Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fedora 16, OpenSuse 12.1 Betas With Gnome 3.2

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the despite-gripes-it-gets-better dept.

GNOME 117

Andy Smith writes "Fedora 16 beta and OpenSuse 12.1 beta have been released. For most users the major change in each distro is Gnome 3.2. Fedora also adopts the new Linux 3 kernel and the GRUB2 bootloader."

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Welcome to the 21st century (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614648)

GRUB2, yay, Fedora. Finally.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (2)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614750)

Did they ever make GRUB2 configurable? Last time I used GRUB2 it was a mess - what ever happened to simplicity?

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (2)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614812)

Compared with LILO, GRUB is still complex.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37621320)

However, the ability to edit commands from the grub boot menu is awesome, and has quickly saved my system many times.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614946)

They did but it's still a pain in the ass. In Ubuntu at least, you have to edit grub.cfg and then "update-grub". I liked the old way of doing things where update-grub was unnecessary.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615258)

at least you are not left with broken configuration when you mess something up. Firing up livecd to repair nonbooting system is such a pleasure for your average user...

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615356)

Oh definitely.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

jon207 (1176461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615984)

Average user doesn't mess with Grub configuration...

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618108)

average user as in ubuntuforums? He sometimes doesn't have much choice despite living in gui land. Broken video resolution at boot time, setting windows as the default option in grub menu or removing diagnostic modes from menu are not unreasonable things to tackle.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618636)

Average users need not touch grub.conf. The ones that do should understand how to hit 'c' or 'e' to recover without a rescue disk.

Scenarios where I've seen someone forced to 'rescue' are when the available initrds are fubared, and 'update-grub' won't prevent that.

Two things I hate windows for are binary registry and bcd files. Steering away from plain text to protect the user is not an aspect I want to see mimicked, as when it fails to protect, it actually makes the problem worse.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615432)

You say, "yay", but GRUB2, GPT, and Mac's have been a real piece of work so far.

I have been documenting (very) rough instructions for myself, because I will never remember:
http://www.montleon.com/mac-efi-grub2.html [montleon.com]

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (2)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616436)

Mac EFI with Fedora has been a real piece of work all along, just because - as you say on your page - the Mac EFI implementation is hideous. Actually, the Fedora devs responsible for the EFI support say they explicitly don't support Macs just because the EFI implementation is so crap/weird. Macs are a best effort, I'm afraid.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (4, Interesting)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616476)

well, we *could* have switched to it at any time, but it's made a bit awkward by the fact that the only real benefit of switching is upstream support. despite its ridiculous panoply of shiny features, grub2 doesn't give Fedora much that grub didn't, really. we're only switching now because we decided the pain threshold of essentially maintaining grub-legacy ourselves downstream had been reached.

in fact, if we were doing things over, we'd probably switch at f17 instead, because we haven't been able to make grub2 work well enough for EFI installs or PPC installs, so we still have to use grub-legacy for those, and that's just causing a ton of annoying complexity and possible breakage in the installer and upgrade paths.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

tchuladdiass (174342) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616752)

What's wrong with using Syslinux for boot? It's not just for live CDs anymore (they've had ext2/3 support for a while now). It has the simplicity of Lilo, with the addition of being file system aware (unlike Lilo).
In fact, any time I've failed to get Grub to re-install, I cheated and switched over to Syslinux.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618662)

No EFI support. Relatively poor interactive capabilities.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618782)

What?? The ability to boot from LVM isn't a "real benefit"? Do you think the existence of "/boot/" as a legacy partition is a feature, not a bug?

Gnome? bah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37614798)

Gnome??
Where is my new UNITY beta!!

Re:Gnome? bah (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615054)

Gnome to Beta Hell maybe?
Geddit?

Gnome 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37614800)

Gnome 3 is bullshit. I'm just going to reconfigure it back to look like gnome 2.

Re:Gnome 3 (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614930)

Look like gnome 2? I guess a background image with icons and a menu on it will do, but it won't work like Gnome 2, so what's the point?

Re:Gnome 3 (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615488)

He can ride the "me too train" on hating anything new.

Re:Gnome 3 (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615704)

"He can ride the "me too train" on hating anything new."

Anything? Maybe the problem is not "novelty" but "novelty for the sake of novelty". And certainly when "novelty for the sake of novelty" happens on already standardized fields *is* worth hating.

Re:Gnome 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37616822)

Mein Führer... Actually... All the preferences for this have been removed... And they are not comming back.

No grub 2 (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614858)

installed the beta last night in VirtualBox 4.1.4 , it was using grub 1.99.

Re:No grub 2 (2)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614950)

That is GRUB 2. Since GRUB2 is not yet a stable release they haven't moved the number to 2.x.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615072)

Meanwhile, LILO still works just fine, despite being incredibly simple and elegant.

I don't think I'll ever understand the rationale behind the switch to GRUB.

Re:No grub 2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615190)

NIH syndrome. Lilo is BSD-licensed and the copyrights not owned by the GNU Project. This was unacceptable and a more complex and harder to use GPL version was needed.

Re:No grub 2 (2)

jhdsl (74051) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615524)

More like lilo needed to be reinstalled after every kernel change.
If you forgot or something went wrong you where SOL.
GRUB only needs to update its files in the filesystem.
Also, GRUB has a command line from where you can choose kernel to boot if things got messed up.
GRUB can also boot more things than LILO can.

Re:No grub 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615664)

Yeah cause running /sbin/lilo after installing a new kernel is such a momentous thing that a whole new bootloader that is orders of magnitude more complex and hard to use had to be created. Really?

Re:No grub 2 (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618736)

If you neglect to do that, then you are toast. If we ever get btrfs boot and btrfs does content indexed storage, it might not be amenable to lilo strategy (or several other fancy filesystem tricks).

However, having a boot loader maintain filesystem support independent of the kernel is a tad worrisome. probably just say 'use vfat for /boot' and be done with it.

Re:No grub 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37620798)

Yes, and? How does that justification a much more complex solution that has proved to be much harder to maintain (hence why we have GRUB2). The entire justification for GRUB is because people are too lazy to run /sbin/lilo? Really?

Re:No grub 2 (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615960)

Tried to install a grub-based distro on a truly headless system?

There are cases where grub makes sense, and cases where LILO makes sense, and cases where u-Boot makes sense.

Re:No grub 2 (3, Informative)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615732)

No, LILO doesn't work fine. LILO always was incredibly unreliable, it needs to know the fixed location of the kernel inside the disk (if you move your kernel it stops working). I can't count the times my system stopped booting because of stupid things like that. GRUB in the other hand can read filesystems so it doesn't need to know where kernels are, only the stages are neccesary. Even if it fails to find a kernel it has an interactive editor where you can list the available files in the /boot directory, which is useful for recovery. Also, LILO doesn't support UEFI.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615962)

Also,LILO doesn't support UEFI.

2008 says hello. [wikipedia.org]

Re:No grub 2 (2)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616448)

ironically, neither does grub2. well, it does, but very badly. we're actually still using grub-legacy for EFI installs in F16, because grub2-efi is just too unreliable at present.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617860)

That's a separate (and not very healty) project.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618548)

Do you normally have need to move your kernel around? If so, just remember to run /sbin/lilo afterwards, and you are done.

If you can't remember that, just boot some other media, chroot to your borked installation, and run /sbin/lilo. All fixed!

Grub's fine if you like big complex solutions to simple little problems, I guess. We use it at work because the big distros ship it.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618730)

Yeah, it's funny how we have this overly complex GRUB solution all to save the "huge" hassle of running /sbin/lilo after installing a new kernel.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617376)

While we're at it, can someone give a quick rehash of the present state of Linux boot loaders? I've installed Arch on a netbook yesterday, and noticed that the installer gave me a choice of GRUB vs SysLinux. This is the first time I've actually heard about SysLinux, but apparently it's an old project - so why the sudden interest to it? Does GRUB have problems on modern hardware, or what?

Re:No grub 2 (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618698)

It doesn't though. The interactive capabilities are piss-poor, no EFI support, if you did anything that might change block location of kernel, it would fail. This means 'clever' filesystems might be fundamentally incompatible with LILO (if your kernel gets deduped and pointer moves, there was no user cue to go and update lilo). Having to re-run lilo every time is a sufficient indicator of a problem.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37614958)

"Grub Legacy" is technically numbered with version number less than 1, Grub 2 has version number greater than 1.
On ArchLinux, the package "grub" has version number 0.97, and the package "grub2" has version number 1.99

Re:No grub 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615002)

1.99 is the current release of grub 2. There is no release with a version number that actually begins with 2... or 1 for that matter--"grub legacy" ended at 0.97.

Re:No grub 2 (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617170)

1.99 is the current release of grub 2. There is no release with a version number that actually begins with 2... or 1 for that matter--"grub legacy" ended at 0.97.

There is a release that begins with 1 - you just said so yourself.

  • Grub 1 starts with a 0.
  • Grub 2 starts with a 1.

This is probably a worse situation than Firefox's new-version-every-week.

"For most users" - Really? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614892)

Granted, I don't know the proportion of users who use a given desktop environment in these distributions, so the OP may be accurate, but this seems a little presumptuous. I personally use KDE, and I know that many folks eshew both Gnome and KDE for lighter desktop environments. Quite a few users of these distributions won't notice this "major change" at all. Might I suggest something like: "The major change that will be most visible to Gnome users in each distro is an upgrade to Gnome 3.2. Users of other desktop environments will experience minor upgrades with little visible impact on user experience".

Re:"For most users" - Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615668)

I know that many folks eshew both Gnome and KDE for lighter desktop environments.

Not even for "lighter" environments. I don't use FVWM because it's "light", I use FVWM because it doesn't completely change its interface every few releases and stores its configuration in flat text files that I understand and can back up and generally stays out of my way and lets me use my computer the way I want to use it instead of trying to force me to learn whatever its developers think will be better.

Re:"For most users" - Really? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615740)

A large majority of users just use the one that comes up by default after a default install, and that is Gnome. A lot of users are surprised that you can install other DE's, or that you can have a bunch of them installed at once.

GNOME 3 HATERS: Please keep posts in this thread! (-1, Flamebait)

neiras (723124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615000)

...so that we can ignore you, trolls.

Re:GNOME 3 HATERS: Please keep posts in this threa (1)

hobb0001 (989441) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615394)

It's been going on for several years now, but I wonder in which year did critique become "hate"? Seems to me that it happened sometime in the 90's.

Re:GNOME 3 HATERS: Please keep posts in this threa (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615680)

It was about the same time that people started trying to pass off "I hate the new look" as "critique."

Re:GNOME 3 HATERS: Please keep posts in this threa (1)

hobb0001 (989441) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616058)

???

Hate: (verb) to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest
Critical: (adj) inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily

Seriously? Hate is the more appropriate word? Extreme hostility and passionate dislike?

Me thinks that people on the internet exaggerate too much...

Re:GNOME 3 HATERS: Please keep posts in this threa (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616106)

More like "Methinks GNOME fanbois are too thin-skinned".

News? (1)

StarKiller53861 (2251214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615282)

Two mildly popular distros releasing their betas is not news. An actual release might be news (and that's debatable), but a beta release? Bah.

And just a reminder that /. didn't cover the various betas of Ubuntu either. Or any other popular Linux distros, for that matter.

Also, GNOME 3.2 has been in the stable Arch Linux repos since almost the day it came out.

Re:News? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616540)

You'll see someday when timothy discovers ArchLinux, and there will be a story every day about a "new version" of Arch.

Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (3, Informative)

Forget4it (530598) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615330)

LMDE is a good alternative maintained Linux that continues with the latest Gnome 2 not 3
http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php [linuxmint.com]

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615444)

Mint sucks though because the installation is too basic. No network installer, etc. No power to install it properly (even Ubuntu has a way to do that).

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615880)

I switched to Mint from Ubuntu because the new GUI interfaces essentially suck. If you want more flexibility regarding a GUI you can use strait up Debian (or Ubuntu server) with wii / Rat Poison or any of the other flavors of a GUI. I use wii on my low end computers and severs I run with XRDP. Most excellent ;)
    I don't know why Gnome project made 3.2 their flagship GUI. I would have kept it a screen interactive version for ipad type machines (at best) and kept 2.xx as the flag ship with continues improvements. Gnome might find that they may have to back track at some point.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616630)

I don't know why Gnome project made 3.2 their flagship GUI. I would have kept it a screen interactive version for ipad type machines (at best) and kept 2.xx as the flag ship with continues improvements.

The Gnome team does not believe in having a different UI for different devices. They want you to use the same UI on all devices, whether you're using a tablet, a smartphone, or a quad-screen desktop PC. If that means reducing the utility of desktop machines, then so be it.

Gnome might find that they may have to back track at some point.

They're not going to do that. They want everyone to use their DE the way they want you to, and they don't even want you changing the themes (the developers have said so), because then other people who see you using this themed-Gnome won't know you're using Gnome. With the Gnome team, it's their way or the highway.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (2)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618062)

In what way has Unity reduced the utility of desktop machines? As a Unity user with multiple monitors I'm quite interested in the reply especially since this is a laptop with a docking station. I'm surprised how well it works, in the old days to put the laptop on the docking station I'd have to logout and back in or restart X, now everything just works and auto-detects nicely.

