Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: MATE (GNOME 2 Fork) For The Fedora Desktop?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,393

    Default MATE (GNOME 2 Fork) For The Fedora Desktop?

    Phoronix: MATE (GNOME 2 Fork) For The Fedora Desktop?

    There's a lively discussion taking place right now between Fedora developers and other contributors that concerns the MATE desktop environment, which is the fork of the GNOME2 desktop. Review requests have begun for MATE packages in Fedora and the question has been raised whether this desktop alternative could be a feature of Fedora 17 or Fedora 18, but not everyone is happy...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAyNTU

  2. #2

    Default

    Is it just me, or does this project strike anyone else as being very pointless and destined for failure?

    Why aren't they just writing a Gnome-2 style panel shell replacement and some configuration utilities that look like the old ones? There are massive improvements in GTK+ 3 and other infrastructure, and holding on to the old libraries and toolkits means that nobody will use this...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    Why aren't they just writing a Gnome-2 style panel shell replacement and some configuration utilities that look like the old ones?
    They already exist. Like the Frippery extensions:

    https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/3/bottom-panel/
    https://extensions.gnome.org/extensi...ications-menu/

    Or the Linux Mint desktop Mint Gnome Shell Extensions.

    http://www.linuxmint.com/pictures/sc...lisa_light.png
    http://www.linuxmint.com/rel_lisa_whatsnew.php#gnome3

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Frippery is far too superficial. It sets up fake-panels in the "standard" way -- it does NOT generate proper strong panels where you can attach widgets as was possible with gnome-panel. It also doesn't offer support for multi-screen, so you can't put a bottom panel onto each of your screens with a window list applet to represent the contents of THAT screen.

    IMO, MATE is a ***really stupid idea***. Gnome-3 maintains some semblance of gnome-panel. I think that the best option would be to enhance the remaining implementation of gnome-panel so that it once again supports all of the missing features.

    Gnome-3 **IN ITS CORE** is very good. The enhancements to gtk are useful to keep, for example.

    There really are TWO things that gnome-3 needs to make it good;
    1) gnome-shell SHOULD NOT depend on MUTTER. Mutter should be optional.
    2) gnome-panel should not be damaged/destroyed.

    There are glitches with nautilus that have been introduced with gnome-3, such as the lack of a "parent directory" button --> this would be most applicable when you have a TEXT location bar rather than using pure mouse navigation. Another problem is with the REALLY REALLY UGLY APPLE MENUS. I can't stand that. Somebody deserves to be killed for making the configuration menus look like apple.

    All of these things are ENHANCEMENTS that should be added into gnome-3, i.e., keep what is good, but KEEP MOVING FORWARD.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    Is it just me, or does this project strike anyone else as being very pointless and destined for failure?

    Why aren't they just writing a Gnome-2 style panel shell replacement and some configuration utilities that look like the old ones? There are massive improvements in GTK+ 3 and other infrastructure, and holding on to the old libraries and toolkits means that nobody will use this...
    It isn't just you. Some people are just too stubborn to try new things and insist on using deprecated software to "prove" their point that the old software is better. Hey, I'm pretty sure somewhere someone is still using Motif because that's what real men use, not those girly pretty widgets of today.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    681

    Default

    IMO forking gnome 2 is a colossal waste of time. First of all one of the reasons gnome 3 was a huge re-write was gnome 2 was becoming difficult to maintain. Efforts would be better spend contributing to XFCE, which with more polish would be an amazing replacement for gnome 2, or if you really want to fork something fork the gnome 3 panel and give it some much need polish.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bwat47 View Post
    IMO forking gnome 2 is a colossal waste of time. First of all one of the reasons gnome 3 was a huge re-write was gnome 2 was becoming difficult to maintain.
    Very much agreed, for that reason. People focus on the UI changes in Gnome 3, but it was also a cleanup of all of those pieces of Gnome 2 that had been judged undesirable, something they didn't want to use anymore, and that nobody was maintaining.

    And so rather than simply reproducing the old UI in a Gnome 3 world, the MATE developers have effectively gone dumpster-diving for all the stuff that Gnome 3 threw away.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    336

    Default Of all of you who here is a developer with experience in GTK?

    Seriously, who here has developed an application in GTK?


    My goodness, maintaining Gnome 2.0 isn't hard at all. The majority of the work is just getting GTK, ATK, Pango etc to compile on the latest set of GLibc, GCC, and XOrg. There must be some type of overlord-hive mind controlling all the Linux users. Thank God the influence hasn't made it to the developers yet.

    Anybody that ran Slackware back in the late 90's version 3,4, and 9 knows how to compile GTK. Gnome isn't much harder. ie. ./configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install
    pkgconfig use to not even be shipped.

    Maybe Elton John was correct, the good life robs us of our intelligence so I'm going back to my plow. slack

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony54465 View Post
    Is it just me, or does this project strike anyone else as being very pointless and destined for failure?

    Why aren't they just writing a Gnome-2 style panel shell replacement and some configuration utilities that look like the old ones? There are massive improvements in GTK+ 3 and other infrastructure, and holding on to the old libraries and toolkits means that nobody will use this...

    Think in terms of Ext3 to Ext4. There are massive improvements but massive regressions. FVWM1 and FVWM2 are essential just about the same but FVWM2 has massive improvements.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrl View Post
    Think in terms of Ext3 to Ext4. There are massive improvements but massive regressions. FVWM1 and FVWM2 are essential just about the same but FVWM2 has massive improvements.
    Pray tell me, what "massive regressions" does gtk3 have?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •