Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    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...
    Forking is the heart of Open Source. The ability to freely fork software and code has made the Linux ecosystem what it is today, even forks that previously seemed futile and divisive (see Beryl). Let the best libraries and code win out on their own merits. If GTK3 is that much better it'll win out for new development. If someone wants to keep GTK2 alive then by all means let them do so. Isn't that what sets it apart from all other OS Environments?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,033

    Default

    Please don't feed the spambots. The trolls need the food more.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    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?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    24

    Default

    I don't know why people are focusing on GTK2 vs GTK3 when the real argument for forking Gnome2 was maintaining the usability.

    I'm also not sure why certain people think Mate will be frozen in time.

    I'm getting tired of hearing things like 'classic/stangnant desktop' in relation to Gnome2/Windows/OSX. Please stop trying to reinvent the wheel! (& ending up with rectangles)

    I don't understand the love for Gnome anymore. Sure it's the default for most Distros but I think that has to be reevaluated. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Gnome2 the default because it was fairly easy to use & had most of the features *nix users needed out of a DE?
    KDE was always a bit too buggy & slow (whenever I tried it anyways), & went the other direction - too many settings. XFCE wasn't mature enough & neither were the other DE's. (XFCE4 is nice & mature now)

    I don't understand the 'we should focus on developing extensions for Gnome3' either. Why? Why do we have to hack Gnome3 to get usability back?
    I think the major Distros' time woul be better spent working with XFCE. At least the XFCE devs seem to give a shit about what their userbase desires.

  6. #36

    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...
    because its a lot less work to keep using something that works, than to start from scratch.

    except you can't just keep using it. it needs some small modifications so that it does not clash with new stuff, and it needs packaging. Still far less work (1 person managed it on his own in not much time), than writing brand new software, testing it, fixing bugs, convincing Gnome to accept it and packaging it.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    because its a lot less work to keep using something that works, than to start from scratch.

    except you can't just keep using it. it needs some small modifications so that it does not clash with new stuff, and it needs packaging. Still far less work (1 person managed it on his own in not much time), than writing brand new software, testing it, fixing bugs, convincing Gnome to accept it and packaging it.
    MATE's approach to me shows the projects shortsightedness and is an indication it will eventually be another dead-end gnome 2 fork. The fact that its just one dude trying to do this by himself is exactly why I wouldn't use this

    If people are really this passionate about wanting a gnome 2 like desktop it would be much more 'future proof' to get a real team to build on gnome 3 by creating your own shell, or forking the fallback panel.

    I'm actually using XFCE right now which is of course still on GTK2, but they do plan on porting over to GTK3 after version 4.10.
    Last edited by bwat47; 12-14-2011 at 03:42 PM.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    because its a lot less work to keep using something that works, than to start from scratch.

    except you can't just keep using it. it needs some small modifications so that it does not clash with new stuff, and it needs packaging. Still far less work (1 person managed it on his own in not much time), than writing brand new software, testing it, fixing bugs, convincing Gnome to accept it and packaging it.
    Except that it won't keep working when the underlying stuff changes - networkmanager, dbus, udev, no idea what exactly Gnome2 uses. But Gnome3 will adapt to new developments anyway. In the longer term the up-front additional work needed for a Gnome3-based solution will pay off (especially since small projects tend to have the most drive in their beginning - perfect fit).

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default Who cares about GNOME2?

    The GNOME developers did a major relase to dump old unmaintainable stuff. They know the code best and they decided to leave some of it behind. No GNOME3 haters can pick up the task of maintaining GNOME2. And MATE is already dying. Here is a clue for you. GNOME2 is DEAD! Lucky for all GNOME3 is way more configurable than GNOME2 was. Grab what you need at extensions.gnome.org and stop whining.

    GNOME3 gave you simplistic defaults and a nice way to add extensions. Hating that is hating choice.

Posting Permissions

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