RE: Installing Cinnamon 2.0
> > The point of mentioning MATE was in context with adding MATE to
> > Debian. Our point was, there are only minor problems with that
> > happening, and they should be solvable fairly easily within a short
> > period of time
>
> > (i.e., in the time between releases of Stable).
>
> This problem is not MATE specific. All DEs in Debian have it:
That was my point.
> MATE could go in Debian, if one of it's users accept to become it's
> maintainer. If it was so easy, then I can only guess that MATE's users
> finally do not care that much to have it into official repo, and should
> accept that other people uses that as an argument that it *might* give
> problems. Because, yes, 3rd party repo are possible, but are not
> supported by Debian.
I realize this; it goes without saying. If I was adequately competent, I'd volunteer, myself.
> And, things which *might* give problems which are not supported by the
> OS's maintainers made things harder for people not willing to deal with
> problems. When you start to have more than one team responsible for the
> state of a system, and when a problem appear, you usually have annoying
> games of ping-pong.
Not sure that's relevant.
> In short: if you are so sure that MATE is fine, and want to advertise
> it a lot, stop whining about Debian which refuses it, and start the way
> to integrate it into Debian. I think the dev team will be happy to have
> more manpower and provide more DE choice.
Yes, and some of the MATE devs have already shown a willingness to serve as maintainer. Not "whining" so much as making sure some of the right people are aware that not everyone is on board with the decision to ignore it. They have more than a few DEs and window managers galore. Why object to one more, if it works well and serves people's needs? Religion.
I might could change the typos in docs to become different typos in different places. I can't develop for MATE, it's not part of my skill set. I will encourage other people to get involved, that much, I can do.
> > People are abandoning Gnome 3 in droves. Most are turning to XFCE, I
> > think largely because it is already in Debian. If MATE were in
> > Debian, a large contingent of those people would use MATE if it were
> > available, I think, because most of them were using GNOME 2 before.
>
> And what about those people being ancient gnome users because gnome is
> the default, and not because gnome is better (1) ? Maybe the problems
> they had with gnome encouraged them to try other DEs, like KDE, XFCE and
> LXDE present in Debian, and from that base, choosing the one which fit
> best their needs.
> Perhaps they would not return to gnome2 know, because they finally
That's possible. The point is:
1. Gnome 3 isn't desirable to many,
2. Many have stated a preference for Gnome 2, and all aren't completely satisfied with the alternatives offered. XFCE is regarded by many as the best of a bad lot. This wasn't stated implicitly; I assumed it was implied by context, but that was a mistake.
3. MATE is rather like GNOME 2.
> think that it is inferior for their uses to XFCE?
That's possible. I never said all XFCE users wanted MATE.
>
> Notice that, as you, I made hypothetic assertions based on the wind to
> make other's choices and opinions fitting my needs without asking them.
> Aka, that XFCE is better than gnome, which I do not truly think. They're
> simply different.
No disagreement
My main goal is to get the point across that, like others have said, the prejudice against MATE is strong. I believe it's mainly religious, and that the practical reasons against it are all solvable.
> 1: I was never able to understand what people can find to gnome, even
> the gnome2 DE. Matter of taste, of course. KDE was better suited for me,
> but shared a problem: too monolithic. So only XFCE and LXDE in Debian
> were able to satisfy me at start. Now, even them are not correct enough
> for me (but I still use some LXDE apps).
I loved KDE 3. Like GNOME, KDE devs drank the Kool-Aid, and had to mess with the basic premise of their DE. Unlike Gnome 3, KDE 4 is still useable and largely sane. But I don't love it. It's too big, and it's just not something that appeals to me.
Mark
Reply to: