Also, Canonical doesn't do Gnome3 shell on their main offering, so how do you see any strongarming in this decision?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Jeezus, Canonical didn't want to Debian to adopt systemd, they wanted to them to go with Upstart you idiot.
Re:What happened to Debian? (Score:5, Informative)
You need to look into it deeper. It didn't happen that way at all.
Canonical wanted Debian to pick upstart (naturally as it was their software). Once Debian chose systemd though and with RHEL already switching away from upstart to systemd, Canonical felt that being left as the only distro still using upstart wasn't tenable any more. Staying aligned with Debian was more important than getting what they wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. Unity, GNOME3, Windows 8.x UI, those are all idental symptoms of same diseased thinking.
Re:Why not XFCE (Score:4, Funny)
There are also no desktop effects.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Desktop effects are the second thing I turn off in a new install, the first being those fscking bongos.
Re: (Score:3)