|GNOME: 'staring into the abyss'|
|By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-27 12:41:52|
|Honest question. Do you think the GNOME project is as healthy today as it was, say, 4 years ago? Benjamin Otte explains that no, it isn't. GNOME lacks developers, goals, mindshare and users. The situation as he describes it, is a lot more dire than I personally thought.|
|Comment by zizban|
|By zizban on 2012-07-27 13:03:01|
|Gnome 3 should have been the tablet gui version of Gnome, ala what kde did.|
|- Score: 11|
|By mdoverkil on 2012-07-27 13:07:19|
|The fact that you have to add a bunch of extensions just to get basic desktop functionality back into GNOME3 is just absolutely ridiculous to me|
|- Score: 22|
|Gnome Shell is fantastic*|
|By MacMan on 2012-07-27 13:09:24|
Gnome shell is fantastic..... once you install various PPAs to get the latest builds, PPAs to get user themes extensions, and of course tweak tool. |
Gnome shell is build on a incredibly flexible and customizable framework, the MASSIVE PROBLEM is the default settings for lack of a better term, suck ass, .. and donkey too.
The so desperately NEED TO HAVE TWEAK TOOL INTEGRATED INTO CONTROL PANEL! and user themes need to be part of the default install.
On a side note, the only other thing really missing, is a drag and drop way of adding non-repository apps to the app view and dock, sort of like Mac has had since freaking 1984 and Windows have had since what 1990? For example, I grab the latest eclipse, because the one in the repos is ancient. Then I either have to edit some dammed .desktop files, or open up the dammed menu editor, this is crazy.
NeXT beautifully solved this in 1993, when a folder has a .app file extension, the file manager, (Nautilus, Dolphin, Finder, whatever) looks inside for a config file that says what icon this 'app' should use, and what the executable is. That freaking simple. Basically, a self-contained .desktop file. This is all you need for drag and drop installs. This idea of self contained apps is also completely desktop independent.
Why don't I help?, well, I've fixed numerous bugs in the current builds of Gnome shell + extensions, but as a grad student, sadly, I don't have a great deal of time to devote to ... anything.
So, Gnome Shell is a fantastic environment, please stop hiding all this goodness. Its so ridiculously simple to have self contained, desktop independent apps, all we need is some people to agree on this.
|- Score: 20|
|Works for Unity too|
|By Beta on 2012-07-27 13:41:11|
|Cannot stand either GNOME 3 or Unity, and frankly its pushing me to more obscure distros that function out of the box… :(|
|- Score: 14|
|Comment by drcouzelis|
|By drcouzelis on 2012-07-27 13:44:40|
> Anecdotal or no, such numbers do not bode well when you take the sheer size of the GNOME project into account. This is not a project that can be succesfully developed by a handful of developers - it needs more than that. |
This is the saddest part in my opinion. GNOME is no longer a collection of "programs that do one thing and do it well". Whether it's true or not, GNOME applications feel like they have tight coupling, which would make it hard for a new developer to contribute.
GNOME shouldn't be concerned with getting more developers to work on "GNOME". Instead, it should be a few people contributing to the small sections that interest them. If no one is interested in working on them, then they fade away or get replaced by something better. If being so tightly integrated with all of GNOME makes this very hard, then people will just not want to do anything with it.
Does that make sense, or am misunderstanding the GNOME project?
|- Score: 5|
|Personal views on the matter of Gnome 3|
|By AnXa on 2012-07-27 13:46:25|
I personally think that Gnome as a project has had some serious problems and issues right from the beginning. It started as a way to troll KDE project (excuse me for the lack of better way to express how Gnome founders wanted completely GPL-safe and compatible desktop. I remember how Qt wasn't entirely safe to use back then). |
Then they made a descent desktop which had some design issues and limitations due the use of widget set not meant for the complete desktop usage. Their objective of having complete C desktop was also pretty ridiculous in a modern desktop design. UNIX families of OSes didn't have a common desktop in the first place and only thing that came even close to being that standard was CDE which should have been the staring point of the design instead of copying Windows 9X series of desktops.
Then the Gnome project actually managed to produce completely different desktop environment which still had some serious design issues but at least it was functional albeit it had some serious bugs. And Nautilus was the worst file manager I had ever laid my hands on (yes, even worse than the Mac OSes "F*" Finder). Midnight Commander was and still is a master piece I still use since it works. Gnome 2 is where the design shift was made towards copying the OS X and they actually managed to take the relevant parts in in a series of well refining releases making Gnome 2 very popular desktop. But that didn't hide all the issues it had underneath in technical wise.
Gnome 3 steps in here. It's technically very very good desktop. I've had some time playing around with it and testing some of the frameworks and I like it. But Gnome 3 desktop designers went too much into OS X's closed direction and didn't quite understand how to build a functionality into it and opted not to hide it (like Apple does) but completely remove it from the visible eyes. That has alienated tons of Gnome 2 users completely and made them KDE or XFCE users.
KDE has also some serious issues being wanna be windows desktop environment. Their biggest problem is probably the fact that they're not trying to hide any functionality at all. KDE as a desktop is f* cool but at the same time it makes no sense at times. I have to admit thought that I use KDE and I've been using KDE since the KDE 2 was out. And I like Qt. But I hope I'm not labeled as a fanboy. I do like both Gnome and KDE but KDE is my first choice because it's flexible. Gnome is inflexible and that's how it meant to be. The Very inflexibility of Gnome made it popular and now it has made it not so popular.
I could start a story about Gnome project management issues but this short outburst is already starting to get out of hands...
Edited 2012-07-27 13:55 UTC
|- Score: 9|
|RE: Comment by drcouzelis|
|By AnXa on 2012-07-27 13:52:41|
I have to agree with you. I also liked the design ideology that one Gnome application did only one thing and it did it well. Since Gnome 2 things have been going into direction they shouldn't have gone in the first place. |
But Gnome project needs more flexible management and less obscure copy design from other desktop environments. And instead of going the route of follower they should be showing the way others should go to. They need capable desktop designers and they need to concentrate on issues. But they kind of did lead a way with the Gnome 3 being kind of tablet friendly.
|- Score: 3|
|gnome3 and unity.|
|By hussam on 2012-07-27 13:53:39|
sure it is a modern desktop. It’s probably a very nice thing for home users too. But it’s a step in the wrong direction for open source desktops. |
Linux is no longer some toy. it’s a professional operating system. Do you think someone is going to run gnome-shell or unity at work?
Edited 2012-07-27 13:54 UTC
|- Score: 7|
|By peteo on 2012-07-27 14:20:01|
|Choice is good, but when it comes to Linux succeeding, it needs ONE GOOD face. I don't care what it is as long as it's one, and not metro-like.|
|- Score: 4|
|RE: Works for Unity too|
|By the_wipet_biscuit on 2012-07-27 14:25:54|
Well, you can always use Lubuntu/Xubuntu or Mint. |
Basically Ubuntu with a different DE, it's not THAT obscure!
|- Score: 3|