If I were to ask right now: What is the best GNU / Linux Desktop Environment? The answers would always be the same:
«The best desktop is KDE, or GNOME, or LXDE…«, «The best desktop is the one that is most comfortable for you….»
In other words, the usual argument that the best is what is most comfortable, pleasant ... blah blah blah.
Everything is a matter of taste, but there is an indicator that can help us to know to what extent a Desktop Environment is good, or satisfies its users. What is that indicator? Very easy: Of the GNU / Linux Desktop Environments, how many of them have needed a fork (or fork) to please your users?
KDE 4 it has not had Fork, perhaps because it is too big to do it or because it is so customizable that it does not need it; Trinity It was a crazy idea of some who still cling to KDE 3.X. XFCE no dwarf was born to him, and his development is quite slow and LXDE evolved in its union with Razor and now we have LXQt.. Who is left?
King of Forks: GNOME
The Desktop that has had the most forks (and that's not why it's bad, but hey, some of that tells us), GNOME. Our winner takes the award for the Desk with the most Forks: Mate, Unity, Cinnamon What was the name of the one Ikey Doherty was doing? ¿consort y Budgie? Pantheon in eOS, Zorin Desktop, Deepin desktop, pear desktop. Well those too, and they are some of those who have mentioned me on Google+ ..
As a user on the Google social network told me:
There is another issue, and that is that the forks do not always come out as a result of discontent, but also to cover aspects that the original did not reach.
But man, if you have to cover something that the original does not have, how do we call that, half happiness? In the end, not being 100% happy with a project, for whatever reasons, is what drives others to create forks.
I repeat, it is not that GNOME is bad, that by the way, I know very well that it is not the same GNOME 3 which GNOME-Shell, but with the release of the latter, many users were unhappy and frustrated not being able to customize it just like GNOME 2. The result? Cinnamon, on the one hand, who wanted to have the GNOME 3 technology plus the GNOME 2 customization, and Mate who insists on not letting the latter die.
But if I think this can be a meter, because when other desktop environments have not had any fork, it must be because their users are quite pleased with what they have. XFCE and KDE can be customized enough to obtain the appearance of the rest of the Desktop Environments, with LXDE it takes a little more work but it can still be done, but the one that ties us hand and foot is GNOME Shell, which if we don't install gnome-tweek-tools little we can do.
What do you think?
I sense a sandstorm xD
Impossible, KZKG ^ Gaara doesn't go through all this 😀
I didn't tell you 😛
I think the article is bad, as expected after drawing a conclusion based on a single indicator.
Indicator that on the other hand, does not have the slightest foundation ... more than your own well-known assessment of Kde, but to each his chicken.
On the other hand, it is a classic assessment of Linux enclosed in its four walls to think that "you have to be able to customize the desktop" ... which at the same time is almost a contradiction ... hahaha I want to be able to fully customize the terminal as well .... absurd…
These types of notes leave much to be desired and are not "useful" to anyone, your note is "useless" at all! Except to generate comments ...
Well, let's go in parts ...
1-. The fact that the article is bad is a matter of taste. If we are going to criticize then, well I tell you that your comment is also bad, that it does not contribute anything. At least I used an indicator, you none. How bad is your attitude when commenting that way, without the slightest respect.
2-. That I like KDE I do not deny it and on more than one occasion I have stated it (because I want to and because I can), but if you look at this article I not only speak well of KDE, but of XFCE and even LXDE.
3.- I quote you:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Cinnamon, Unity, Mate, and the rest of the GNOME Forks have been created (among other things) to be customized according to one's taste. If not, I am looking forward to your comment to see what the causes have been, or rather, to tell me that "personalization" is not one of them. Whether we like it or not, room-locked Linux users like to customize our desktop.
4.- I quote you again:
Well, I'll tell you what your comment is for .. if you want ..
Ha ... I'm funny that you leave your third point looking the other way ... that is, your note is not the slightest useful, you do not deny it in the least. As for my comment, it has "usefulness" in the sense of your note, that is to say "poor, poor" ... let's say it does not contribute anything, as it will contribute something if it is in response or reaction to your "article".
Likewise, my comment does not try to disrespect in any way, if you felt attacked then I apologize. Telling you that your article is "bad" is just how you say a rating. And it does not pretend to be something else ... but what do you want with this article ??? That is the striking thing. Seriously, what is your claim with making a post of your great founded opinion ???
Looking the other way? I think I made my third point very clear, as I also think you should understand that we do not have to think alike. I finished my point, you say I left him looking. Anyway. What was clear is that once again you spend time putting your fingers on the keyboard, and you have not even written anything objective. But I make it easy for you. Why do you think my article is poor? What is your argument?
Apparently you are one of those many users who think (and even demand) that the author of a blog has to write following his / her own quality guidelines. In a blog you write what you want, what the author wants. There will always be someone who approves, and who disapproves. Both parties are within their rights.
If my article doesn't help you, I honestly don't care. I wanted to make my point of view, my opinion clear, and I have done so, you, and the rest of the readers of DesdeLinux You can leave yours whether you agree with me or not. And a piece of advice, try to be objective in your next comment, or you can imply that you are simply one of those Against-Anything-That-Not-Ubuntu users... 😉
Friends, falling into these types of comments does not help us at all and they do not contribute anything. Let's share with arguments and in order to support the community.
It is a typical troll that throws the first stone that touches him, throws it and runs away as if the police were chasing him.
Luckily it does not go to the extreme of MuyLinux, which deletes this type of comments, like someone agreeing with that flamer.
Hello, as I see many comments have been generated. the one who accuses me of flamer or trolling (eliotime3000)… please…. It seems to me that the following answers that appear show their mistake (precisely this type of notes, they are also considered to generate comments in spurts, but look at what x11tete11x said long before I did). On the other hand, it is not the first time I have commented on this page, and if you look at any of my comments you will also see that it has nothing to do with my way of "acting" on the internet. So the thing about runs away and I don't know what… eliotime3000… what are you talking about? yes I answered etc. mmm ... it seems to me or are you the flamero that speaks to the dope? don't be so obvious that nobody believes it.
I'm not interested in getting into I said you said, and etc. thanks for the notes of this blog that is very good.
elav, of course you can write what you want, and the quality criteria, there is no doubt they are yours. Regards.
I consider that the title of the post is too clear to know the theme of the article
Forks: What is the Desktop Environment that you have the most?
What is the usefulness of the note?
Well, know which Desktop environment that has the most forks
This article answers the initial question so I don't see what's wrong with the
I think "mmm" is right, I prefer to wait a few days, to see a somewhat desperate "post" about whether "maybe gnome is bad because it has a lot of forks".
Regarding the same, I could say that: GNOME dd forks are a response to how highly modular and stable code is to be able to implement it as an alternative to a project.
Ok, you have the right to say what you want .. a desperate post, includes desperate comments. Now, for both you and um, when did I say that GNOME was bad? Because I quote:
@elav captures it from the point of view of an ordinary user, so there is not always a point of agreement between those who have really thoroughly tested all desktop environments as well as those who have really given usefulness to each one of them.
Another point to keep in mind is that the KDE, XFCE and LXDE desktop environments have had to change their objectives in such a way that not even their most staunch fans have dared to migrate to other alternatives.
GNOME 2 was practically the desktop environment of GNU / Linux, since its default interface and its tools have made the ordinary user and / or the user of other OS's like Windows and OSX consider it a decent alternative to said OS's and it showed the ordinary public what united that was the GNU / Linux community and free software (image that fell apart when GNOME 3 came out).
Realize how relevant GNOME was at the level of the computing community.
@elav plasma it because it uses plasma xDDD .. Sorry I couldn't help saying it XDD
Faith of
errats:The comment I made has the second paragraph, which is this:
Which should be:
I also agree with mmm
If the author of the article wants to highlight KDE he should simply have written an article describing the best of it, but "hinting at" Gnome bugs is not the most respectful way.
And note that I am a Trisquel user with Gnome Flashback and KDE on the same computer.
And that writing "I repeat, Gnome is not bad" is a very false justification, a simple reading shows the author's anti-gnome xD intention.
Salu2
Excuse me Pepe, but you have not understood anything about the article either. In no case did I want to attack GNOME, I only highlighted the possibility that due to the dissatisfaction of many users towards its new interface (GNOME Shell), it has become the King of Forks.
With that comment, you have made my day. The truth is that yes, I am also using plasma on my desktop PC with KDE 4.8 and the truth is that both Plasma and other features that KDE 4.X highlights, have made me come back after leaving KDE 3 for GNOME 2 .
I will quote the paragraph in which it is in question:
If you want to question a paragraph in which you do not agree, quote it in full, because if we only make a small extract from it, we are showing that we lack reading comprehension.
Forget it eliotime3000 .. no matter how much you explain, he who does not want to understand, will not understand. 😀
How about Troll-land?
The rat boy, on duty xd
It seems to me a valid comment. In addition, he did not say that the article was bad, but that he believed it was, that it is not the same.
I bet you said it with a sarcastic tone, since the article has been as neutral as possible avoiding falling into subjectivities like these:
And so that you realize what I am saying, I quote the last paragraph so that you realize the big mistake you make when writing your
flamecommentary:Anyway, I don't think you can even make a good joke about a discussion about the objectives with which desktop environments have been designed, so you settle for just throwing the first stone that falls on you and not substantiating your opinion.
Hey.
A criticism of the comment system they have, in case they want to take it into account.
In comments with so many comments below it is difficult to know who they answer. at least I don't see an indicator, eg. if this comment of yours is towards me. I mean, in case you can think of a way to improve that, if you feel like it.
Regarding what you say eliotime3000 of «flame», etc. I answered you above… and at the same time I don't know how flame! the vast majority of comments that follow mine are a dialogue between you and elav, peppered with a few more comments. So ...
But well, I quote you this from the article and that's it… because as I told elav, of course the quality criteria and the subject matter about which you write on the blog is absolutely up to you.
#In other words, the usual argument that the best is what is most comfortable, pleasant ... blah blah blah.
Everything is a matter of taste, but there is an indicator that can help us to know to what extent a Desktop Environment is good, or satisfies its users #
Greetings.
I believe that we all seek maximum UX and all environments have strengths and weaknesses, but there are many of us who get used to a usability that deny having to use another concept, be it different for better or for worse.
Personally, I have used many environments, but regardless of the system resources that each one requires, each one has a different approach.
If I had the possibility to choose the environment that gave me the best UX it would be:
Gnome 2.3 + Compiz, I gave it enviable productivity a long time ago.
Greetings everyone, currently Geeko + KDE!
That's right, each Desktop has its strong point. For example, I particularly think that GNOME Shell stands out in the way it displays notifications, it's something I love about that desktop.
However, although I can live with the way you use that desktop, I find GNOME Shell somewhat "unproductive." For example, to change the application if we do not master the keyboard shortcuts, we have to move the cursor to the corner, so that all the windows are shown and there choose the one we want. In my opinion, I think a lot of time is wasted.
I think that's why so many forks were born, among other things of course.
Another option to switch between applications in gnome shell is to use this extension https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/307/dash-to-dock/
Yes, I knew her thanks to @ yoyo308 and she is not a bad option.
I imagine that they wanted to implement the use of compiz scalar or the OSX exposé, but in any case, details are why users are not convinced, I loved the option of extensions, especially go to the page and switch to the extension to install and use, although there are limited options like nautilus, I imagine by the philosophy of «easy and elegant».
I think that the UI should be worked on so that the user does not see the need to modify certain technical parameters and thus be able to satisfy this philosophy and why not, advanced options for the developer and that he feels like a fish in water, without having to deal with only basic features that are intended for the end user.
Yes, extensions are a great idea that we have seen since the beginning of Firefox. Going back to GNOME, the problem is that they only give us that option. For example, Cinnamon and KDE have the list of windows in the bar, however, they also have the option that when we move the pointer to a corner of the screen, it has the effect of showing all open windows, or some other actions.
I imagine that when they applied reengineering, they needed to apply the new concept from scratch but with the same philosophy, I think they could not bring all the reinvented features in one go (The Project Management Triangle), some of them did arrive (scale or expose ) for usability.
By the way he was talking about extensions.gnome.org.
Hehehe, I know, me too.
I will only think, that I am not a fan of Desktop Environments for a simple reason, a lot of resource consumption, I prefer to use a window manager like Awesome in which I feel very comfortable, but if they make me choose I bet on KDE, LXDE and Mate what are the ones that I like
regards
I used OpenBox for a long time and I fully understand your preference for Window Managers, only there are times when we need some integration that to achieve it in a WM, you have to work a lot. 😉
Once I was tempted to do so, I just realized that although I am the only one using GNU / Linux at home, my brother or mother is most likely interested in using GNU / Linux and that is why I discarded that idea, since I wasn't going to teach you how to customize a desktop with just a window manager.
Now, as for light desktop environments that I like, they are XFCE and KDE-Meta, which have to satisfy both my needs as well as the needs of the person who wants to learn how to handle a GNU / Linux distro starting with the graphical interface, since GNOME is simply too restrictive both in its customization and in its handling that not even a user who is tied to Windows will be able to consider it a replacement, and any novice would be willing to prefer an interface like KDE or XFCE as first instance to customize the desktop most of the time at the tip of clicks.
I was not fond of the GNU / Linux desktop environments until I came across GNOME 3.04, which was a tremendous disappointment to me due to its instability. Hopefully the GNOME 3.12 that comes in Debian Jessie shows a Shell Classic that can be customized as you want (or continue with XFCE on my Netbook desktop due to the insane customization simplicity it has, in addition to having a unique quality of combinations ).
And by the way, there is no need to disagree about those who are using KDE / XFCE / LXDE / GNOME3, since there are people who settle for window managers such as Awesome, Fluxbox and Openbox, which have been enforced in the GNU / Linux universe.
PS: You forgot to mention Dropline GNOME, which is only available in Slackware.
Sorry to disappoint you but you won't find that Shell Classic you want in Debian Jessie. In fact, you know that Debian is not exactly one of those distributions that likes to customize the Desktop.
Thanks for your notice. In fact, I was already preparing to be able to use XFCE on my two PCs, because in the visual Debian installer it only lets me install KDE-Meta when I am with only TTY and if I install XFCE, it practically leaves me the desktop served in a tray silver (as I am lazy, I would opt for XFCE, although with the time I have been using KDE, I think I will only continue to use XFCE on my netbook and not on the desktop)
gnome3 if forks if he is the king since the article exposes the reason
"Many users were unhappy and frustrated not being able to customize it like GNOME 2"
gnome 3 I used it little but it is a good desktop
currently kde is that I feel better, I always like it
cinnamon would be my second option
It is more taste and custom of each user, many for example find xfce a complete desktop and others it is not a matter of how it satisfies as it does me, but it is still a good option
We share the same, since KDE is perfect both in its customization and in its graphic options that it even gives the feeling that KDE was an OS in itself.
On the XFCE side, I have been using it for 3 months on my netbook and the truth is that I am beginning to opt for it because it is simply simple and it practically adapts to the configuration you give it (you can even put a few GNOME utilities and remain XFCE).
After all, both desktop environments do their job, and XFCE is where I seem to have found the void that GNOME left me as soon as it became GNOME 3.
So many forks that none of them satisfy me.
KDE has its own thing, it is a very basic and complete desktop, so saturated that it is tedious, speaking of another topic and the one that I polarize the most is aesthetics, this point for me is essential when choosing a desktop, I regret to report that KDE is very Far on this issue but it is an excellent setting.
