Question about the future plans of Trisquel GNU/Linux
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Hi,
I have a simple question but which means a lot to me: has the Trisquel community taken the decision to use GNOME 3 as a desktop environment for the future or could that change in the future?
I am asking this because I want to find a distro firmly committed to GNOME 3 and based either on Ubuntu or Debian. And since Trisquel is 100% free that would be my first choice if you can confirm that it will remain GNOME 3 based.
Thank you,
Farik
I am a member!
Ruben has indicated that he wants to keep GNOME as the official DE for Trisquel, since it is an official component of the GNU project.
I think it is highly unlikely for this decision to change, especially considering the excellent accessibility technologies found in GNOME.
Thanks for the good news - I am delighted to hear that!
The real question, I think, is whether Trisquel is going to start using GNOME Shell, or stick to GNOME Flashback, in the next version. I like Shell, personally.
Yes, I meant GNOME Shell, of course. I really don't see the point of GNOME Flashback or MATE when there is Cinnammon out there which provides a "GNOME 2 on steroids" option. I really do not understand why so many people have 2nd thought about GNOME Shell - its the perfect desktop environment, at least imho.
Even if GNOME Flashback is used, I imagine GNOME Shell will be one package away (no additional dependency).
Gnome shell is absolutely horrible.
I agree with that. But the KDE and Cinnammon are also terrible. I like Deepin Desktop Environment (DDE), Xfce, Lxde, Gnome Flashback.
I am a member!
What's terrible about Cinnamon? Sure, it's a bit of a resource hog but.. What you expect, it's based on Gnome Shell, just with all the crap that makes gnome shell so unusable changed. =x
With a few popular extensions and after learning a few keybindings, GNOME Shell is a very efficient desktop interface. As far as I saw, a user discovering GNOME Shell has no problem getting things done with the mouse. However, I agree it is not efficient: GNOME Shell unveils its efficiency after learning the keybindings.
GNOME Shell is problematic because it requires GPU hardware acceleration. If you have a ATI/AMD GPU, you're out of luck. If you have a too new Nvidia, you're out of luck. If you have a Intel PowerVR-based card, you're out of luck.
Now that you mentioned it lembas.
One has to take in consideration the fact that some users, specially those new to the GNU+Linux world, or just new to GNU+Linux Trisquel, or those unsure about the hardware that they have, will most likely face problems early when using GNOME Shell.
For me, the point which you made is enough (at least for me) to keep GNOME Fallback as the default desktop environment.
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
The last I heard, this was fixed by the Fedora team as of GNOME 3.8, I think. It can run in software now.
I think it even was at the time of GNOME 3.4. Here is the feature. It ended up in Ubuntu 12.10Alpha2, i.e., more than one year ago but after Ubuntu 12.04, which is the base of the current Trisquel 6.0.
That's good news. Here's a working link http://ur1.ca/5ttlk
Of course that still needs a fast CPU.
If you still have a CPU that's so slow you can't render GNOME Shell in software, you honestly should have upgraded years ago. But for those people, there's always lightweight DEs like LXDE. I think people who still have such old hardware for whatever reason will be fine with Trisquel Mini.
What's so wrong with GNOME Shell, anyway? Actually, I had this reaction when my dad initially told me that GNOME Shell was terrible, mostly because I had previously seen that the claim that Unity was terrible was untrue. Any claim that GNOME Shell or Unity is terrible (well, other than Unity's new adware) can only be a symptom of Baby Duck Syndrome.[0]
I actually did have complaints when I first used GNOME Shell: I didn't like that you had to move the mouse so much, I didn't like that you could accidentally hit the hot corner, I didn't like that you have to click a second time to get to the programs, and I didn't like that it seemed I couldn't configure it. But the first and third problems are non-existent in practice; you can open the Activities overview with the Super key, you usually find programs by searching them, and making a couple of extra clicks and moving the mouse across the screen the few times you do need to find it the other way just isn't that big of a deal (heck, it's a lot better than waiting to scroll through a giant menu on GNOME Fallback). The hot corner, I almost never accidentally hit in practice unless I forget to turn the touchpad off. And in fact, GNOME Shell is extremely customizable; you can write all kinds of extensions, or you can go to the GNOME Shell extensions web site[1] to find all sorts of extensions made by other people if (like me) you don't feel like programming your own.
There just isn't any legitimate reason to claim that GNOME Shell is "horrible" or "terrible". It's just different.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29#Baby_duck_syndrome
[1] https://extensions.gnome.org
There just isn't any legitimate reason to claim that GNOME Shell is "horrible" or "terrible". It's just different.
Have to disagree.
Unity/Gnome 3 broke a number of standards and principles for no good reason.
The most important one is that GUI standards were pretty much universal, whether you used OSX or Windows or Linux, certain aspects were reliably similar and so one didn't have to spend time figuring out non-intuitive methods. Gnome3 and Unity threw this out of the window.
To subject an existing user base (particularly one that was so happy with the previous incarnations), to such a huge and stupid change was absurd (if it used to take one click and now it takes three, that's not good design that's arrogance on the behalf of the designers). The Gnome devs have been dragging Gnome from a decent level of usability into childish nosense, step by step, for some years. Every new version had more functionality stripped out, for no good reason - not as a result of thousands of confused users, but because they, as designers, had the power and couldn't resist using it. Rather like spiteful children given a complicated toy going on to wreck it bit by bit. It very much appeared to go hand in hand with the all round dumbing down that has pervaded pretty much every aspect of society for the last15-20 years.
Canonical seems to want to distance themselves from Linux in general and make out that they have some sort of unique product. They don't. They have the work of a lot of other people, given freely, to humanity as a whole, in the name of freedom, onto which they have bolted a series of badly designed bits of nonsense, over which they then sneered at everyone who tried to disagree.
If this is "community" then I have to say I'm disappointed - when a minority imposes changes on an unwilling majority and is nasty to anyone who disagrees, it's no longer a community but more of a dictatorship. Again, very typical of the way society is going in general. Very corporate, very inhuman, very arrogant.
Then we have the various areas where backend configuration system have been over-complicated with successive versions.
So, to recap, you personally think that Gnome3 and Unity are acceptable. That's fine. I don't and a lot of other people don't and I don't appreciate being told that I have no legitimate reasons for doing so. I think I have more legitimate reasons for not liking it than you do for liking it and throwing around psychological diagnoses is cheap. I have no problem with switching between Mate, Cinnamon, KDE, enlightenment, blackbox, fluxbox and windowmaker, so don't talk to me about "baby duck syndrome" as that's a poor justification for your judgment.
None of this is to deny a design team's right to say "ok, time for something completely different". It's to point out that the changes introduced were introduced badly, were explained badly and there was altogether too much sneering and selfrighteousness from those in favour of the change.
No matter - the community responded as it always does and now we have Mate and Cinnamon.
By way of example - I installed Ubuntu 10.04 on a couple of computers in a care home. There was no opportunity to take the residents through why windows had disappeared and been replaced, so I left a text file on the desktops with a short paragraph explaining why they'd changed, with my phone number. A few weeks later, having heard nothing, I asked how things were going "oh, they love it, no problems at all" I was told. Canonical threw that intuitiveness away when they changed to Unity as did Gnome when they changed to version 3 and that, for Linux as a whole, is a crying shame.
salparadise said:
> Unity/Gnome 3 broke a number of standards and principles for no good reason.
>
> The most important one is that GUI standards were pretty much universal,
> whether you used OSX or Windows or Linux, certain aspects were reliably
> similar and so one didn't have to spend time figuring out non-intuitive
> methods. Gnome3 and Unity threw this out of the window.
What "universal" "standards" did GNOME 3 and Unity "[throw] out of the window"?
A window list? I guess I can give you that; you need to add a window list with an extension if you want one (of course, there are many such extensions on extensions.gnome.org). GNOME abandoned the window list in favor of the activities overview. This wasn't for "no good reason" at all. There are marked advantages to the new approach: it works with touch screens, it doesn't take up space when you don't need to see it, and it's easier to know which one you're looking for at times (don't tell me you've never had the problem of having two very similarly-named windows and having to figure out which one you're looking for by trial and error).
The way you launch programs? Can't give you that. There was no pseudo-standard for how the main menu works to begin with; Windows has everything in a sub-menu called "all programs", GNOME 2 had different sub-menus for different categories, etc. How you get to the GNOME Shell programs menu isn't a whole lot different than Windows 7: go to the Activities overview and you have your favorites on the left; click on the applications button and you get the rest of them. This wasn't for "no good reason", either; you more often need the activities overview to change the window, and you can search for programs anyway.
I can't even think of anything else that's significantly different between GNOME Shell and whatever pseudo-standard you say exists. Unity doesn't even have these differences in the first place.
But even if GNOME Shell were completely different from everything else, it doesn't follow that it's more difficult to learn. I can't comment on how easy it is to learn GNOME Shell, but the only way I can think of that someone would be unable to figure out how to use it is if they have the attitude that computers are scary, or if they have the attitude that they're "not good with computers", because as long as you have the bright idea of, you know, clicking that button in the corner that says "activities", you have a short list of default favorites, one of which is "Help", a button that gives you applications, and a box that says "type to search". This is not something that's difficult to figure out. It's about the most obviously laid-out interface I know of; anyone who is able to read can figure it out. Saying that it must be difficult to learn because it is different is like saying that iOS must be difficult to learn because it was different from everything well-known before it.
So we're back to square one: the only grievance you have shared is that GNOME Shell is different. Sorry, but being different is not a legitimate reason to say that it's a "terrible" design.
Sorry, but being different is not a legitimate reason to say that it's a "terrible" design.
But being unituitive is.
Note - I didn't say it was unusable, nor did I say it was broken. I said it was badly designed and unintuitive and it is both of those.
That it is learnable is not in dispute. But having to learn a new set of skills, merely to carry on what a user could already do, easily and quickly, is not good design.
This particular wheel did not need reinventing, yet that is just what happened.
