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 Adds MATE and Cinnamon Desktops to Main Repository, Releases Beta

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the inconsistent-ux-kills-linux-desktop dept.

GUI 56

Already available in third party repositories, the GNOME 2 fork MATE and GNOME 3 fork Cinnamon will now be included in Fedora 18. From the H: "After almost two months' delay, the Fedora Project has released the first and final beta of Fedora 18. The distribution, which is code-named 'Spherical Cow,' includes the MATE desktop – a continuation of the classic GNOME 2 interface – in its repositories for the first time. Fedora 18's default edition uses GNOME 3.6.2 as its interface and a separate KDE Spin provides the KDE Software Collection 4.9.3; Xfce 4.10 and version 1.6.7 of Linux Mint's Cinnamon are also available from the distribution's repositories."

cancel ×

56 comments

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

can't wait (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42119679)

F17 was the best distro to use on my lap. I'll upgrade when F18 stable lands

Re:can't wait, nor I. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42126705)

I tried FC18-beta today in a virtual machine. I chose to install MATE, system tool, and administration tool consequently the install failed miserably. Then I tried just basic X-windows which also failed miserably, leaving me once again unable to login. Here is an advisory about MATE in FC18-BETA http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F18_bugs

I then tried the net install of MATE which also failed, so reluctantly I had to install GNOME 3.6 and GTk3, which I'm trying to avoid, to get a running system to upgrade to MATE.
Once FC18-beta was up and running i usually disable the test-update because they introduce too much instability. So using the ACTIVITIES BS in GNOME-3.6 I find the application that seemed familiar by the icon "Software", yet the previous name was "ADD/REMOVE Software". So I use the "Software" applications to try and install the "gpk-application", yet i came to find out that "Software" applications only shows you the software installed on your system, and their is no menu to figure out WTF are its settings. {FUC YOU GNOME DEVELOPERS}
So before I run yum update I tried to disable test-repos.
# yum repolist
# yum disablerepo=*test* {failed}
So another way to modify the repo list is by using Yumex.

# yum install yumex
So i ran yumex and went to View-Repositories and un-checked "updates-testing" and closed it.

# yum repolist {same FUCING THING, nothing changed FY GNOME-DEVELOPERS}
So what the hell, "I'm feeling lucky"
# yum update
Well I know this is BETA software and hopefully later I'll be able to install MATE without any of the GNOME CRAP{GTK3}.

Will MATE make it into RHEL? (4, Interesting)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 2 years ago | (#42119701)

Since RedHat uses Fedora as a base when they build their enterprise distribution, is there any chance that MATE will now get there? We're using RHEL 5 and 6 on some desktops, running really good crafted versions of GNOME 2. And I'm not looking forward to the day RHEL 7 comes out with what I assume will be GNOME 3. I like some of the things they are doing, and one day it will probably be as good as GNOME 2; but that day is not now. Getting MATE included into RHEL would certainly be a good thing.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (4, Interesting)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#42120117)

I would guess that it is practically a given. RHEL7 is supposedly going to be forked from F18.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (3, Interesting)

trollebolle (1210072) | about 2 years ago | (#42120587)

I would guess that it is practically a given. RHEL7 is supposedly going to be forked from F18.

I would guess not. Though RHEL7 will be based on F18 or thereabouts, RHEL only includes a subset of the packages that exist in Fedora. Remember that Red Hat will be supporting the packages for 10 years. They'll choose the package subset with care. But on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see MATE in EPEL7.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (3, Informative)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#42120735)

Yes, that could well be the case too, since they don't include Xfce as it is. Of course the savvy user knows that he just needs to enable the EPEL repo to get Xfce.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42127209)

I keep hearing from random posters on various sites that RHEL # was forked from Fedora( core) #. Has there EVER been an official statement like that? I know fedora is a testbed, but I've never seen any evidence of a fork. I find it more likely that they take a stable kernel, and build around it stable releases of the important packages that are known to work well together.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42153157)

I keep hearing from random posters on various sites that RHEL # was forked from Fedora( core) #. Has there EVER been an official statement like that? I know fedora is a testbed, but I've never seen any evidence of a fork. I find it more likely that they take a stable kernel, and build around it stable releases of the important packages that are known to work well together.

All right; it's a fair statement that "forked from" is an oversimplification. "Based on" might be more accurate.
RHEL 2.1 was based on Red Hat Linux 7.2
RHEL 3 was based on Red Hat Linux 9
RHEL 4 was based on Fedora Core 3
RHEL 5 was based on Fedora Core 6
RHEL 6 was based on Fedora "12 & 13"
I'm not sure you can find the above [linuxmafia.com] in so many words in Red Hat's own writings. I think you can if you search hard enough, but I can't give specific sources at this point.

Some of us would say that RHEL 6 was a huge struggle to bring out. The fact is that it wasn't as much drawn from a single Fedora release as 4 and 5 were, and it was grossly delayed.

Fedora was started in 2003 with a mission specifically to be the cooker for RHEL.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42126953)

I doubt default gnome3 will be the standard for RHEL. I doubt the workstation market would pay for it since it means a different workflow so a gnome2 resembling MATE makes sense in this context.
I've got one guy on gnome3 and he loves it but others just think it's too weird and want something that looks like gnome2 (so they are currently on gnome2), or a minority on KDE, XFCE, fluxbox, E16 or E17.
My one and only problem with gnome3 is deliberately breaking gnome2 compatibility in an incredibly stupid way - they brought DLL hell to linux for possibly the very first time. I couldn't even get gnome2 and gnome3 components to run on the same system with a chroot jail (although that should work, I must have missed something) and just gave up and got people to use the incompatible software remotely from another system using X.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (1)

kramulous (977841) | about 2 years ago | (#42128037)

I really recommend you give Gnome3 a chance. There is a lot of hate towards it that I don't understand. It is just new ... that's all. It still does everything I expect from a window manager.

I even like it. Took a little while but I also have an older machine with Gnome2 and I find it almost unusable and archaic when I have to use it. I really, really recommend you give gnome3 a good chance.

ps. I was also mister no transitions, no wobbly windows ... don't waste my cycles with gnome2.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (1)

TractorBarry (788340) | about 2 years ago | (#42128241)

Replying simply to undo inadvertent mod (didn't mean to click the drop down whilst scrolling the page ;)

But whilst I'm at it Gnome 3 is absolutely not worth a try. The gnome project should be buried as of this point. Their attitude towards their users was so disgracefully arrogant that every developer associated with gnome should be permanently sent to pariah land.

There is no way in hell anything from that bunch of self righteous pricks is geting anywhere near a system of mine again.

Re:Will MATE make it into RHEL? (1)

apexwm (1612713) | about 2 years ago | (#42130157)

The next major release of RHEL will almost undoubtedly have some classic desktop included. No enterprises will be able to migrate to Gnome 3 easily so there will have to be an option. Since they've put MATE and Cinnamon in F18, I am guessing one or both of those will be available. This is great news for F18, I am looking forward to using it very soon!!!

No love for MS... (4, Funny)

duplicitious (987818) | about 2 years ago | (#42119761)

What, no Metro interface?

Re:No love for MS... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42119845)

It's called Unity.

Re:No love for MS... (0)

dstyle5 (702493) | about 2 years ago | (#42121675)

Compared to Gnome 3... Metro isn't all that bad. I can still put things on the Desktop with Metro, what a concept!

Hi Linus! (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 2 years ago | (#42121799)

So troll me.

Choice is GOOD (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42119815)

No doubt this will prompt the weenies to suggest (for the two thousandth time) that everyone who freely chose to work on these individual projects should drop everything, "join forces", and devote their precious time and effort to one unified project. What these people somehow missed -- even though it is blindingly obvious -- is that each of those developers freely chose to work on their project -- based on their own personal goals, not yours. And the reason why all of these projects are individually successful is precisely because those developers want to be working there. They freely choose to be there because they each personally want to be there. Trying to force them to abandon their self-chosen projects cannot possibly result in the same devotion and quality that personal choice has produced.