I'll admit that laughing multiple instances of the same app from Unity wasn't all that intuitive at first I now understand why and it works fairly well. I'm also impressed with the integration of other workspaces.

Also, I have a theme, I've branded my desktop environment to match corporate branding, wasn't very difficult either. So what you say is so confusing to me.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618122)

When did I ever mention Unity in my post?

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618232)

That would be the source of the confusion ;)

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37622982)

Well, that and the fact that you're stupid.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Tranzistors (1180307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618272)

More like Gnome doesn't believe THEY should develop different UI for different devices. Why should they do that? Do gnome devs target smartphones? Haven't seen that. If you have seen shell early prototypes, it is clear that they made the shell for desktop, but keeping in mind the touch interface.

Speaking of themes, they sure look nice (sometimes), but changing icons (the main theming after changing wallpaper, which is allowed) can (and does) cause problems, when a lot of recognizing happens using icons.

Finally, if you really want to have fun with the look, the option is there, it is called "gnome tweak tool". And the shell can be modified with CSS.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618502)

More like Gnome doesn't believe THEY should develop different UI for different devices. Why should they do that?

They've architected their DE so that there's only one interface. Contrast this to KDE, where they've designed Plasma to have different versions for different devices, while all the underlying systems are the same. In KDE, it's pretty easy to create an alternative UI for a different type of device. Right now, on any typical desktop distro, it normally runs "plasma-desktop", but you can easily run "plasma-netbook" instead if you want to try out the netbook-style interface. There's a fundamental disagreement in philosophy here. The KDE devs believe that different devices should have different interfaces, optimized for the different input and output devices used on each (keyboard/mouse vs touchscreen etc.). The Gnome devs don't believe this; they believe that all devices should converge to the same or very similar UI to "reduce confusion".

If you have seen shell early prototypes, it is clear that they made the shell for desktop, but keeping in mind the touch interface.

There's no reason to keep in mind the touch interface on a desktop, because there's no touchscreens on desktop systems! "Keeping in mind" touchscreens is just going to make the UI non-optimal for a traditional keyboard-and-mouse system.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Tranzistors (1180307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618834)

Don't mind me being lazy, but:
1) why do you believe Gnome wants to have shell as UI for every device? Any links to chat logs or anything like that?
2) i know one thing, that makes touch interface better for mouse interface — on touch the buttons have to be bigger and it helps to faster position the mouse as well. Mind telling us the downsides?

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37623654)

I guess at least most home users don't need network install, and Mint desktop installs much quicker than say Debian. Besides, what additional "power" do you need?

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

jasno (124830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615734)

I just tried Mint last night - ran into major problems with the nVidia proprietary drivers that I haven't seen on Ubuntu or Fedora. That was enough to kill the deal.

I'm switching back to linux on my laptop after a few years of having a social life. Ubuntu is OK but I'm looking for something cleaner and more up to date. I'm trying Fedora 15 now but, god, those repos are slooooow. Also, even with the yum frontend, I think the package management sucks.

Is Gentoo still alive? That was always my fav distro - clean, simple, up to date, and easy to configure. It seemed to be pretty good for dev work as well(building embedded systems, kernel work, etc...).

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

geek (5680) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616000)

Go with Arch. Its up to date and very user configurable and you really can't go much lighter.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37616116)

Ha, I started doing the same a couple of weeks back, chiefly because having the classic worksheet GUI for Maple saves me an enormous amount of time, and they're trying as hard as damn it to cut it out of everything. 32 bit Linux, I can still get it. I tossed around the idea of going for Gentoo (which is still alive) or Arch again and decided that I simply just can't afford the time anymore. I went for Fedora and boot on XFCE, which was a bit frustrating, and then swapped it to KDE which is OK but feels slightly flaky but basically works except when it doesn't clear another sodding notification or preview from the top panel and it stays there until I restart the window server. I'm half-inclined to swap it to OpenSuSE or however they capitalise it these days. Or Mint. Or something.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37616230)

Mint is really good. I tried LMDE but had too many programs that wasn't compatible.

So I reinstalled to LM 11 and it works REALLY good. Bye bye Unity..

I have two computers with Nvidia and I haven't seen any issues (but I have with Ubuntu though!).

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 2 years ago | (#37622154)

"but had too many programs that wasn't compatible"
A) What?
B) Uh, it's linux, and the Debian package-base is roughly the size of Ubuntu's, so I have no clue what you're talking about.
C) What?

Use LinuxMint and you support Terrorism! (0)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616636)

This is old news, but still not everyone knows about it. Clement Lefebvre has officially requested that anyone who supports Israel's right to exist not use his distro and made it clear that he supports the terrorists in Gaza. See here for the details: http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774 [abriefhistory.org]

Re:Use LinuxMint and you support Terrorism! (1)

marnues (906739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617486)

Good job on injecting a purely technical Linux distro discussion with a hyperbolic rephrasing of one distro developer's political believes. You have certainly trolled hard today! Maybe a nice lemonade by daddy's pool is what you need. Thanks for being here!

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

loftyhauser (1149267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37619214)

The problem with LMDE is that it is still Debian with a bit more sane initial configuration. And you're only guaranteed to stay with Gnome 2 if you stay with stable, and LMDE is meant to be a rolling distro that tracks testing. It also doesn't allow installation onto a pre-existing LUKS-LVM setup, like I can with Fedora. On the whole, it's just not as user-friendly for the desktop. I have found that, for the time being, Fuduntu is a pretty nice alternative. Since it is based on Fedora 14, it has Gnome 2, but with an updated kernal (3.0.3). Then again, since it's based on 14, it will stop receiving updates once F16 is released.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 2 years ago | (#37622170)

Actually, Mint now mirrors the debian Repos and it's only semi-rolling, if a package isn't working for them at the end of the month, they don't update it.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 2 years ago | (#37621580)

Which is good right up until Debian switches to Gnome 3. It won't be soon, but it will happen.

Re:Linux Mint Debian Edition LMDE is Gnome 2 (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 2 years ago | (#37622182)

Mint now mirrors the debian repositories and only updates the packages that they feel are ready.

Is there a timeline for Fedora 16 full release? (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615854)

Just curious.

Re:Is there a timeline for Fedora 16 full release? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37615906)

Except for the version number, same as it always was:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/16/Schedule

GNOME 3 is growing on me (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37615868)

Be in no doubt GNOME 3 has some pretty stupid omissions but the core experience is actually pretty slick and task centric. You can see and arrange all your activities from one screen, you use your apps from another screen. It comes second nature to use and it looks great, easily comparable to OS X or Windows 7.

As I said it has some issues and I wish they'd be sorted. Biggest for me is there are no desktop icons unless you enable it from a tweak tool. This oversight / omission is just bizarre. The second omission is lots of settings that gnome-tweak-tool exposes should have been in the options dialogs from the get go - things like enabling minimize / maximize buttons, font sizes and so on. I do not accept that these things are not basic configuration settings that every user should have access to by default. The final annoyance is while the activities screen is okay most of the time, the fact is that it would be useful to have a task launcher which is visible without flipping screens.

So I don't have bad impressions but it needs more refinement. Unity by comparison is really getting on my nerves and I used to be more favourably inclined to that effort than I was to GNOME. Maybe if Ubuntu actually fixed some of the more stupid "features" like the global menus and floating scrollbars it might be more tolerable.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37616026)

You can see and arrange all your activities from one screen, you use your apps from another screen.

Yep, this is quite an improvement over previous DEs, but it's incredibly hard to switch between apps within one workspace and AFAIK it's not possible to label the workspaces, and thus it's a no go for me.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616164)

Why can't you alt+tab between apps in the one workspace. But I agree some kind of task bar / launcher / switcher is necessary at least as an option on the app screen. While flipping to the activity screen is pretty fast and slick I think it still causes a mental disconnect that a taskbar would alleviate. There is actually somewhere they could put this - in the notifications tray that pops up when you mouse into the bottom right corner.

I don't use multiple screens much to comment but I expect it would be nice to be able to persistently set how many there were at startup and to also set the background for each to be visually different.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616328)

While flipping to the activity screen is pretty fast and slick

Not if you have multiple large monitors, it isn't. You end up dragging the mouse back and forth repeatedly between the top left of the leftmost monitor and the right edge of the rightmost monitor.
It probably makes much more sense on a touchscreen, but it's directly mouse-hostile.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616512)

Start key.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37616688)

The Gnome team doesn't care if it's mouse-hostile, they want you to get used to using a UI designed for a touchscreen, so you can be ready in the near future to just use a touchscreen desktop which has no mouse or keyboard.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617102)

I don't see much about GNOME 3 which makes it especially touchscreen friendly. I'm sure it's in the back of developer's minds to make it that way (e.g. virtual keyboard landed in 3.2) but at the moment its designed for mouse and keyboard.

Not on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37616438)

Didn't grow on me - the more I used it, the more I found the basic way I used my computer was crippled for no reason. I couldn't even create my ten virtual desktops and label them, the way I've done since day 1 with Gnome 2. Anything that totally disrupts my ability to do my work is a non-starter. I'm migrating to KDE, which at least has a fixed number of virtual desktops. (And I still haven't found the font installer for Gnome 3, if there is one, but once I realized how crippled G3 was I didn't bother. Surely you can install your own fonts for your own documents?)

Re:Not on me (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37623682)

Make a directory called .fonts in your home dir and put your fonts there - after that, they should be visible to the system.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37616716)

Gnome 3 has made me go back to WindowMaker. WindowMaker, with pcmanfm for file management, docker to run the needed applets to manage wifi and a cool Python script I found called wmmenu.py that pulls in the standard menu into WindowMaker's menu and I'm a very happy camper. Wow, I forgot how fast WM is and how much I missed it. With the mess that is Gnome 3 and KDE I think I'm going back in time to get my desktop of the future.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618848)

Dear god I miss wmaker. If they had composting to let me preview windows and search them, I'd be back there so fast... I've just gotten too attached to searching for my desired window.

wmaker's dock was more reliable at application grouping years ago than KDE or gnome 2, or gnome 3 is today.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618112)

Did they fix the shutdown/suspend issues? The worst thing I experienced was having to try to figure out how to shutdown my system without hitting the power button.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618638)

Hold down the Alt key and the drop down says Shutdown. It's another of those annoyances that could be fixed assuming someone in GNOME would realise that not everyone wants to suspend their PCs.

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618860)

No, that's an 'advanced' function that requires a modifier key. There is a .css snippet to bring it back to sanity, but a novice user is pretty well screwed.

Missing bits.. (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618816)

Window title search in the window preview mode. Someone hacked up something like it but *without* live previews, which is significantly less useful.

When I hover my cursor over an applications 'dock' icon, I'd like it to preview that apps windows. Like compiz scale only windows belonging to this app. Same sort of usefulness of hovering over the 'superbar' in windows, but using more screen real estate to to so since all the windows are already in 'preview' mode anyway.

I think I'd be largely placated by just those two enhancements. I'm not crazy about the look, and hope to see some themeing (e.g. get rid of those rounded corners on the top panel).

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 2 years ago | (#37620466)

Biggest for me is there are no desktop icons

I've never used desktop icons. My windows are in the way. You have to move the window out of the way, click on it, then presumably move the window back again. I've always pinned my icons to the taskbar, or the thing on the left in gnome 3. Usually I start up applications via alt-f2 anyway. Not sure why people would miss it :-)

Re:GNOME 3 is growing on me (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37621374)

I actually agree with you entirely.

I switched to fedora 15 when GNOME 3 was new and used it for 3 weeks or so. What I found was that as you said, it is easy to get used to the workflow and it does work pretty well for getting stuff done.

However, the lack of taskbar for task switching was a huge downside. Yes you can switch tasks other ways but it was a lot more cumbersome than a task bar would be.

In the end I found it too limiting and switched back to KDE. Interestingly my experience with GNOME 3 prompted me to make changes to my workflow in KDE. The beauty of KDE is that it is so flexible that I was able to make those changes.

I'd like to try GNOME 3 again sometime but for now KDE fits my workflow perfectly.

Unity? (1)

Autie (1357021) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617734)

Does this mean both distros adobted Unity? I don't like that on my desktop computer. Only good idea for use with laptops or smaller.

Re:Unity? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618758)

No, Unity is differnt, though cut from the same cloth. Both have a hard-on for tablet-only interaction and sacrifice desktop usability toward that end.

bye bye fedora (1)

lsatenstein (949458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37621974)

I started with fedora 4, and with fedora 15 I switched to scientific linux.
The Gnome interface tries to emulate a tablet display. This is ok for home users, but for developers what work with data driven data, as opposed to function driven interface, Gnome 3.x is a big big big turnoff.

I also like compiz for the wobbly windows, but not for anything eles.

Re:bye bye fedora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37623006)

Heh, I'm a developer who switched from Scientific Linux to Fedora 15 precisely because I wanted to use GNOME 3, and I'm glad I did. So I guess we cancel each other out. :)

Linux 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37623648)

Technically, Fedora 15 is already on Linux 3.x, but it renumbers it 2.40.x to avoid breaking scripts.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>