KDE 4.6 was released end of January 2011, while the latest, stable version of KDE was released in 6 June 2012. So, I think it's a little unfair to compare 4.6 to the latest stable version. A lot can happen in almost a year and a half. Comparatively, that's like saying the Unity in Ubuntu 12.10 sucks, when the last time you tried it was in 11.04.
Originally Posted by devius
I'm not saying that KDE was right in the way it approached the 4.0 release, or in how long it took to sort out all the problem. Truthfully, I think they had never dreamed it would take as long as it did to work out all the issues. But, given the countless man-hours that they've poured into it, I think it at least deserves to be judged by it's latest release. I'm certainly not going to judge Gnome based on the 3.0 release. (Which also occurred a year and few months ago.)
I agree that gnome 3 is not perfekt would be funny if a such early version would be feature-complete. So yes maybe some mechanism to as example spread out 6 consoles over one window would be nice, like the share screen between 2 windows left and right with more windows, that would be nice but that was not there in gnome 2 too or did I miss that feature?
But going back to your artikel and the blog artikel you linked to:
In the Blog some points are just stupid:
1. "gnome has no goals", I disagree to that, gnome 3 had the goal or at least it did randomly do that, make the desktop more usable from the keyboard and it works better with tablets and netbooks, so what else it looks better, and it has a new application design that tool after tool gets migrated, than it works better with cloud/web2.0 sites/services, thats not bad. Shure there is not the one big idea they run after for 5 years... I think they try to find the stuff that sucked most in the last release or and try to make it better, its often very easy to find ideas what should be better, as example they make now better youtube integration and:
that are great ideas also the gnome-boxes tool is great idea etc... they do nice stuff...
also they had for developers the idea that 1. as many as possible developers should be able to to customize or write apps for gnome. to use here js and css is a extremely great idea, because thats what most developers can do... the many developers that makes this extentions so short after release profes that it works.
with that said we come to the other points:
2. "Gnome is a Redhat Projekt" like said unity is a ubuntu projekt so what... but like I said the extentions are made by others so its not true, too.
3. "GNOME is understaffed." they try (successful) to get more developers on board like I said with that great design it works.
Then there is other stuff that can be done without having big ideas, porting epiphany to the newest netkit version thats coming soon (3.6?)
4. "core developers are leaving GNOME development." like its said no bad feelings about that, such stuff happens from time to time, biologicaly having kids or getting old or stuff like that, or someone wants not to work on the same stuff the hole live...
on the other hand the kde developer was frustrated so here is a bigger problem.
To Michael, it seems you did not use gnome-shell for working with it over a longer time, so try it, its like git, at the beginning much people hated it, then after a while it changed, its just a big conzept-switch and people hate when they have to learn new ways of doning stuff... each time I see this not even lined up fixed 4 desktops of unity I get a lough flash, how retarded that is, having them under each over makes it so easy to blindly switch trhough them, and having only so many I need (have open programms) makes it also easier to not have some empty ones I search through.
And btw, if you want to organise through the windows and dont want to use the overlay, its easy, you can go with strg + alt + up/down through the windows, and adding shift to it you take with you the active window. So if you have a desktop with 5 open windows, just select with alt+tab one then strg+shift+alt + down till you have it on a free desktop. then go back without shit to the first and repeat this 3 times and you have all seperated in seperated screens, if the windows are not fullscreen, super + up and its maximised... thats just nice especialy on a laptop what most users use, you dont want to use the shitty trackpad to do such stuff with it when you can help it. Even with Trackpad and fast settings, I prever to not have to move around when I dont need to.
So you have to learn this 5 keyboard shortcuts, to get more efficient with it than any other UI but if you do that you are more efficient. And here we see its the same like it was with git, there was the complains its more complex svn is simpler, yes but if you do learn this stuff (and this shortcuts are way more easy than gits commands ^^) you get a more efficient faster user experience. Thats worth it.
The last point in the blog:
5. "GNOME is losing market- and mindshare."
so here is the question is gnome the problem that leads to Ubuntu switching away from gnome, or is switching away from gnome from ubuntu a big part that leads to "GNOME Is Losing Relevance On The Linux Desktop".
I think gnome did switch away from gnome not because any of the listed points, so yes gnome looses users when the biggest linux distribution dont uses it anymore (not even in a seperate gubuntu or something) I find it more interesting, that even its hard to get a good gnome-shell experince in ubuntu or for beginners to find/install it, there are nearly as much comments in the softwarecenter over gnome-shell and has a better rating in their own shop than unity has:
unity 3 from 5 stars 415 ratings
gnome-shell 4 from 5 stars 238 ratings
kde-standard 5 from 5 stars 3 ratings
maybe that are not 100% 1:1 the same amounts of users that are use that, but if you would think that for a moment, even 33% of the ubuntu users are such unsatisfied with unity that they switch install gnome-shell, thats much especialy if you think that ubuntu is the only distribution that ships unity with it (ppas or something in other distros I do not count)...
BTW to "gnome has no goals" they did the same with gnome 2, gnome 2 had no real goals except making a good desktop they made that happen very soon, but then evolved it slowly, there were not very often big new features, they just filling the edges out version to version, and make all there and there a bit better. Thats exactly what made gnome 2 to the desktop-war winner at that time. (and maybe that ubuntu used it). So why should they not do the same after one big cutting some braids off and making some big architectural and other changes, they should go back to evolvemode and not revolutionize all 6 months all desktop conzepts...
Last edited by blackiwid; 07-28-2012 at 01:18 PM.
That's a totally pointless comparison.
Originally Posted by blackiwid
why I have seen Micheal writing artikels with way less (relevant) content
Originally Posted by bwat47
If Ubuntu would give out how many times gnome-shell packages was downloaded I would use that number but they dont count/release such number, so I have no choice to use that numbers.
And if you think lets say each 1000. guy who uses such DE writes a comment in the softwarecenter about it, you could say there are 400.000 unity users and 200.000 gnome-shell users, and its a big enough number to be representive, people who make professional Surveys dont have higher numbers often...
Last edited by blackiwid; 07-28-2012 at 01:25 PM.
I think the blog is very much a rant within Gnome team (unlike what the title from Phoronix wanted to imply). Isn't ironic majority of comments want a clone of the old interface (XFCE, Gnome 2 variants) and shun one of true innovative approach of UI? When KDE decide to radically change from KDE3 to KDE4, the negative reaction shows KDE was right after several releases later.
For me, the comments only exposes the selftiness of some users themselves. Before somebody replies to my post, one needs ask oneself: when facing a new users who never tried any DE in their lifetime, are you going to display your bias when it comes to your preference or you will let them try first?
I still remember when I had upgraded to fedora 15. I felt like, WTF is going on here. The consequence have been a few months of distro hopping looking for alternatives. I am not against innovation. But gnome shell felt for me like pushing a square peg through a round hole, just freaking annoying and getting into my way of doing things.
From my point of view the gnome team just ignored the existing user base, forced them to use the new "innovative" interface because it is simpler for noobs(?) without providing a solid alternative. It certainly didn't work for me and for a few others too it seems.
Last edited by log0; 07-28-2012 at 01:58 PM.
Not to start a flamewar.....
Since you're using a rMBP, what are your thoughts on the OSX-ML desktop UI? As a person that uses OSX for home use and *nix for work, I'd be interested to hear what things we have in common, and where our opinions differ.
The Gnome Shell is the only one that is a bit innovative. Maybe too limited for the "power users" who "don't feel productive" unless they have 20 terminal windows open at once. Neato. The mais issue is probably that most Linux users are of this "power users" category at the moment.
In the long run, I have the impression that the shell is going to prove superior. Besides that disagreement over the shell, I believe Gnome 3 is actually the main DE out there on Linux ...
So another stupid aritcle on "Gnome 3" by Phoronix, one of Michael's pet topic [along with the "horrible" Linux kernel "regressions" that he finds with his nonsensical benchmark results, of course].
I really still love GNOME 3 but at this point Unity is the only usable alternative for me. I really do like XFCE but I've always had issues with Thunar for some reason. Will have to give it another shot.
KDE is just so bloated... I hate all of those gui options everywhere. Simple is much better.
Maybe I'll just use ratpoison.
P.S. you wasted money on your Mac.
Last edited by fuzz; 07-28-2012 at 02:46 PM.
a few quick thoughts on Gnome.
I don't think Gnome technology has lost interest/relevance on the Linux Desktop, i think more accurately Gnome-Shell just never gained the popularity or the adoption that gnome-developers thought it would - while Gnome itself (ie: GS is nothing more than a shell) is actually used quite extensively... I used to 'play' with Gnome-Shell - just to periodically test out new features / extensions / watch progress - but I was never able to actually get into using it on a regular basis, even once i knew all the keystrokes and was familiar with the Shell. it is just very unappealing to use (IMO) - and no customizations / extensions were going to solve the problems (for me). I am sure this is why mutter has been forked a couple of times, and why there are multiple Shells that run on top of Gnome 3.x stack ... that being said, I think much of the applications and underlying technology is pretty good (aside from breaking gtk themes on every major update) - apparently others think so, as well, otherwise we wouldn't see so many DE/WM/Shells being built on top of it.
I think Gnome development is better served working on the underlying components / libraries and applications, themselves - rather than trying to 'redefine' how people use their computers - it would seem to me, while this (Gnome-Shell) hasn't been a total failure, it really hasn't been a big win for Gnome, either. I think it's really been a mixed bag and will continue to be for a really long time. Quite frankly, i prefer every other shell/fork of gnome over Gnome-Shell.
The nice thing about gnome though, is you can easily swap out whatever components you want and replace them with other software that better suits your requirements / workflow / personal preferences. It's nice that GS wasn't so integrated that you couldn't ditch it - if it had been - i am betting Gnome wouldn't be used nearly as much as it is... I know i wouldn't have it installed, anyway.