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!

Linux Mint Developer Forks Gnome 3

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the new-road dept.

GNOME 314

An anonymous reader writes "Clement Lefebvre, the Linux Mint founder, has forked Gnome 3 and named it Cinnamon. Mint has experimented with extensions to Gnome in the latest release of their operating system, but in order to make the experience they are aiming for really work, they needed an actual fork. The goal of this fork is to use the improved Gnome 3 internals and put a more familiar Gnome 2 interface on it."

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

You're... (-1, Redundant)

tywjohn (1676686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454570)

...Joking!!!

Re:You're... (5, Insightful)

muszek (882567) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454646)

A year or two ago everybody was happy with Gnome. Just Gnome, we didn't have to call it Gnome 2.x. Now we have Gnome 2.x, plain Gnome 3.x, Unity, Mint Gnome Shell Extensions, MATE and now another kid on the block... what the hell went wrong?

I'm still happily using Gnome 2.x (on LMDE), but it won't last forever :/

GNOME has always been fucked up. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454784)

GNOME has always had the shittiest developer and user community of all of the major Linux desktop projects. This is because politics, rather than the development of practical software, have been its driving force.

It was initially created to "fight" against KDE, solely because KDE was using Qt and Qt had a proprietary license at the time. There wasn't any technical need for GNOME. Most people were quite pleased with KDE and its abilities. So GNOME wasn't even addressing a real technological deficiency in the first place.

Their architectural approach has been rather fucked up, too. Instead of using a true object-oriented language like C++, Objective-C, Python, Java, Smalltalk, or one of the many other OO languages out there at the time, they instead chose to create GObject. For those who don't know, GObject is a horrible kludge to add pseudo-object-oriented capabilities to C. It's a unholy mess of macros and other stupidity, and the result is completely shitty. Don't take my word for it. Go use it yourself! See how horrible of an experience it is compared to using a real UI toolkit like Qt, or Cocoa, or wxWidgets, or even MFC or Swing.

Then there was the decision to implement it as 50+ separate libraries. Compiling GNOME 2, for instance, is a massive burden.

Recent releases have seen some of the most stupid UI design decisions ever made. It's unbelievable that some of these ideas were proposed, never mind actually implemented!

This is the kind of crap that drives away good software developers, and attracts the lousy ones. Good developers don't care for unnecessary licensing politics. They don't create software when there are perfectly fine alternatives they could use instead. They don't try to craft their own bullshit OO extensions to C, when they can just use C++, or Java, or Objective-C, or Python. They don't create projects that consist of over fifty small libraries that are distributed separately. They don't make stupid UI decisions. Since GNOME isn't developed by good developers like that, the GNOME project has apparently decided to make every mistake possible. That's why the project and its software is in such a sorry state today.

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455018)

I haven't checked out GObject, but if it's anything like GtkObject then you are just badly informed. The code base is immaculate in anyway you look at it, top-notch formatting and commenting, excellent use of patterns, easy to make sense of. Arguably one of the best pieces of open source code out there, judging by code quality.

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455086)

I use GObject all the time. It's not that bad, especially if used from high-level languages.

No, if you want to complain about Gnome's libraries I can give you some places to start;GObject isn't one of them.

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455220)

"Its not that bad" is damning with faint praise, when there were already c++, and objective C out there. Why the waste of time reinventing the wheel when that time and effort could have been put into actually making a better desktop environment?

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (3, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455462)

At the time objective-C developers were, if they were interested in desktop development working on Mac, OpenSTEP or GNUStep. Java was too slow for a desktop and had bad Linux support, though this was a major consideration. QT was amazingly good for C++, Gnome couldn't compete. So they created a system for C programmers who didn't know C++.

They had to reinvent the wheel because they had to recruit people. There were a lot of C programmers that were willing to work on Linux desktop apps.

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (-1, Flamebait)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455128)

KDE was the first to drool the reduced feature mantra before guhnome. It appears however that guhnome has drank Jim's special krewl aid and are doomed.

Linux Mint is not as functional as many claim it is not as feature laden or stable as very old KDE or Gnome before the idiots took charge.

I will just run my current version until I have to find something that might work. I would not want to use an MS product unless the entire Linux phenomena continues to collapse from delusional developers.

I don't understand the abhorrent removal of features and configurability. Ubuntu went so far as to go to the source code of X and rip out some configuration options.

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (5, Informative)

caseih (160668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455160)

You've made a number of unsupported assertions there. And of course since you talk as if you know what you are talking about you've been modded up.

I can't disagree with your take on the politics. I do take issue with the technology. Gnome certainly has had problems with being over-designed and over-abstracted. And I won't argue with your assertion about stupid UI choices.

Compiling Gnome, though, is pretty easy using but time consuming using jhbuild. Most users of course aren't affected in the least by the build process. Qt's build process is self-contained, but takes hours still. The end result is really the same for end users. Having every widget toolkit re-implement every wheel is fairly tiresome. Why not use lower-level libraries like libxml that already work well, and most importantly, are C-based.

As for the language, basing it on C was a wise choice. It's a far more portable language than C++ or Objective C, and *way* easier to bind other languages too. The GObject model works very well in other languages. Programming GTK+ in C++ is a joy (doesn't need moc either). GTK+ in Python is slick too, and actually manages to be fairly pythonic, unlike PyQt, which is really just C++ code in a python syntax.

Writing new GObject code is a chore, since there's a lot of boilerplate code to implement vtables, etc, but using GObject apis in regular C code is quite easy. I don't think Gobject is a BS OO extension anymore than C++ is. Functionally and under the hood they are fairly equivalent. No language support is a pain, but Vala is nice for providing that. I basically consume GObject code in other languages, and there has never been any issue there.

The tl;dr version of this post is that when you say that Gnome has made every mistake possible and that C and Gobject are responsible for Gnome being in a sorry state strikes me as being a rather baseless claim.

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (-1, Offtopic)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455216)

I would mod you up if I could. I have not experienced this first hand, but your argument sounds perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

GP's right, and you're not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455444)

The GP's supposed "unsupported assertions" become very well supported and completely correct if you've used Gnome for more than a day, and they become blatantly obvious if you've ever tried to develop Gnome apps.

You missed the GP's point when it comes to the horrible build system that Gnome has. It's not about the impact on the users, it's about the impact on the developers! Even using jhbuild is a bad experience when compared to using cmake with KDE. It's trivial to build KDE, which makes it much easier for developers to improve it. It takes ages just to set up a Gnome development environment, if you ever want to hack on it.

For a project like Gnome, C++ and Objective-C are just as portable as C is, and were just as portable back when Gnome was first started. Besides, have you ever actually tried the non-C bindings for Gtk+ and Gnome? Only the Python and C++ ones aren't complete rubbish. The rest are crap. But guess what? Qt doesn't need C++ bindings in the first place, and the PyQt bindings are amazing. So it's not like Gtk+ and Gnome are any better off. And don't even start with Vala. It's just Gnome stealing C#, for the most part.

The GP is right, and you're wrong. Gnome's a failure and everything they do is a mistake. They never make the right choice. Never!

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (4, Interesting)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455544)

I disagree with you. As a vendor, I find shipping gnome to be a nightmare. It had a ridiculous number of dependancies and is rather unpleasant to build. I haven't looked much at the Gnome 3 stuff yet so perhaps they've improved it, but Gnome 2 had dependancies on webkit and firefox. What kind of idiot thought that up? Epiphany rocks with webkit, but using libxul to get help is stupid. It should be ported to webkit.

Further, the gnome community only cares about Linux. if you're not a linux distro, they don't take upstream patches and they don't like you. Considering what Ubuntu went through with them (not that i agree with all the ubuntu changes), I'm not shocked to set yet another fork of gnome. I think this fork will fail on the sheer weight. Too many things depend on parts of gnome and you'll end up trying to track updated libraries yet trying to keep old code running. It gets ugly.

Agreeing with every point here, except one... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455358)

Modularity is a good thing. It's not cutting up things into a lot of small modules (aka "libraries") that's the problem.
It's doing it wrong.

Look at the typical bash shell and GNU utilities we all use every day. They are hundreds of small executables, libraries, etc. But they are not a mess. They all do one thing, and do it well. That's part of the UNIX philosophy, and for a reason.

And about KDE: A monoculture is never good. Even two are not enough for a healthy ecosystem. And what's the problem with forking anyway? It doesn't hurt anyone,and nearly has no overhead. (If you use git and know how to use it.) The fear over "fragmentation" is entirely delusional and pointless. We are not one of those idiotic "everybody must follow his party line, no matter what" systems. We are not a US two party system.
In fact, I think every user should have his own fork by default. Where "fork" can mean anything from an empty patch set to fundamental major changes. And everybody should just be able to "subscribe" to whoever else's personal fork, implicitly making that someone else a "distributor" without having to do anything special. So that natural leader/follower structures can arise, and nobody can force anything on anyone.
(Sorry for sounding so angry. I don't mean to say this in a attacking way. I'm just a bit beside myself right now for completely unrelated reasons, and can't switch it off. Your post is still 95% in harmony with my opinions. :)

Also, there is one additional thing you missed: The moment "desktop environments" for Linux started to forget the UNIX philosophies, abandoned the concept of "everything is a file", and chased the Windows and OS X, they were full of FAIL and lost anyway. (There's no file system for your GUI, is there? You can't cat /proc/pid-6939/window-2/grid-3-2/textarea-2. It's all monolithic Windows-like "applications". You can't use a GIMP brush in OpenOffice, you can't use the same text layouting engine for OpenOffice, Firefox and GIMP, etc, etc, etc. It's all just deeply deeply anti-UNIX, harming code re-use, customizability, modularity, and most of all usage efficiency. And all for the sake of Joe Sixpack, who is a retarded dick anyway, please please loving you... but not really loving you, since you deformed yourself until you talked like a Windows/OSX and walked like a Windows/OSX, and he really only loves you when you have become more Windows/OSX and Windows/OSX itself. In other words: He still won't love you. So quit lying and be yourself! Same as the typical problem geeks have with women, interestingly.)

Re:Agreeing with every point here, except one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455606)

You can actually, try tab-completing around in qdbus

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455398)

What matters most in a desktop environment is how fast and easy it is to use for the end user. Gnome 2 is a far more intuitive and lightweight interface than KDE. Rather than having a haphazard system of menus, everything is accessible in just 3 clicks max. The themes are simple and don't interfere with programs the same way KDE themes do. Gnome 2 is far faster to boot and requires less space to run. KDE is far more prone to crashes than Gnome 2.