Re:Choice is GOOD (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42121059)

There is still some obvious areas where human resources are clearly wasted. For example the OSS community puts huge effort only in repackaging the same software in various package formats and in slightly differing directory structures.

Re:Choice is GOOD (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42123457)

That is by no stretch of the imagination a huge effort.

It is also something that can and is delegated to power users.

The Ubuntu variant of this is a good example.

first step, include software (2)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about 2 years ago | (#42119883)

second step......

Re:first step, include software (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42119971)

Profit?

Re:first step, include software (1)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150415)

no, thats step 3, everybody knows that!!!! (hehe)

Why bother, XFCE is all you need (5, Interesting)

digitect (217483) | about 2 years ago | (#42119915)

After struggling to use Gnome 3 since Fedora officially released it, I recently tried XFCE again and was blown away with how fast and suitable it is. The defaults are good and there are tons of options to customize it back to the similar paradigm Gnome 2 was. I couldn't believe how much faster my machine felt after switching. Even moving Firefox tabs was better!

I gave G3 PLENTY of time and never could feel comfortable with it even after slowly adding extension after extension to get something workable. The visual component of a desktop is important, and the G3 simply hides too much that is necessary to use it. It's like having a car with no dashboard. The so-called "easy"methods to reveal open windows and find applications are hard to discover, require too much input and memory, and are too slow.

After this weekend's pleasurable re-discovery of the improved XFCE, I'm never going back. Gnome doesn't matter any more to me.

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (1)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#42120199)

Xfce 4.10 is very, very good. It has an excellent selection of applets. Automount of removable media and easy unmount support is good. You can now customize both the desktop icons and objects in the file manager to activate on single click (happens to be a must for me).

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42120263)

Try comparing XFCE with Gnome2 or Mate on a low spec machine. XFCE is actually slower and uses more resources! It might have started out as a lightweight design, but it didn't stay that way.

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (3, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about 2 years ago | (#42120363)

TWM, on the other hand, runs as fast as ever and has no need for useless cruft.

All you kids with your Gee-nomes and Kiddums and Ex-feeces can just get off my lawn.

I wasn't a GNOME 3 hater, but ended up with XFCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42120781)

GNOME 3 had some good bits, the extensibility helped me get around most if not all of the little annoyances, but I felt a 3D-accelerated desktop wasn't my thing. Somehow it just doesn't scale well to multiple screens and doing things like playing video, making everything sluggish - especially because most of the fancy animations and effects don't last long enough to cause the GPU to kick into a higher performance mode (my NVIDIA GPU runs on less than 1/10th the normal clockspeed during normal desktop usage - that's good for power consumption, but a snappy 3D desktop simply needs more than that)

In a moment of boredom I tried XFCE and was immediately reminded how much I liked configurability and a snappy desktop, and I just stuck with it

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42121101)

I also feel that XFCE is possibly the best desktop for Linux right now. Also relatively bug-free.

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42126977)

E17 has some nice features, especially with multiple monitors. The default is fairly plain and quick and you just turn on whatever features you want.

Have you tried G3 in fallback mode? (1)

Max Rool (552634) | about 2 years ago | (#42121451)

I have to admit being rather disappointed with XFCE, mostly around the standard desktop tools. I especially missed Nautilus. I ended up back to G3 running in fallback mode and have been really happy with that.

Re:Have you tried G3 in fallback mode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42123289)

You can easily install Nautilus and set it to be the default file manager. I did this in Xubuntu.

(You can also use PCManFM, which makes Thunar look heavyweight.)

Re:Have you tried G3 in fallback mode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42123319)

If you prefer Nautilus, you can set it as your default file manager instead of Thunar and still use the rest of XFCE.

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42122357)

If you think XFCE is fast, give LXDE a try, blows it out of the water.

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42122653)

I've been plugging this for a while. Fedora+XFCE the most usable and stable linux desktop I've ever used. (The XFCE "spin" comes with XFCE installed/default)
XFCE is clean and simple and consistent. It's lightweight but functional. It's visually pleasant and not gaudy. It's familiar yet well suited for it's job. (Lets face it, after nearly decade of being the most popular OS in the world, XP's UI is pretty much the standard by which all others are based)

I've also grown to appreciate Fedora in general. It's stable and well supported and quite functional. It's also easy to use. I feel it's grown and surpassed the debian based distros for most uses. It's also widely supported in the commercial sector. (Yeah it is. Everyone knows you don't shell out for redhat for /everything/)

Debian is.. Debian. It's good for geeks in a way, but I think too many of it's design philosophies get in the way of making a good end user product. OS's are a commodity. VMs make system instances a commodity. Nobody has time to dick around with an OS to make it work. Even the geeks. Debian stable has packages that are frankly too old. Debian unstable is wonky and undocumented.

Ubuntu has just gone to lala land. It has all of the problems of Debian, and a UI that nobody likes.

Mint is Unbuntu, but even more poorly supported.

The other distros just don't have enough users to form a good support community.

Re:Why bother, XFCE is all you need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42123661)

I've also grown to appreciate Fedora in general. It's stable and well supported and quite functional.

This is, by far, the funniest thing I've read all day.

openSUSE (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42119973)

Fedora is late, as usual, due to its lack of manpower. Compare with the amount of desktop environments supported in openSUSE:

* Afterstep http://software.opensuse.org/package/afterstep [opensuse.org]
* cinnamon http://software.opensuse.org/package/cinnamon [opensuse.org]
* GNOME 2 and 3: http://en.opensuse.org/GNOME_repositories [opensuse.org]
* KDE 3 and 4: http://en.opensuse.org/KDE_repositories [opensuse.org] http://en.opensuse.org/KDE3 [opensuse.org]
* LXDE http://en.opensuse.org/LXDE_repositories [opensuse.org]
* MATE http://en.opensuse.org/MATE [opensuse.org]
* Qt Desktop http://software.opensuse.org/package/razorqt [opensuse.org]
* sugar http://software.opensuse.org/package/sugar [opensuse.org]
* xfce http://software.opensuse.org/package/patterns-openSUSE-xfce [opensuse.org]

Lots of window managers, too: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/X11:/windowmanagers/openSUSE_12.2 [opensuse.org]

Re:openSUSE (2)

AdamWill (604569) | about 2 years ago | (#42120139)

Fedora has cinnamon, LXDE, Xfce and Sugar (Fedora is the basis of the official Sugar Labs builds, actually), and a bunch of others. MATE just happens to be getting some press at the moment.

Re:openSUSE (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42120393)

Fedora has Cinnamon and Sugar? Big Deal!

Microsoft has High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Re:openSUSE (2)

Minwee (522556) | about 2 years ago | (#42120557)

That all you got? [debian.org]

Yes, I know. MATE [mate-desktop.org] and Cinnamon [sourceforge.net] aren't in the official repositories yet, but that's only a matter of getting a bigger hammer.

To be fair, there is a big difference between having a desktop environment and window manager which run on a system and having all of its features fully integrated and supported. I can quite happily run FVWM on my desktop, but things start getting awkward when I run an application which expects to find a dock or notification area from Gnome.

Now if only they would fix the systemd bloat (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42120197)

As it is unreliable, buggy, and just plain wrong.

Re:Now if only they would fix the systemd bloat (2)

Minwee (522556) | about 2 years ago | (#42120579)

As it is unreliable, buggy, and just plain wrong.

Indeed. If something is going to be wrong, I prefer that it have sprinkles on top. Plain wrong is just boring.

Mate-desktop-fedora 17 i386 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42120203)

EH! Kind of old news to fedora users

I love cinnamon but only in food (0)

crivens (112213) | about 2 years ago | (#42120549)

I don't know what version of Cinnamon is available for Fedora 16 but it just crashed my system after using up 14.8Gb of virtual mem. It was promptly deleted as soon as I logged in again.

Re:I love cinnamon but only in food (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 2 years ago | (#42122489)

blah blah blah I made a mistake and I'm blaming cinnamon blah blah blah

Re:I love cinnamon but only in food (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42127251)

blah blah blah I made a mistake and I'm blaming cinnamon blah blah blah

I installed cinnamon on Ubuntu and it was dookie there, too, which is odd since the dist it was made for is just a tweaked Ubuntu. Not only did it take almost half a minute to start (I have an SSD, Unity takes just a couple seconds) but it was flaky and crashy thereafter. Cinnamon ain't ready for primetime, sorry.

Still would use another distro (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42121273)

Requiring dbus on a server that does not run a graphical interface is useless. Plus since fedora *is* gnomeos basically, support for other desktops will be nonexistent.

Re:Still would use another distro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42127675)

Your first sentence is wrong, and your second sentence is stupid. Go find a bus, and not to take a ride on.

Cinnamon experiences... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42121281)

Personally, I do not really get all the hype around Cinnamon. In my experience, it is unstable, bug ridden and hard to use.

MATE, on the other, works like charm for me. My last linux upgrade was painful voyage trying Ubuntu Unity, Gnome 3, Xfce, Cinnamon... finding no love with either. But then, Mint MATE, I fell in love immediately - everything works out of box as expected.

KDE and Razor QT (3, Interesting)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#42121955)

KDE and Razor Qt are the future. Gnome was nice but not anymore. Dolphin is so much better than what Nautilus has to offer. I would say, simply port KDE to LLVM and we'll get a bulletproof desktop system.

Do they use Gnome 3 libs? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#42122679)

I'm all for a more conventional desktop environment, but do any of these alternative use the gnome 3 libraries? Or are we going to basically have 2 versions of gnome installed, one for the UI and one for the apps?

Sure some apps (GIMP in particular) still need the older libraries but the world needs to move to 3.

Re:Do they use Gnome 3 libs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42123717)

Yep. Except for the applications that still rely on them, most of the core MATE stuff has been ported to the new stuff and gtk3. So things like libbonobo, gconf, etc. are only going to be around until apps are ported, or removed from repos.

Re:Do they use Gnome 3 libs? (1)

gspear (1166721) | about 2 years ago | (#42124437)

(Posting to remove accidental mod. Sorry.)

Re:Do they use Gnome 3 libs? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42127043)

Actually the new gimp needs the new libs which is why I moved one user to gnome3. The thing that sucks is plenty of other stuff needs old applications which will not run under gnome3 - the gnome guys have brought DLL hell to linux by using an insane and incompatible naming system so the usual *nix behaviour of just having the old libraries as well as new to run the old stuff is not enough. It is deliberate breakage.

Re:Do they use Gnome 3 libs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42127369)

Quote dbII "the gnome guys have brought DLL hell to linux ... It is deliberate breakage" . +1 100% accurate assessment!

Once I realized this, I moved on to Xfce and wouldn't return to Gnome for any reason. Well... I'd take that back if the following were to take place.

A forced closure of the Gnome project to regroup, the forced removal (fork) of Gnome 3 shell along with it's devs, a new team of Gnome devs put together to fork Mate back into Gnome, a public apology to it's former user base, an apology for letting the project so wildly spin out of control, a new clearly published project road map including a commitment to listen to it's user base and never pull such a "stunt" again.

I'd then consider taking a look at it, but by then, hell would have frozen over and Xfce would be so much better, there would be no need for Gnome.

On second thought, I'll just stay with Xfce ! Never mind....

Re:Do they use Gnome 3 libs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42127753)

I'll reconsider gnome the day they fix this 12 year old bug so that the panel is can be used vertically.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86382 [gnome.org]
Xfce could use some polish, but at least it's passable for people with widescreen monitors.

Fedora keyboard support (1)

djh2400 (1362925) | about 2 years ago | (#42133171)

I really want to use Fedora, but I type in the Colemak keyboard layout, and I can't figure out how to change the system default to Colemak (to work both at the login screen and after logging in).

Check for New 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>