How is it unintuitive? I pointed out that being different doesn't mean it's unintuitive and that it's very easy to find a detailed manual that will tell you everything you could possibly need to know about GNOME Shell.
You seem to want to assert that the learning process is horribly detrimental and results in a lot of waste, but you have provided no reasoning to support that assertion.
Whenever you write "Linux", you actually mean "GNU/Linux". Properly giving credits to the main project behind your OS matters.
Then, I repeat, GNOME Shell is a very efficient interface when controlled with the keyboard. More efficient than GNOME 2. You should try it. Sure, there is a need to change a little your habits (in particular to use Alt+[key above Tab]).
About your affirmation:
If this is "community" then I have to say I'm disappointed - when a minority imposes changes on an unwilling majority and is nasty to anyone who disagrees, it's no longer a community but more of a dictatorship.
- It looks like many users like GNOME Shell (at least in this forum);
- You can (and do) use another desktop;
- GNOME is free software and has been forked by users who did not like the new paradigm: MATE is a fork of GNOME 2, Cinnamon is a fork of GNOME Shell (well, more a set of extensions that totally revamp it).
There is no dictatorship with free software.
It looks like many users like GNOME Shell (at least in this forum);
I did not claim that "nobody likes it", I pointed out that many didn't. There is not one iota of untruth in that statement.
You can (and do) use another desktop;
Which was said in answer to the "baby duck syndrome" label, to which I objected. I regarded it as an ad hominem attack - the "if you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with you" line of reasoning. I think such reasoning sucks.
GNOME is free software and has been forked by users who did not like the new paradigm: MATE is a fork of GNOME 2, Cinnamon is a fork of GNOME Shell (well, more a set of extensions that totally revamp it).
Your point being what?
My points in your quote are:
- There does not seem to be "an unwilling *majority*" (as you write);
- GNOME, like any free software project, is not "a dictatorship" (as you write).
My other points are:
- GNOME Shell is a more efficient interface than the previous GNOME Panel when you learn to use it with the keyboard (I agree it is less efficient if you only use the mouse);
- Learning the few keybings to seize this improved efficiency is not that hard, a matter of days to get the habit of them.
Also, I agree with onpon4, GNOME Shell is not "unintuitive". It only is different.
I agree that GNOME3 shell is not for everybody, but I sincerely believed that it's "worst" problem is that it takes a while to get used to. As Fab once said it on the Linux Outlaws show, one should try G3 shell for a least a month before forming an opinion. And its not that you can get used to any shit in 4 weeks, its that you change your way of working. Now that I am really used to G3 shell I always feel a little frustrated with Cinnamon and XFCE both of which I like a lot. And when I try MATE, KDE or Unity I feel totally disgusted. So G3 shell has had a very addictive effect on me. I absolutely love it and its by far the most convenient and fastest DE for me.
My 2cts and, of course, ymmv.
Cheers,
Farik
I agree with both of you.
I think that Gnome shell is an example of good design and change.
It tries to kill the unnecessary overused task-bar and try new ways of working.
Once I realized the magic of the middle button for focus and "unfocus" and the dynamic work-space generation, I felt that there is no need for using the taskbar all the time.
Now I can't go back to KDE because how good Gnome-shell feels.
The new 3.10 version is incredible, it brings new things on the table and manages to put interfaces like Aqua and Metro (Windows and mac) in shame.
Sorry guys, I could not contain myself longer to share my feelings about the actual state of Gnome 3.
It tries to kill the unnecessary overused task-bar and try new ways of working.
That would be the taskbar that's used in hundreds of millions of desktops, the world over and is the basis for collating shortcuts and various other information feeds.
Sorry - unnecessary and overused are words that just don't apply.
However, we are of course arguing about whether slip on shoes are better than laceups. I did nothing more than express an opinion. And my opinion is that these desktops are poor and unintuitive. I do not want to have to learn how to use my computer all over again, it's a waste of time. Nor do I want a touchscreen based UI on my non-touch screen based computer.
I'm happy with Mate and KDE is is just about the best desktop I've ever used.
But, whatever gets you through the night...
I think that the problem is that while you understand that your preference is just that: a preference, you are forgetting that your preference doesn't make GNOME Shell's design choices "horrible", and that things that are different from what you are used to are not necessarily "unintuitive".
Trisquel 7 will be based on Ubuntu 14.04, which will use a version of Gnome greater than or equal to 3.8 that has an improved classic desktop: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/28/2146221/
Ubuntu 14.04 probably come with GNOME 3.10 with changes for Unity. Since Ubuntu 11.10 many changes is made in GNOME. Unfortunately.
Debian is GNOME-pure, better and light. If you want 100% GNOME go with Debian or Fedora. (see the difference between any GNOME distro in System Preferences and Ubuntu or Ubuntu based for example). GNOME is amazing but worst in Ubuntu based.
Trisquel is good with KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment and others because Canonical doesn't patch them.
Please someone competent lock this topic already. (;
I am a member!
+1! I can use the shell, but prefer not to, so, it's flashback or xfce for me!
Is it possible to recreate Elementary OS in Trisquel without requiring hardware acceleration?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios