[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian mate

Regarding the GNOME vs. MATE etc., please read this recent post from Vincent:
If people (the MATE people?) step in and maintain & adjust the
gnome-panel, we won't have any problem for Jessie.
I will just wait, since this will all be solved in a nice way :)

2012/11/21 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Don't get me wrong most of them could probably "get along"
>> > with the fallback mode after some degree of tweaking, but they would
>> > miss A LOT! Some examples? In no particular order: The complete
>> > infrastructure under gnome-fallback is a *completely* *different* horse.
>> > Some would say it is not even a horse, it is rather a mule! That "mule"
>> > behaves utterly different when it comes to several aspects.
>> You need to be more specific because despite being one of the
>> maintainers I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
> Well, I can confirm Michael's observations. We're running Debian
> Squeeze at a physics department of a large German university.
> Most users are using GNOME2. We have upgraded some of the machines to
> Wheezy already to be able to test Wheezy before deployment. And many
> users were actually confused after being confronted with GNOME3. Their
> biggest disturbances were the missing desktop icons and the missing
> GNOME menu. It's not something one should underestimate, the average
> joe user is rather unflexible and lazy (and maybe stupid). But it's
> not their fault, they just want to get their work done and not mess
> around with the user interface.
>> > The panel (no free arranging of applets / starters;
>> This is by design. Please point me to a case where the new layout
>> mechanism doesn’t answer *real* user needs. OTOH being finally free of
>> absolute positioning means the end of the awful bugs when resizing the
>> screen or when applets change their size.
> Some people want their panel at the bottom, some want it on the sides,
> some want it on the top. Please do never tell people how to customize
> their desktop because it is something absolutely subjective and
> personal. That's why customization exists in the first place.
>> > not all applets ported;
>> Port them. I’ve done it for a pair of them, it is really simple.
> Why reinvent the wheel when we have everything perfectly there? It's
> not that we gain something by porting everything to GNOME3 when stuff
> is working in GNOME2/MATE.
> Also, the whole extension zoo in GNOME3 is not really an alternative
> because the extensions aren't even compatible between different GNOME3
> minor versions which is a HUGE disadvantage.
>> > simple right-click does not work anymore, alt or even alt+super+click
>> > is needed now;
>> Obviously you haven’t had to manage a help desk where you get calls from
>> people who have accidentally removed their notification area or their
>> window list with a wrongly placed right click.
> Again, I can confirm that.
>> > menus arranged in a completely different and un-logical
>> > fashion;...).
>> Wut?
> I think the new GNOME Control Center is actually horrible. It was much
> more logical with GNOME2. It's not a good design when I have to search
> where an option is hidden.
>> > No language / keyboard settings in GDM anymore (Oops, you
>> > speak a different language with a different keyboard layout then the
>> > system default? Hope you did not use any fancy symbols for your password
>> > then!).
>> This one, I agree, is a real problem. I don’t like how upstream moved
>> regional settings to the control center. Patches that reintroduce
>> keyboard selection in GDM in a correct fashion will be accepted.
> Actually, this is one of the most fundamental idiotic changes in
> GNOME3. They automatically assume that everyone is using GNOME3 and
> completely ignore the fact that many people actually use different
> desktops or window managers, so they need to be able to select their
> language *before* login.
> And lightdm isn't helping in any way because language setting and last
> session restore are actually broken (see [1] and [2]).
>> > The control-center, a lot of stuff is missing. Gone are the days
>> > you can keep your laptop running when closing the lid. Want to prohibit
>> > display blanking? Sorry, gone too.
>> If you want very specific settings you can use gsettings to set those
>> defaults. You are not talking of basic use cases that a random user with
>> no understanding of a command line would need.
> Again, this is something highly subjective and most users actually
> prefer having *more* customizability, not less. Whenever you say
> "Users don't need it", you actually mean "I don't need it".
>> > That list goes on and on (ask the web for a more comprehensive list)
>> Yeeehaw, just “ask the web”. What could go wrong with that? Haven’t you
>> noticed how asking the web will always lead to the same answer: any
>> change will be deemed absolutely horrible and destructive.
> No, that's not true. But developers *should* listen to the people who
> are actually using the software. Changes are ok, but not if these
> changes mean taking features away or making software more
> uncomfortable to use.
> Just look at Microsoft and their disaster with Windows 8 and you will
> realize what will happen when you don't listen your users: The sales
> figures for Windows 8 are so low that Microsoft is too embarrassed to
> disclose them.
> People who were defending Microsoft's decision always came up with the
> same argument that users are too lazy to accept changes which is an
> unfair accusation. Changes and improvements are always good (I love
> stuff like systemd or Pulse-Audio, for example). But most changes from
> GNOME2 to GNOME3 are not an improvement, they made things worse.
>> > and some of those shortcomings can be
>> > tweaked away, which means effort and grief in varying degree. In short,
>> > gnome3-fallback just looks at the upper surface almost like gnome2 did,
>> > but is, behaves, works completely different.
>> Indeed, it works much better. It is a fallback for GNOME3, not just
>> GNOME2 with sed s/gnome/mate/ so it was a bit more work, but certainly
>> worth it.
> Could you elaborate on this, please? Because I do not think at all
> that GNOME fallback is a viable alternative to GNOME2/MATE and it was
> never intended to. There is a reason why it is called "fallback mode"
> and not just GNOME3 2D. The fallback mode was always just a temporary
> solution until software rendering was ready and that's the reason why
> it is now being dropped by upstream for the next release.
>> > I kind of insist it being in jessie ;) And yes, that makes another good
>> > point why the gnome3-fallback just can't feel like the real thing. It is
>> > supposed to be for those users that 1.) can't use the shell as no 3D
>> > acceleration available 2.) absolutely can't or don't want to work with a
>> > new and different desktop-paradigm, with accepted pain and grief in
>> > varying detail...
>> So what you suggest for jessie is, after users having gone through the
>> “pain” of moving from GNOME2 to GNOME 3 classic, to go back to GNOME2
>> with GTK2, GConf (sorry, MateConf) and almost everything looking like a
>> squeeze desktop?
> Most Debian users haven't gone through the pain of change yet, they're
> still running GNOME2 with Squeeze. And please, don't call it "GNOME3
> classic", there is no such thing. It's a fallback mode, an ugly one.
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679386
>> [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683662
> --
>  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
> `. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
>   `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 20121121142138.GB4915@physik.fu-berlin.de">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20121121142138.GB4915@physik.fu-berlin.de

Reply to: