Gnome replaces Unity

[Liam Proven]

On 14 October 2017 at 20:09, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
>
> I would not use Cinnamon either but for someone who doesn't do a great deal
> with a computer I think it would be better than KDE.

I'd probably agree -- _if_ they knew Windows first.

>> Double-click the title bar to maximise.
>> Right-click to minimise.
>
> Right, does it have icons for that?

Pretty much *all* desktops for 30 years do double-click to maximise.
Windows and Mac too.

The buttons are hidden by default. They can be turned back on with TweakTool.

> Untrue.
>
> Progress is inventing new things that work better, they haven't done that.

No, they haven't, I agree, but credit to them for trying.

>> I have discussed this with the dev team, and they deny it, but I think
>> a primary driver was to be _un_like Windows and secondarily the Mac.
>
> That's what I mean.
>
> This means compromising what you actually like based on external factors.

No, they were trying to innovate, and in part, to take inspiration
from the success of the significantly different interaction models of
phones and tablets.

I don't personally think it succeeded but credit to them for trying.

> You're saying that KDE signed a deal and could continue to be Windows-like
> but Gnome didn't and had to depart?

Broadly.

Google me and note my employer to understand why I am being careful.

> But I agree that the Windows model is basically the only way you can do a
> desktop. The Mac interface hardly diverges in my opinion.

That is not agreeing with me at all. You're putting your own words in
my mouth and then agreeing with them.

I vigorously disagree with both those statements.

> I mean that the Ubuntu Gnome people were very welcoming.
>
> The Gnome people I have heard different stories about (even from Torvalds
> and his diving application; that means the GTK people).

You need to dig deeper into these ideas.

The _people_ are welcoming. The _community_ is welcoming.

However, they welcome people who will play by their rules, work their
style in their way, conform and comply. Ubuntu tried to contribute
code and designs to GNOME 3 and was harshly rebuffed.

Mark Shuttleworth has written about the problems of working with the
GNOME dev team -- e.g.

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/661

Go do some research of your own. Don't take my word for it, please.

Hint: comments like "Never heard of Psion; not interested in digging
into ancient history" are not productive or conducive to informed
discussion.

History is _important_. If you don't know it, you can't understand why
things are the way they are.

Qt was originally a (dual-licensed) commercial product. That shows in
its polish and maturity.

Gtk was merely the toolkit for GIMP. 20y later it's only on version
3.something. Old does not equal mature.

KDE was the first FOSS desktop for Unix, and they used Qt because it
was there and it was freeware, so they could. There wasn't much
alternative. Also they wrote in C++ as the more modern language.

Although the kernel was written by a Finn, a lot of the Linux movement
is American, such as GNU, and there is a lot of NIH syndrome. Unix is
American. C is American. C++ is by a Dane, Bjarne Stroustroup.

Many old Unix hands don't like C++.

So GNOME was a response to KDE. It was a FOSS desktop, ideologically
pure, without the taint of the commercial, dual-licensed KDE (which
RMS would not tolerate), and written in C, not the decadent C++.

GNOME has alway been defined by what it's _not_.

KDE? Pragmatic. Never mind purity, does it work? Then do it. For
inspiration, it copied Windows of the time -- Win98. So it has
Windows-style panels, but lots of them with rich placement options.
But it can't handle a Windows-style vertical panel, what Xfce calls a
"deskbar", even after 5 major versions.  It shows content as HTML and
provides a rich embedded HTML engine to render it. Like Windows.

Both KDE and GNOME became rich mature environments.

KDE kept doing the same; after 2007 GNOME changed course -- see my old
article for why.

I respect GNOME for what it's trying to do, and I like the people, I
just don't like the result.

> I don't know how you can call NeXTstep good looking in this day and age, but
> okay...

I stand by it. There has never been a better-looking desktop, IMHO.

> That's odd. I never noticed anything different when I was testing MacOS.
>
> The left-to-right stuff "OK"           "Cancel" --> Cinnamon has it
> reversed.
>
> In three-dialog-panes (three buttons) when you have something like "Save"
> "Discard" and "Cancel" one of the buttons will be way to the left evading
> you as you are looking for it, and they are doing this on purpose because
> they think it is "better".

Yes, I knew what you meant. You don't need to spell it out. I
understood the first time. I just told you the truth: I never even
noticed.

> So I don't know how long you've used Cinnamon.

A few days. No decent vertical panels. Not for me. If they implement
that, I'll come look again.

> I've worked on it quite a bit.
>
> And the stuff is deeply frustrating.

One person's disruptive change is another's trivial unimportant detail.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053