Gnome 3 on the other hand is terrible, no disagreement there.

Re:GNOME has always been fucked up. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455598)

I take it you've never written a user scriptable system before in any of the languages you suggest. Your credibility is showing, and it's quite ridiculous.

I'm creating a fully 3D "window manager" and scripting environment (actually, it's a game engine, but it could also be a 3D application platform). Aside from distributing the libs separately, I'm doing exactly what you think is shitty in my own project. There's no technical need for me to do so, people are generally pleased with current engines & platforms. However, I talk with 20-50 people online a day who would love to write a dinky 3D app, but are daunted by the complexity or price of other solutions... I'm doing this for the love of 3D graphics, games, and lack of a compelling FLOSS system that scratches my itch. Hint: GNU started when RMS scratched his free software itch; Linux started when Linus scratched his x86 kernel itch... Does anyone really need any other reason?

I've tried several OOP languages, but it's SLOW as hell to implement a scripting language's interpreter in anything but a native compiled language. C++ gets in my way trying to use their broken built-in systems (polymorphism doesn't work with templates well if at all, you can overload methods if you use multiple inheritance, etc), so if I'm not going to use the parts of C++ that are different than C, why waste all that compilation time with C++? So, I just use C.

There are a few minor OOP features I'd like to use, but any language with dynamic memory allocation can provide OOP support; So, I'm doing this with C. Although, I am staying the hell away from macros as much as I can, and provide a much simpler API.

I've created about 20 small libraries, each can stand on their own and rely on a public interface for compatibility. This is so that I can make a few changes in one library without having to recompile the entire codebase: To make it LESS of a headache to compile. It makes development and deployment simpler. Additionally, it's nice to be able to debug a much smaller slice of pie at a time. I've done the monolithic C++ library before, it's a HUGE pain. I've learned my lesson -- C++ isn't what you use for libraries thanks to it being an excellent pre-processor for C: C++ Classes and functions (esp. overloaded ones), aren't cross platform... You have to use the same compiler, even down to the version # sometimes in order to compile against it -- otherwise only use C in public facing APIs. So, that's why I'm not doing that anymore; I've learned my lesson. You can link my small libs statically if you desire to create a bigger stand alone distributable, but at least you don't have to include the entire massive codebase binary if you're only using say the scripting and console components.

Two of the reasons why I'm not using an existing platform to build from are licensing and politics. I don't care for them, but I must care about them because I want to provide sane licensing terms and a good user experience -- I care about end user freedoms more than developer freedoms and I'd eventually like to license my software under the AGPL so that if myself (or anyone else) pulls the plug on a "server", the users will be able to compile their own and keep on running (server sources must be disclosed). Ergo: No forced obsolescence, a serious problem my current target audience frequently faces. If licensing and politics aren't your forte, why then not go back to using Windows or OSX exclusively? Perhaps I'm not pleased with the current politics in my field. How else can I change it other than to participate? Gorilla (.bas) Warfare?

Some fools have also called my decisions stupid, but I have done my own research and am the only person qualified to dictate the way forward that will work best for me, and actually be completable in my life-time. It's harder to make stupid "design" decisions in my project because of the corners we're all painted into; There's only a few ways to proceed. With UI, my system is flexible, so you won't find something you don't like that you can't change easily. The same can be said for many "stupid" Gnome UI decisions as well...

So, that's why I'm making my own simple OO extensions to C instead of C++ or Java or Python (LMAO, seriously? A window manager in Python or Java HAHAH). That's why I'm not settling for crappy licensing or 3rd party politics. That's why I'm not a "good" developer by your definition. It's because I care about users. Perhaps we should all care less? I certainly do so with regard to your opinion.

By the way: I think your method of labeling others indicates your may be severely ill informed. I would call you stupid if I were as quick to label others as you are.

Not wrong ... RIGHT (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454786)

Nothing went wrong. It's going RIGHT. Just like when we had - not just Gnome like you say - but also KDE (and now Trinity), Xfce, LXDE, etc. - oh wait, we still have all those. It's an open world. Options are not circumscribed.

Re:You're... (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454792)

Linux as a whole (kernels, UIs...) has turned into a developers dick size contest. Everybody wags their own, nobody debug/documents/supports appropriately for end users.

Re:You're... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454900)

yeah, you'd have thought that devs would have "grown up" by now, focussing more on end-product with all the responsibilities that entails rather than a somewhat teenage approach that is more based on the developer's egos.

Maybe in another ten years, but I imagine the current crop of devs who participate in this environment will give up, leaving it to a new bunch of kids who perpetuate the same old attitudes.

Re:You're... (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455048)

What? This fork sounds like it is entirely to create the best end product. Keep the parts that have improved in Gnome 3, but get back the good stuff from Gnome 2.

I've been using Mint for months, it's a good OS. It seems to me that this guy has his head screwed on right - as opposed to those who are desperate to turn their desktop OS into something that only makes sense on a tablet.

Re:You're... (5, Insightful)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455592)

Linux as a whole (kernels, UIs...) has turned into a developers dick size contest. Everybody wags their own, nobody debug/documents/supports appropriately for end users.

Linux as a whole, is the kernel. The kernel. There are different versions, patches, etc. but it's one kernel.

Maybe you mean open source as a whole?

Maybe you mean software as a whole. That would make a whole lot more sense. Except it hasn't "turned in" to anything... it's always been that way.

Re:You're... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454872)

I don't think people understood that they could make gnome3 do whatever they want.

Suddenly... tantrums.

Re:You're... (5, Interesting)

jejones (115979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455044)

Actually, Jon McCann, in an interview, seemed to say that user configurability is a bug, detracting from GNOME presenting a single face to people who might consider switching to GNOME. "And I think there is a lot of value to have that experience you show the world to be consistent. In GNOME2 we didn't do that particularly well because everyone's desktop was different."

Re:You're... (5, Insightful)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455326)

Linux/Unix desktop environments at the moment appear to be all about the colour of the bicycled shed [wikipedia.org] , rather than things that ACTUALLY matter to end users / developers such as a stable ABI. Example: in Windows i can run most applications all the way back to the mid 90s without major problems. OS X has even carried compatibility with old apps for at least 5 years, and its been through a major operating system redesign and CPU architecture shift.

Can I do that with the free unix desktop? Sure, vanilla X apps probably work, but every major rev of KDE (haven't tried old gnome apps on newer gnome versions) breaks heaps of old apps. Every version of KDE or Gnome i have ever used since both projects began (i remember compiling KDE 1.0 and QT from source and being impressed :)), i have found "wierd" shit where i can make part of the UI crash or errors thrown on screen.

Please: stop fucking around with eye candy and the colour of the bicycle shed. Debug what you have, get it stable and THEN go about adding new stuff. Just because Windows or OS X has new feature of the month, it doesn't mean you need to kludge a clone of it on top of your DE within 2 weeks in some shitty half-assed way.

"Usability" of a UI is to a certain extent, bullshit. Most users can adapt to design decisions made on your environment. Apple knows this - yes, I wish i could customise the OS X desktop a bit more, but at the end of the day the fact that I can't is no major deal-breaker. Because it actually works. Yes, UI testing can make soemthing a little nicer to use - but if it is full of bugs, crashes, breaks your old apps that you like and generally misbehaves, then all that usability testing and research is WASTED.

I didn't mean this to turn into a big unix-desktop rant, but i've been really wanting to like the unix desktop since 1995. Some aspects of it, I do love. But since the days of say, KDE2 (or gnome equivalent - essentially when we got a usable file manager style desktop), there's been very little actual progress in real world usablity that I can see. Sure, there's new eye candy. Whoopie. Can it help me get shit done better? Not really.... progress appears to have stagnated.

Re:You're... (2)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455512)

The issue is that Windows adopted the Aero interface. That means both Mac and Windows have interfaces vastly more sophisticated than what is available on KDE2. If they didn't do the eye candy work Linux desktop would look a decade behind minimum.

Also there have been features added, for example unified notification, that is all applications being able to send messages to end users in a unified way that is configurable by the end user. That is a major shift for both KDE and Gnome.

As for old apps, this is Linux apps should recompile and be sent out by the distribution. Linux has never sought binary compatibility.

Re:You're... (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455176)

Then a "Gnome2 theme" should be pretty trivial then?

Otherwise, this kind of fork is exactly what a lot of users have been screaming for since the new UI changes were shoved down everyone's throats.

The community screamed bloody murder and someone decided to "step up" and do the work for the benefit of the rest of us.

Suitable renumeration should be sent in Mint's general direction.

Re:You're... (2)

hoxford (94613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455150)

what the hell went wrong?

My theory is that everyone who is in any way involved in UI development now thinks they're the next Steve Jobs and that they are justified in imposing their brilliant and unparalleled vision on everyone.

Re:You're... (2)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455434)

Gnome is doing a major breaking change, that is going to cause a huge shift in its user base. Ubuntu created a whole generation of Linux users that were Gnome users by default. Those people are now picking their replacement desktop and well.... that's a good chunk of the /. Linux users.

Nothing went wrong, Gnome's intention was to make this change.

Long-Term? (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454586)

How long can he keep it up and what about long-term compatibility with GNOME 3 apps? Eventually I'm sure their "lineage" will drift far enough apart that you're either pulling in multiple families of libraries that do the same thing or you get GNOME 4 apps that don't work on Cinnamon 4 and vice-versa.

Anyway, I'm typing this on Arch Linux 64-bit with GNOME 3.2.1 and a few (needed!) shell extensions. I find it fine and I thought I would be a GNOME 3 hater but I'm actually not.

Re:Long-Term? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454658)

The extensions are what's really needed. The hidden bar at the bottom is a very silly idea as a default. I keep ranting about not having a persistent visible notification for Thunderbird messages. With a handful of extension that have already added, Gnome-shell is getting close to acceptable, but there's a few very important things that are missing. Unity is still buggy and slow.

Re:Long-Term? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454732)

In Arch (from AUR) I have "gnome-shell-extension-icontopbar" installed which does exactly that. My "system-tray" icons are always visible and on the top-right of the screen on the top-bar!

Re:Long-Term? (2)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454910)

I love Gnome 3's concept, and I tried really hard to get used to its current limitations. But in the end I gave up and searched for a more usable setup. I made a Frankenstein composed of LXDE with Compiz and Nautilus. It is significantly faster than Gnome 3, and has all the keyboard shortcuts I'm used to for handling a 3x3 workspace grid (mapped to Ctrl+KP_n).

Re:Long-Term? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455298)

I've got exactly the same config as a backup, and yes, every once in a while I ask myself why I'm trying to adapt to what is effectively a less usable interface.

Re:Long-Term? (4, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454666)

The goal of this fork is to use the improved Gnome 3 internals and put a more familiar Gnome 2 interface on it.

TFA actually says that it is a fork of the Gnome shell rather than the entirety of Gnome. Presumably, it would be built against and installed along with the official libraries and applications. Just a single component being replaced; a bit like changing the default browser to Firefox.

Re:Long-Term? (5, Informative)

EdwinV (87210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454688)

Unlike what the summary suggests, it's not a Gnome 3 fork but just a Gnome Shell fork. With the whole back end untouched, they should be able to keep compatibility issues to a minimum.

Re:Long-Term? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454768)

Does it really matter? You pretty much have to mix libraries already on a desktop Linux system. If you want the best file manager, Krusader, you have to load KDE libs. If you want the best spread sheet, Gnumeric, you have to load Gnome libs. Thankfully RAM is cheap and this is not a real obstacle in practice.

Re:Long-Term? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455000)

Absolutely. I always thought that only an idiot would use gnome-terminal and gedit when the vastly superior konsole and kate were only an apt-get or yum install away, even under gnome.

Re:Long-Term? (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454812)

If no one tries, it never happens. GNOME3 with its GNOME shell sucks ass and turns a desktop into a netbook candy toy interface. Perhaps if they are successful at giving it older/better functionality, then after the public appreciates it, they might merge it in with GNOME3 in some way.

GNOME3 shell extensions need to be better managed and maintained. My second attempt at using Fedora... this time 16 is still a failure as far as I'm concerned. The extensions idea is nice but it doesn't inherently manage the options. What resulted was a GNOME3 shell that wouldn't load unless I kept shuffling extensions to try to get what I want. GNOME3 and its extensions interface does not account for or manage the extensions which are present and running. (It seems kind of obvious to me that when a UI element is being manipulated in some way by an extension, a 'lock' preventing other extensions from acting on it should be created and enforced.)

I have heard there is now some sort of central extensions repository and I hope it alleviates the extensions mess I experienced but I think over this holiday time, I am going to load CentOS 6.x instead of Fedora.

Lately it seems software projects are refusing to listen to their users and it shows. GNOME3's shell, Firefox and SME server are three that have affected me in a large way and none of them seem interested in listening to the feedback.

Re:Long-Term? (0)

dissy (172727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455012)

How long can he keep it up and what about long-term compatibility with GNOME 3 apps? Eventually I'm sure their "lineage" will drift far enough apart that you're either pulling in multiple families of libraries that do the same thing or you get GNOME 4 apps that don't work on Cinnamon 4 and vice-versa.

Considering the underlying libraries will be identical, since it will be Gnome 3 installed, I don't see why you would blame Mint if the Gnome project decided to break their own libraries. Seems a pretty silly situation to claim will happen.

It's like installing Midnight Commander on Windows and then wondering when win32 apps will stop running under win32.

You can always apt-get the original Gnome file shell to replace this new Cinnamon if you feel that would help. But if the Gnome group does as you say and breaks compatibility with all Gnome software, I would venture a guess that the native gnome shell will stop working too, since it uses the same libs that Cinnamon will use.

Cool (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454596)

I liked the look of Gnome 3, but missed the functionality of Gnome 2...

Cinna-Mint, anyone?

Excellent (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454600)

Excellent idea, stupid name. But, excellent idea. Mate is the way to go for LM12 (IMHO), and I'm sure this will be a very popular decision.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454668)

Second that, the name is only temporary as I'm sure GNOME will come to it's senses and integrate the whole thing to create "GNOME/D(esktop)" and "GNOME/T(ouch)", each with optimized experiences for Monitor/Keyboard/Mouse (a.k.a. "painter's paintbrush") and Touchscreen (a.k.a. "fingerpainting"); apps can then be built using either or both interface options available.

Re:Excellent (4, Funny)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454714)

Stupid name? Cinnamon vs GNOME? Come to think about it all these years I've been telling people "I use GNOME", I wonder how that sounded to them. Maybe I should have been putting emphasis on the G or something and made it sound like a rapper name. "I use gee-nome dawg".

Re:Excellent (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454914)

My mother overheard a conversation I was having about a certain linux distribution. After the conversation she asked "who is Debbie and why are you talking about her open sores?"

Re:Excellent (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455088)

We all use genomes... I think they should have called it helix though... Helix GNOME has a ring to it, with some amazingly bad puns.

Re:Excellent (1)

Hogmoru (639374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454720)

But, excellent idea. Mate is the way to go for LM12 (IMHO), and I'm sure this will be a very popular decision.

I thought Mate was a Gnome2 fork, this (Cinnamon) is a Gnome3 fork.
So, which is the way to go ?

Re:Excellent (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454956)

Only you can answer that question. Try 'em both. You can install both on Mint 12 and log into either one. Just be aware that MATE is nowhere near mature yet.

Re:Excellent (1)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454734)

Agree. Mint and Cinnamon together? Yuck!

Yeah!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454610)

I have been railing against the dumbing down of the user interface ever since Gnome 2 came out. With the KDE 4 going all stupid and Gnome going that way, I'm glad someone had the knowledge and balls to just fork it and keep going!

Re:Yeah!!!! (1)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454650)

Yeah, usability sucks.

Re:Yeah!!!! (1)

DadLeopard (1290796) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454996)

Looks promising! Though I still like two panels, both top and bottom, they serve different purposes. I also like to have certain applets running, system monitor at the top and netspeed monitor at the bottom! Lets just say I like Gnome2 and want something as close to that as I can get and still stay up to date with all the fixes and patches! Oh, and at least this one has what looks like to be a usable Applications menu, now if we can just get the system menu back!

Keep away the UI "designers"! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454636)

Whatever they do, they need to make sure that they do everything in their power to keep away the self-labeled "UI designers" who have fucked over GNOME, Firefox, and numerous other major open source projects lately.

These people may think they know how to create a usable UI, but experience shows that they have no fucking idea what they're doing. Just look at how damn unusable Firefox is these days. The menus are gone, the status bar is gone, the protocol in the URL bar is gone. It's hard to get anything done in Firefox. Sure, I can dig through the settings to re-enable those things that should never have been disabled by default, but that takes far too much effort. It's easier to ditch Firefox. The same goes for GNOME. The "designers" fucked up its UI, and now it's unusable. Now we see real software developers trying desperately to fix the situation.

It's more harmful to an open source project to let them contribute than it is to constantly shut them down. Do not respond to them on mailing lists or IRC. Do not let them get any sort of commit rights. Close any "usability" bugs they open. Do not let them participate in any way.

Only let actual software developers create UIs. They may not be pretty, but at least they'll be functional and much better than anything "designed" by the "UI designers" that have ruined GNOME and Firefox.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454712)

You're right that UI designers have become obsessed with simplicity at all costs. But the evisceration of features was also driven by influential developers in the case of Gnome.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (3, Informative)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454844)

Firefox (unlike Chrome) still has options and addons to undo just about all the fucked-up changes, but yeah, the new defaults are stupid, and Gnome3 as intro'ed is just stupid through and through. You can take all these UI self-appointed experts and give them a boot in the ass.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454888)

Firefox

I'll never understand what people are talking about with this. Firefox's UI changes have been absurdly minor. You can't handle tabs being moved above the location bar? (You can even change it back. There's an option clearly visible in the menu. Apparently menus are too complicated for the Slashdot "nerd" crowd.) Somehow that's a paradigm change comparable to GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3?

Or perhaps you're talking about the status bar. Again, something I can't believe anyone would notice or care about. A largely blank, useless bar that was practically only good for previewing link URLS was removed from the GUI and replaced with something smarter. Again, how is this a major change? How is it comparable to GNOME 2 -> GNOME 3?

You make it difficult for people who actually have good, valid criticism and feedback of GNOME 3, etc., to be heard, because you dilute the discussion with completely bizarre, emotional, thoughtless statements.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454972)

Or perhaps you're talking about the status bar. Again, something I can't believe anyone would notice or care about. A largely blank, useless bar that was practically only good for previewing link URLS was removed from the GUI and replaced with something smarter. Again, how is this a major change?

Useless to you, perhaps. But the replacement is a kludge for tiny screens that's a horrible mess on a desktop with a decently sized monitor. I find it's contnually covering up things I want to click on all for the sake of not 'wasting' a few pixels on a 1920x1080 monitor; it's annoying, it's ugly and it provides no benefit over the old status bar.

You make it difficult for people who actually have good, valid criticism and feedback of GNOME 3, etc., to be heard, because you dilute the discussion with completely bizarre, emotional, thoughtless statements.

Or perhaps you just don't bother to understand why people want these 'useless' features.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (0, Troll)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455148)

But the replacement is a kludge for tiny screens that's a horrible mess on a desktop with a decently sized monitor. I find it's contnually covering up things I want to click on all for the sake of not 'wasting' a few pixels on a 1920x1080 monitor; it's annoying, it's ugly and it provides no benefit over the old status bar.

Your points seem to be "the space it saves is too minuscule to make any difference on my screen" and "somehow those few irrelevant pixels are where all the links I want to click reside". I'm all for silly debates, but come on. And a fixed bar would be better than that how, exactly? Maybe you don't know about a Firefox feature called "scrolling". It's actually pretty common among browsers. But the most ridiculous part abot your trolling (intentional or not) is that the status bar only appears when your hover over a link, and if said link is to be covered by its appearance, then it shifts position and appears on the right.

To sum up: you're talking out of your ass. The problems you describe cannot exist. Please shut up.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455228)

Ooh, 1080 vertical pixels! It's almost more than what we had in the 90's.

Seriously, do you think that's many? Some are easy to please, it seems. In some ways. that is.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455426)

Useless to you, perhaps. But the replacement is a kludge for tiny screens that's a horrible mess on a desktop with a decently sized monitor.

A horrible mess? A tiny little pop-up that shows up at the bottom of the browser (where the status bar would be anyway) when your mouse goes over a link somehow turns the GUI into a horrible mess? See what I mean by bizarre, emotional, thoughtless statements?

I find it's contnually covering up things I want to click

Anyone can download Firefox and easily verify that this is completely false.

You've only proven my points, just fyi.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (2, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455054)

The more minor part of the hostility is that the defaults are stupid. Sure, you can change them if you want, but why should the 99% of sane people have to go to even that much trouble just to cater for the 1% of idiots who like the tabs in the wrong place, and the utterly pointless Amazing Invisible Menu?

The destruction of the status bar was just plain stupid, and there is no option to bring it back. You have to install an addon to regain elementary usability because of this moronic decision.

The major part of the hostility is because this is all a sign that all the developers have now become too superior (in their own minds only) to adhere to a common user interface, signaling a trend back to the wasteland of every app being completely idiosyncratic - a trend that is completely destructive to usability and learning/training.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (0)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455068)

the protocol in the URL bar is gone.

Because we really need to know when we're using gopher, not http. If you meant https vs http, then that information is still there.

Re:Keep away the UI "designers"! (3, Informative)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455376)

Here here. If i want to get rid of the UI, that is what the F11 key is for.

And I care because ..? (-1, Flamebait)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454642)

Seriously. On Linux I consider Fluxbox overfeatured and enjoy using a fast light desktop and a terminal. If I want desktop bells and whistles and bling or for officey work with spreadsheets and such, I use Mac OSX, though I can still do most of that on a light desktop.

Re:And I care because ..? (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454702)

WTF? fluxbox over featured? There are not many window managers that have noticeably fewer features, windows 3.0, and twm, although I think that the config file of twm actually has more features, IIRC bash 3 uses more memory than any of the *box window managers.

Re:And I care because ..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454798)

That damn status bar is too much bloat; OpenBox is superior.

Re:And I care because ..? (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455322)

Well blackbox is half the size of openbox and still has a status bar :)

Re:And I care because ..? (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454920)

And a geek needs all of these alleged UI features and the sluggish torpor of a bloated fat desktop which takes longer to customize than it's worth because .......? I'm not saying there aren't people that need all those layers of fat for their reasons, I'm saying I'm not sure I'm one of them. Not being too sheltered from the innards makes Linux fun and keeps command line skills alive. Anyway much of the boring office productivity stuff can be done passably enough on Gdocs in a browser, I did most of that kind of work in Firefox on Tinycore linux for several years and was rarely inconvenienced.

Re:And I care because ..? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455410)

wm2. or wmx, try it you might like it.

And we care about what you like because ..? (2)

OliWarner (1529079) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454722)

You're free to carry on using whatever you like but the rest of us want a usable desktop.

Re:And we care about what you like because ..? (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454948)

Thank you for granting me your permission to use the desktop of my choice.

Re:And I care because ..? (5, Insightful)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454764)

So you're like the "I don't own a TV" guy. [theonion.com]

Nobody cares that you don't care. Get over yourself. Seriously.

Re:And I care because ..? (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455154)

Ha! I don't own a TV. So there. Broadcast TV sucks. I stream all my media watching - what I want when I want. Funny how people are getting defensive over what is actually a very unoriginal /. meme: criticizing cholesterol-clogged, undercooked, over-egged desktop interfaces. And as I'm fond of saying: no non-touchscreen UI has improved conceptually on Mac 1984 all that much in 27 years, bling and ponies notwithstanding.

Re:And I care because ..? (1)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454774)

Funny because what you consider a great WM started as a fork....

Re:And I care because ..? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454864)

Good for you (sincerely). But for the VAST majority this is wonderful news. In the end, we can both be happy.

So Use Gnome 2.0 (1)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454656)

Why fork it?

Re:So Use Gnome 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454778)

Using gnome 2.0 effectively means the same thing - because unless you want to halt all development (inluding fixing bugs), you're going to have to maintain the whole thing, create your own repos, commit patches, and so on.

However while gnome-shell may have done some questionable things, there are many other improvements in the various parts of Gnome 3.0, and it makes sense to keep those as is, and simply change gnome-shell itself to be a bit more like Gnome 2.0, that means there's a lot less that needs to be forked.

Re:So Use Gnome 2.0 (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454906)

Seriously? Gnome2 is on a fast track to official abandonware. You won't get security patches, you won't get any new functionality, new apps that use GTK3 won't work right with it, the underpinnings will change and Gnome2 itself will no longer work right. MATE is the fork to Gnome2, and Cinnamon is the fork to Gnome3 Shell. Absolutely no reason not to have both, for different reasons.

Re:So Use Gnome 2.0 (2)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455380)

You won't get security patches, you won't get any new functionality, new apps that use GTK3 won't work right with it, the underpinnings will change and Gnome2 itself will no longer work right.

When did last time GNOME get new amazing functionality? Really?
Last few years GNOME has been same. Even KDE SC 4.8 has now more features than KDE 3.5 had and when compared to amount of those, GNOME has almost none.

GNOME 2.x users are going to be fine as long as just their needed applications can be ran on it.

I thought Gnome (5, Funny)

CruelKnave (1324841) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454746)

. . . was already forked. Yeah. I'm pretty sure Gnome Shell "forked" it up proper.

Not so similar to Gnome 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454858)

Is it just me or isn't this interface more similar to kde and windows than it is to Gnome 2? Gnome 2 had two panels, menu, status icons on top etc this new mint interface is nothing like that... why do people keep saying "Similar to Gnome 2?" They should say "Linux mint forks Gnome Shell to look like KDE and Windows"

Re:Not so similar to Gnome 2 (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454924)

Nope; wrong. Gnome2 had as many panels as you wanted. Some distros defaulted to one; some defaulted to two.

Re:Not so similar to Gnome 2 (0)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454944)

That's how Gnome 2 was set to look in Mint.

i want to fork Gnome too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38454928)

I want to fork Gnome and make it more usable, just so I can call mine the Human Gnome Project.

Anyway, I gave up on gnome when it jumped off the "dumb it down and remove anything resembling configuration" cliff. I moved to KDE and haven't looked back. KDE 4.8 == the sweetness.

Re:i want to fork Gnome too... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455102)

Humane Gnome Project. AKA: KDE.

Awesome. (5, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38454976)

The components of GNOME3 are mostly great, but the overall experience is terrible; the thing feels like it's designed for tablets, or as part of a blue-sky interface experiment. They took out most of the options that would've let people make it usable again, and have showed hostility to existing apps and user priorities (screensavers are so 90s? Really?). Compatibility with apps written against GNOME3 libraries is great, especially if we can get most of the good stuff from GNOME2 back.

If the GNOME Foundation doesn't want to deal with this, they should get rid of a lot of the people who made the poor decisions that led them to release a terrible, constraining product.

Re:Awesome. (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455494)

"the thing feels like it's designed for tablets,"

YOU WILL WORSHIP TABLETS DAMMIT and YOU WILL WANT A TABLETACEOUS INTERFACE on everything which is not a tablet!!!!

Yours in Unity,
                                            The GNOME Foundation.

I don't care any more (5, Interesting)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455016)

I have converted all of my systems to XFCE. It feels like an older, simpler and leaner Gnome to me and some of the applets even have better functionality.

Re:I don't care any more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455178)

I converted all my systems to OSX. It feels like Unix done right.
 
Maybe someday you'll be able to afford a real computer.

Re:I don't care any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455324)

I'm saving my pennies. Yes sir, I is.

Me thinks that all this things real hard like. So me save up real good. My brain work to hard, golly gee, too many choices. What is I to do, I done seen how pretty it is. I like me some shiny things, oh lord yes I do.

Re:I don't care any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455366)

Maybe you should switch to Windows 7, it retails at four times the cost of OSX, therefore it's four times better.

Re:I don't care any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455182)

XFCE is great

Re:I don't care any more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455232)

I haven't converted any of mine yet (and nor do I use XFCE on a daily basis), but I have used it in the past for a long period of time and really liked it. I'm still using default Ubuntu 11.10 on all my systems, but mainly because it works and I don't have to change anything. I certainly don't like the style of it at all, I much preferred the older Gnome 2 style to the current Unity style.

Gnome has really been destroyed, since (in my opinion) reaching it's epitome with Gnome 2, they ignored the community's disgust of Gnome 3 and tried to force feed us but now they must realize nobody likes it at all.

If I've said this once I've said it a hundred times: NEW IS NOT NECESSARILY BETTER.

Android Ice-cream shit sandwich is a prime example, Gnome 3, Unity, Windows Vista, Windows 8, ETC ETC ETC.

Re:I don't care any more (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455562)

XFCE is good, but i'd prefer an environment that's cross platform. They've gotten linux centric in the last few releases.

Will this be coming to Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455056)

Please gawd tell me this is going to be coming to Debian in the future.

SWEET! (1)

lord3nd3r (1073580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455072)

I am so happy that they did this, KDE and gnome are both going way overboard with the simplistic/minimilistic desktops. I always thought gnome2 was great and was pissed when they changed over to 3 and said fuck the ui in gnome2. thats what I think anyway.

Re:SWEET! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455226)

And yet, despite the evisceration of features, they're still slow and bloated, right?

Re:SWEET! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455256)

In what way is KDE minimalistic?

THIS is why open source is awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38455126)

And this is why open source will forever win.

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks anything is wrong or right. In fact that is a feature, and kinda the point.
Fork, unite, cross-patch, octopus-merge... you only maintain your parts, and everybody is free to make it how he likes it.

This is why I don't consider Wikipedia as open as it should be. The part that's missing is the "de-centralized" part. Where you can just make a copy-on-write fork with any other instance, automatically merge-in patch sets, etc.
In a way, Wikipedia is a cathedral.

Whatever, I digress. Where was I again?
Oh yeah: Open source is awesome! We are awesome!

thank goodness (1)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455286)

SEriously thank you lafabre

Look at ubuntu its gone to hell recently. Mint was so godlike and perfect, mint 11 that is. Gnome 3 looks like ubuntu horseshit, and I'm not installing it anymore. Its confusing, ugly and looks like same mobile phone "style" bullshit that is stillbirthing win8. So please fork gnome to look likemint11. It really is far better to use andeven prettier than windows 7

Meh (0)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38455608)

I like both Gnome3 and Unity. Sure they are both experiencing teething problems at the moment very similar to KDE4.0 but they will get better. Honestly I and tired of the old Windows95 interface and when I was using Gnome2 I did away with the bottom taskbar/panel in favor of AWN anyways. When I see so many people clinging to the 17year old Windows95 interface of Gnome2
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?