What DE do you prefer for Trisquel 8?
> Whyever not? As you say yourself in another comment, the less hardware resources the DE uses, the more of them are available to run applications.
Because GNOME is easier to use than LXDE. (I can't comment specifically on Englightenment.) Maximum performance isn't everything.
> These are the facts, and no amount of repeating your claim that Fallback is "unusually lightweight" (relative to what? KDE? Unity?) changes them.
Unusually lightweight for the main DE choice. Let's run through some popular distros:
Debian - GNOME Shell
Ubuntu - Unity
Mint - Cinnamon
Fedora - GNOME Shell
Noticing a trend? All of these are heavier than GNOME Flashback.
> Now I think you are intentionally misinterpreting my comments. What I was referring to as "patronising" was calling my perfectly functional computer a "potato" because it doesn't run GNOME Fallback well.
My mom has some kind of custom computer with a Pentium 4 CPU and some kind of ATI integrated GPU (so, no hardware acceleration). The only thing it has going for it is the RAM. I think it has 2 GB, though it might be 1 GB; I'm not entirely sure. It has absolutely no problem running GNOME Flashback.
So... yes, I think it's perfectly accurate to refer to a computer that can't handle GNOME Flashback as a "potato". But seriously, are you really taking that remark so personally? It's not an insult or attack. It's just a metaphor to describe how incredibly low your computer's specs are.
> As for your model conversation, all that wasted time and frustration for that user, especially if they're new to GNU/Linux, could be avoided by making "Mini" the default
You're talking about "wasted time and frustration" for an extremely small portion of the population, and exchanging a solution to that for frustration of everyone else by making a DE that can't do anything advanced and/or is difficult to use the default. This is not a useful strategy for attracting new users. If you want to be a power user and make your system as lightweight as possible, use Parabola or Dragora.
Rewording the norm to maxi and making mini the norm doesn't change a thing, besides feeling in the norm or something if you have a super old machine.
But it raises an interesting question : what that norm actually is. The main "Ubuntu/Debian/other very popular distro" LiveCD is (correct me if I'm wrong) a full-blown liveCD (GNOME/KDE). Why? It's easy to assume that that choice is made because most machines can handle it (beyond the 2 years old limit).
I know, two assumptions in a row, but for example this, from the Debian website (not precise enough, but it's a start):
We recognize that there are only two important classes of users: the novice, and the expert. We will do everything we can to make things very easy for the novice, while allowing the expert to tweak things if they like.
We will try to ensure that software is configured for the most common desktop use. For instance, the regular user account added by default during installation should have permission to play audio and video, print, and manage the system through sudo.
https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/
If Enlightment is too demanding to set up, it will be too demanding to update (most likely).
There's also LXDE, even ligther than XFCE.
EDIT:
http://www.webupd8.org/2014/09/debian-switches-back-to-gnome-from-xfce.html
Mate still is a possible strong contender though (but it's really ugly by default).
I like the idea of making the normal edition small, so that the other one is called maxi instead of mini.
Couldn't it be enough to make the original iso-image 700 MB big, so that it fits onto a CD, like in earlier times? Every GNU/Linux user has to learn what package management is very soon anyway, so it would be no problem to tell them: If you want the maxi version, just download the metapackage xyz-maxi right after seting up your system.
As some people here are talking of their old computers and the corresponding RAM: I own two laptops, one from 2005 and the other one from around 2006 (i bought it 2nd hand). They have 512 MB RAM. The only thing that was ever broken was the hard drive of one of them. And its battery is not much worth anymore, it lasts not even half an hour even without running many programs. But i don't need it to run longer on battery.
So, why should i buy a new laptop? Time has passed quickly, so it seems now - i am 10 years older now than when i bought my first laptop! But i still have it. Developers are going ahead all the time, making me feel running a potatoe (good expression, didn't know that one). Consider how old your stereo sound system is, or the one of your parents - it is still running and playing the cd's well, even after 20+, or even 30+ years.
So, a change in focus in the GNU/Linux world would be good. I'm glad Trisquel is offering a mini version.
> Couldn't it be enough to make the original iso-image 700 MB big, so that it fits onto a CD, like in earlier times?
Maybe, maybe not. Debian was having great difficulty trying to fit GNOME into 700 MB, and that was one of the reasons they considered switching to Xfce.
For the main version of the system, I don't see any particular reason why it should have to fit on a CD. Most computers today that have an optical drive at all can read and boot from DVDs just the same as CDs. For a "mini" version, maybe.
> I own two laptops, one from 2005 and the other one from around 2006 (i bought it 2nd hand). They have 512 MB RAM. The only thing that was ever broken was the hard drive of one of them. And its battery is not much worth anymore, it lasts not even half an hour even without running many programs. But i don't need it to run longer on battery.
> So, why should i buy a new laptop?
I don't think anyone has said that you should necessarily buy a new laptop. If it works, it works.
512 MB should be enough to handle MATE. Xfce is very similar in terms of RAM usage, and the original OpenPandora manages to meaningfully use Xfce with half as much RAM.
The thing is, if you have a tiny amount of RAM, you know this, and as such you know to go for more lightweight DEs. Additionally, I don't think it's typical for users to have such a small amount of RAM, and I don't think a small subset of users should be treated as the default. You should be accounted for, but a "mini" version based on MATE should account for you just fine.
LXDE, a hint of TWM-Based desktop enviroments, GNOME (for the full trisquel) and a FLOSS version of Windows explorer for unix-like operating systems
About 3D DEs: If it runs Vista (many 8-year-oldlaptops do), it runs GNOME 3 (and probably KDE too but I haven't tested KDE on a Vista laptop).
Yep, I'd say that's accurate.
I'd also say it's accurate that if it runs Windows XP, it can run MATE.
XFCE.
It's got features of newer DEs, and does everything Trisquels default DE does while being more customizable and using way less RAM and CPU. It's just so much better than Trisquels default in all the ways.
I don't have a strong opinion here since everyone will just use the DE they prefer. However, I have just one opinion to share:
MATE > GNOME flashback/fallback/classic
and I believe MATE is getting to be a very mainstream DE than the early days. The reason I say better is because I think it makes more sense to just use a DE that supports the traditional desktop metaphor than to use extensions for GNOME 3.
Trisquel: GNOME Shell by default or GNOME Classic (GNOME Shell + extensions for GNOME 2 classic style) like Red Hat Enterprise.
Trisquel KDE: KDE 15.12.1 [1]
Trisquel Mini: LXQt 0.10 (now available on Ubuntu 16.04 Xenial repositories)[2]
[1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=xenial&keywords=kde
[2] http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=xenial&keywords=lxqt
I said before: There should be a web or something that allow users to choose all the (GNU free) proposes everyone desire, easily. Choose Themes like Icecat Extensions.
I expose the ideas but we all have to make them work fast.
I am a member!
As of now, I've installed GNOME, XFCE, i3WM, and fluxbox in addition to the default Trisquel. I'm using fluxbox these days as I find it very stable. But I like them all in different ways. Then there are the email clients. I have evolution, alpine, mutt, icedove, claws, and geary. If I'm not happy with one program, I check out one of its alternatives.
My point is that people like us have no problem using the repositories to custom design our systems. If we want to attract more people to Trisquel, focus on the people who are less inclined to use the repositories as much as we are. The default DE should be for them.
Openbox + Plank Dock.
Actually I used Cub Linux.
So the Plank dock can sit at the bottom and go the full length? That screen kinda reminds me of the Budgie desktop.
Yes, Plank is pretty great. I did not have enough imagination to realize it could be used like this, though.
I suspect the clock etc. on the bottom right is not related to Plank.
It looks like he right clicked on the desktop and it gave him ChromeOS/ChromiumOS options.
I am an USER.
I want to EASILY change my Desktop Environment to choose what I prefer.
I don't want to investigate everytime if it is GNU FREE or not.
THANKS.
You know, there's no such thing as "GNU free". GNU is an operating system. Calling something "GNU free" makes about as much sense as calling something "Linux open source".
In any case, what are you talking about? All software distributed in Trisquel's repositories is libre. You don't need to check. How easy it is to actually set the DE up depends on the specific DE. I don't see any reason for that to mean that Trisquel should have an edition for every single DE that exists (the only way to make it possible to "EASILY change my Desktop Environment to choose what I prefer").
1. GNU Free = GNU GLP and compatible really free licences according to the Free Software Foundation. Freedom according to GNU Licenses.
2.In my opinion, the DE should be the most attractive and usefull possible.
And then, let the user to EASILY change from one to another. I saw some distributions that allow to choose Gnome, XFCE or KDE from the Login Screen.
3. There should be a web or something that allow users to choose all the Themes(GNU free) that everyone desire, easily. Choose Themes like Icecat Extensions.
Theme= Windows + 'GTK+' + Icons + Cursor
> I saw some distributions that allow to choose Gnome, XFCE or KDE from the Login Screen.
That's a feature of the display manager (login screen) and has nothing to do with what the default DE is. Trisquel has this and will continue to have it.
> 3. There should be a web or something that allow users to choose all the Themes(GNU free) that everyone desire, easily. Choose Themes like Icecat Extensions.
Themes are installable as packages from the repository.
> 1. GNU Free = GNU GLP and compatible really free licences according to the Free Software Foundation. Freedom according to GNU Licenses.
The GNU GPL is called what it is because it was made for GNU, by Richard Stallman. The origin of the definition of "free software" is Richard Stallman and the FSF. The GPL is just one license that follows that definition.
Also, not all libre licenses are compatible with the GNU GPL.
RE
1. So, what is your suggestion to name things that are Free according to the GNU Licenses and compatible ones?
RE 2. Please, take a look to the different themes that people choose.
They tell us how they did it, and it is not really EASY for an USER like me. I wanted to apply a look similar to OSX and it was not intuitive.
(Cairo Dock, compiz ...)
RE 3. You know there are only a couple of themes on the repository.
I am talking about a web like gnome-look.org but only with GNU Free Themes. Where everybody can contribute with theirs (according to Free Licenses) and that can be EASY for an USER to select. LIKE Icecat Extensions: https://trisquel.info/en/browser/addons
Don't be angry. And thanks for your attention.
> 1. So, what is your suggestion to name things that are Free according to the GNU Licenses and compatible ones?
"Libre software". Or "free software", if you prefer. It's not that difficult.
> They tell us how they did it, and it is not really EASY for an USER like me. I wanted to apply a look similar to OSX and it was not intuitive.
I'm sorry, but being libre doesn't mean a program is perfect. If you think making a new theme that looks like Mac OS X is too hard, you have the liberty to improve the software.
> I am talking about a web like gnome-look.org but only with GNU Free Themes. Where everybody can contribute with theirs (according to Free Licenses) and that can be EASY for an USER to select. LIKE Icecat Extensions: https://trisquel.info/en/browser/addons
Ooookay, go ahead and make one, then. No one's stopping you. I'm pretty sure that themes don't contain any software, so you're not going to find many people who are overly concerned about such a source of themes (which I'm pretty sure often exist, by the way, hosted by the respective DEs' developers, though not being interested in themes I haven't really looked) containing only libre themes.
By the way, why do you keep SHOUTING? I saw you say "easily" and "user" just fine the first time. Constantly putting these words in ALL CAPS makes you look incredibly condescending.
1. Do you understand that many software licenses are free according to the FSF even though they are not GPL-compatible? See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses for a list.
2. Installing a dock or a window manager is far from installing a theme.
3. Like onpon4 wrote: go ahead but be aware that the most common opinion at the FSF is that, contrary to software, artistic works only need to be freely redistributable (freedom 2) to be ethical. Listen/watch rms' talk entitled "Copyright vs. Community" for a rationale.
1. GNU Free: It is said in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses that these licenses should be avoided.
2. Desired DE: Appearance (Themes + Docks, Windows MAnagers...) is what an user wants to change (according to FSF Philosophy). And that is what is not easy for us.
3. GNU Free Themes Web: OK, I just wanna to easily know what I can use (according to FSF Philosophy) to change the desktop appearance.
1. I too like the GPL. The code I wrote is all under that license. Anyway, a free software license that is incompatible with the GPL is not unethical. The FSF would not say otherwise.
2. *You* want to finely customize the appearance of your desktop. Most users don't. They only use their computers to get work done. And an easy customization of the appearance is not what the FSF philosophy is about. User-friendliness is a feature (like accessibility, security, etc.), not a freedom. And themes are not software. Like I wrote before: "the most common opinion at the FSF is that, contrary to software, artistic works only need to be freely redistributable (freedom 2) to be ethical".
3. Most themes on http://gnome-look.org (to take the most well-known site) are under licenses that let the user non-commercially redistribute the theme. The FSF would be OK. But you would not if you dislike the CC-BY-SA (for instance) because it is incompatible with the GPL. Don't you read Wikipedia (mostly under that same license) for the same reason?! Anyway, to please you, I searched a GPL-licensed theme to make GNOME Shell look like Mac OS X (kind of a strange obsession for an FSF fanatics by the way): http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Shell+OSX?content=159209
Put the theme in ~/.themes (that is: the hidden folder ".themes" in your home folder) and choose it with "Tweak Tools" in the "System Settings". At least, that is how it supposed to be done. I always choose one of the pre-installed theme... Given https://trisquel.info/fr/forum/share-your-desktop-2 other users here can certainly help you with the installation of a theme if it is not that simple.
1. GNU Free: I only was defending my choice of words 'GNU Free'.
Free Software License Kaos: I agree with Libre Software and I wanna know inmidiately if I fulfill. I don't say other licenses are bad, but I am an USER and I don't want to think about every license of what I am using.
FSF was the first and the best about Free Software, so its licenses are which I wanna check and use.
2. Desired DE:
"customize the appearance of your desktop. Most users don't ..." -Please read current thread right from the begining or ask other OS users.
"User-friendliness is a feature (like accessibility, security, etc.), not a freedom" -I completely desagree.
To end this, Why are you asking about what DE we desire? I repeat: "In my opinion, the DE should be the most attractive and usefull possible.
And then, let the user to EASILY change from one to another. I saw some distributions that allow to choose Gnome, XFCE or KDE from the Login Screen."
3. GNU Free Themes Web:
"the most common opinion at the FSF is that, contrary to software, artistic works only need to be freely redistributable (freedom 2) to be ethical". -OK. Thank you. But I don't know which are they and its names.
Also, it is not simple to check the Creative Commons compatibility with GNU Licences. See my question: https://trisquel.info/es/forum/buscador-de-im%C3%A1genes-libres (spanish)
EXAMPLES:
http://www.everystockphoto.com/
Attribution License: YES NO?
Attribution NonDerivs License:YES NO?
Attribution NonCommercial License: YES NO?
Attribution NonCommercial Non Derivs License: YES NO?
Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike License: YES NO?
Attribution ShareAlike License: YES NO?
Public Domain: YES NO?
Custom Free License: YES NO?
Google/Images:
Reuse with modifications: YES NO?
Reuse: YES NO?
Reuse Non Commercial with modifications: YES NO?
Reuse Non Commercial: YES NO?
Thank you.
1. Onpon4 has already answered:
All software distributed in Trisquel's repositories is libre.
"Libre" according to FSF's definition of "free software", which does not mean under a GNU license, nor under a GPL-compatible license (and I assume it is different from "GNU free", which you coined but cannot define).
2. User-friendliness is not a feature: a program does not control the user because it is not user-friendly. The same holds for accessibility, localization, security, stability, etc. All desirable features, not freedoms.
Why are you asking about what DE we desire?
I am not.
I saw some distributions that allow to choose Gnome, XFCE or KDE from the Login Screen.
Onpon4 already answered:
That's a feature of the display manager (login screen) and has nothing to do with what the default DE is. Trisquel has this and will continue to have it.
Of course, you first need to install the desktop environments you want. That takes about four clicks in the "Synaptic package manager". Installing all desktop environments by default would mean having a very large ISO with many different programs that fulfill the same tasks. Confusing.
3. Just search (Ctrl+F) the license on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and you will read sentences such as:
- Both public domain works and the lax license provided by CC0 are compatible with the GNU GPL.
- Creative Commons Nocommercial, any version and Creative Commons Noderivatives, any version are under "Nonfree Documentation Licenses".
- [CC BY] is compatible with all versions of the GNU GPL
- CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with the GNU GPL version 3: this means you may license your modified versions of CC BY-SA 4.0 materials under GNU GPL version 3, but you may not relicense GPL 3 licensed works under CC BY-SA 4.0.Because Creative Commons lists only version 3 of the GNU GPL on its compatible licenses list, it means that you can not license your adapted CC BY-SA works under the terms of “GNU GPL version 3, or (at your option) any later version.” However, Section 14 of the GNU GPL version 3 allows licensors to specify a proxy to determine whether future versions of the GNU GPL can be used. Therefore, if someone adapts a CC BY-SA 4.0 work and incorporates it into a GNU GPL version 3 licensed project, they can specify Creative Commons as their proxy (via http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses) so that if and when Creative Commons determines that a future version of the GNU GPL is a compatible license, the adapted and combined work could be used under that later version of the GNU GPL.
That last example shows how licensing can be tricky. I know you are a USER who wants everything to be EASY but what if it is not EASY?! And for the nth time, you still do not seem to understand that:
- "free software according to the FSF" does *not* mean "GPL-compatible";
- different ethical rules apply to non-functional works (rms distributes all its articles/talks under the CC BY-ND, which is "non-free" if applied to functional works such as software and documentation).
1. GNU Free: Okay, you have your names, and I have mine. I agree with Free Software, I am interested in GNU Free Software, but I have my own vision about it. GNU Free = Freedom accordingly to GNU Licenses
2. Desired DE: Please, read yourselves. Is it incorrect that for an USER like me is not intuitive to achieve the appearance similar to other DE?
I desire the most attractive and usefull DE possible.
3. GNU Free Themes Web: I told you an IDEA, as an USER of Free Software. It was a GNU Free Themes web site similar to https://trisquel.info/en/browser/addons with Icecat Extensions.
I desire that. I am not programmer. I would do it if I could.
Remark: Iam not shouting when I use CAPS, I am remarking. It exists
different usages of CAPS. Is it 'DE' a shout?
Sorry for my poor english too.
Please, I am not an enemy, I am an user. I would like to use Free
Software and let everybody to do it.
Thanks.
1. It is not a naming issue. Being "free" and being "GPL-compatible" are two different things for a license. A free software license can be GPL-incompatible. The reverse is not true though: the GPL only is compatible with free software licenses.
2. I do not know if it is "correct" but "easily imitating a proprietary OS' look" is a feature, not an essential freedom. See my previous post. It contains as well a link to a theme that may please you. As far as I understand, it is quite easy to install a theme.
3. http://gnome-look.org exists and it is not alone. I am not sure if everything on it can be freely redistributed in a non-commercial way (as it should). For sure, not everything is GPL-compatible but almost nobody demands artistic works to be under GPL-compatible license.
Acronyms and shouting are two common uses of capital letters. Remarks are not. To communicate, the interlocutors must agree on a common language (including typography).
Excuse my $.02, but anyway:
DE, GNU, KDE are abbreviations.
USER, CAPS, and IDEA look like shouting, no matter what they actually are.
HA HA HA HA HA ...!!!! Now I am shouting.
I would like to use italic or bold fonts to remark something, but oh, wait...! Programmers can in this thread but I can't becasue I am just an italic:'user'.
Oh, you mean programmers must agree on a common language to users, right?
C'mon, you're like trisquel trolls. Please, i beg you. :(
C'mon, you're like trisquel trolls
... says the guy who wants to impose its own unique vocabulary and typography to the rest of the world, who wants everything to be "EASY" but does not want to learn anything because "c'mon I am a USER", who believes that everybody is patronizing him when they explain something he does not (want to) understand, who ignores the (perfectly correct) answers he is given and asks the same questions again, etc.
If you decide to change your behavior: https://trisquel.info/en/filter/tips
4. Typography: You're right about typography. I am using Icecat into different OS (Trisquel now).
I was not imposing my own typography, like almost everyone who write something on internet, even I was trying everytime to be Free Software respectful.
That's what I am talking about. I can ask and try to learn how to follow Free software Philosophy. I changed my web browser to Icecat because it is Free Software, and then it has a problem with typography on other OS. Ok, now I'll have to learn how to change typography.
Every user will have to pass through it?
That is why I am so proud of Trisquel: Because the OS is fully respectful with Free Software. And users can follow Free Software Philosophy with no doubts. And that is what I was talking about all the time.
5. " who believes that everybody is patronizing him when they explain something he does not (want to) understand " -lol, you are right.
Thank you for all your efforts to help.
Remark: Now, Is it typography right?
some
interesting things from other people that I read in the sub-thread:
1. We should care about Free Typography into each OS we use (because Free softwares could not include it):
* I dicovered 'GNU Free Fonts' here
https://www.gnu.org/software/freefont/
2. Licensing can be tricky: Different ethical rules apply to
non-functional works. (rms
distributes all its articles/talks under the CC BY-ND, which is
"non-free" if applied to functional works such as software and
documentation).
Most themes (and other materials) are under
licenses that let the user non-commercially redistribute the theme.
The FSF would be OK.
Please, I would like to know which licenses are all they, to choose
without fear materials that respect Free Software philosophy.
Thanks.
I am a member!
You should make a new thread for this. This thread asks "what is your favorite DE?". Your question is "what licenses would apply to typography?".
We should care about Free Typography into each OS we use (because Free softwares could not include it)
When I was talking about typography, I was only referring to your extravagant use of capital letters. Free fonts (same four freedoms as for software) have existed for many years and Trisquel's repository only includes such fonts.
Please, I would like to know which licenses are all they, to choose
without fear materials that respect Free Software philosophy.
For software: search http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html or stick to what is in Trisquel's repository.
For other works, well, it is not the "free software" philosophy. But most "free software" proponents insist on the freedom to to non-commercially redistribute the works. For those who only insist on that freedom, even CC BY-NC-ND is OK.
If you have the impression to always receive the same answers, it is because you always ask the same questions (but ignore the answers we give you).
I created another thread for this, as 'pragmatist' recommended: https://trisquel.info/es/forum/recommended-licenses-other-works-related-free-software
To answer you what impression I have about trisquel attendance, I should create another thread.
Thanks.
> Please, I would like to know which licenses are all they, to choose
> without fear materials that respect Free Software philosophy.
Libre software philosophy isn't a law. You will not get punished for using proprietary software, whether it's on purpose or accidental. I don't live in "fear" of the licenses of works being proprietary. I reject proprietary software (where possible) and disapprove of proprietary culture. That's it. If I accidentally run a proprietary program (perhaps because I didn't notice that the license was proprietary; this happened to me with Mari0), I simply say "oops", correct the problem (delete the program from my hard drive), and move on.
I am a member!
I've been using xfce since the last time I installed Trisquel a few months ago. I had never taken the time to set it up the way I like it. This time I did and it has everything I need. I set the window buttons applet up so that all the windows from all the workspaces are available on the panel so that I can switch between tasks quickly without cluttering up the desktop. The panel is a lot less buggy that the gnome panel and handles transparency a lot better. It can easily be set up to look like the classic gnome trisquel desktop.
Here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/qacJnsU.png