Gnome, I admit that I like it, and more with the changes they have made in version 3.12, those tabs are great, the minimalism is extraordinary, a desktop that does not drown you and at the same time provides the essential, but here the only negative is that it's very heavy".
I think you would use a window manager, since GNOME will never be lightweight and I don't think XFCE or LXDE will satisfy you.
For me the best thing I saw of desktops (and in fact I stopped looking for desktops) in Linux was the sadly defunct PearOS, even though this statement makes many welts and probably has not been the same in a long time, what? eOS ?, please is too far from PearOS.
The difference between PearOS and eOS is that the first one made OSX users migrate more easily to GNU / Linux, and the second one only used the Aqua interface as an inspiration base to make their desktop environment, and thus, give the distro its own identity.
At the end of the day, what attracts me to the GNU / Linux distros is that each one adjusts to the paradigm of each person, so you don't have to complain about the lack of versatility of OS's like Windows and OSX.
It is the case that I never used OSX, I was trained with Windows and although now I only use Linux (at home) for two years and I have it in partitions with Ubuntu 14.04, Lubuntu, Debian, PearOS and eOS; I have decided to get a mac although it is astronomically expensive, I admire it from a distance for what I read, for this reason I was delighted by PearOS and it was true about the fluency, and in mac it must be much better.
At work I use Windows but I have something completely clear, I will never have Windows at home again, it has a formidable technology read Office, DirectX, .Net, but its OS is garbage. On the opposite side is Linux, with enormous potential and unparalleled versatility, but sustained by a gaseous, false, fragmentary and illusive philosophy that all it generates is confrontation and stagnation (read Stallmantosa philosophy).
I don't think the number of forks is an indicator that a desktop environment is bad. For starters, why fork instead of using one of the existing desktop environments? Simple: because none of the others satisfy you. Then you take the one that is closest to what you want and you fork it. From this point of view, KDE is no better than Gnome Shell (rather it would be worse than Gnome Shell, since it is previously discarded). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that KDE is bad or that Gnome is good, just that it's all the appreciation of the user and the developers who make the forks.
First of all a pleasure to have Dariem here.
Exactly everything is a matter of appreciation. We can say the following:
- GNOME has forks because it does not satisfy certain users.
- GNOME has forks because it has the necessary foundation to do it easily.
- KDE does not have forks because as it is, it does not need to have them.
- KDE does not have forks because it would not be easy to fork.
As you can see, they are valid opinions for each one. And I say KDE because it is the example you used, but I could use XFCE or LXDE by changing some variables. But I would like to know your point of view as a user and as a developer. Why do you think GNOME has so many Forks?
Some people like me have never gotten used to KDE. We feel like we don't like the default desktop, and when we try to accommodate it we seem to choke on the amount of preferences and settings.
Gnome tends to get closer to what we want by default, but it lacks. So we are left with that feeling that no desktop in GNU / Linux satisfies us, but we stick with Gnome because it is close to the simplicity we want.
From a developer point of view, Gnome Shell is very easy to make extensions to it. For example, the Windows Shell in Nova Desktop 2013 owes a lot to Gnome Shell's ability to make extensions with JavaScript. On the other hand, Gnome components are more modular, it is easier to reuse some and dispose of others. The ability to transform them already depends on each one. Although I have no experience with KDE development, everything seems to indicate that the Gnome architecture is simpler, which makes life easier for forks developers. I think more or less all of this is what makes it easier for forks to "rain."
In any case, I am not the most authorized to issue criteria due to my little experience with other desktop environments, but I still do not believe that the amount of forks is an indicator to measure the quality of a desktop environment. I think this is measured by the number of users who use it, that is the indisputable indicator, and even so, there will always be those who prefer something else.
Yes, a matter of habit. A couple of years ago I felt very comfortable with XFCE and I always criticized what you mention in KDE, that it has too many options and everything is somewhat dispersed, but once I got used to it, I see it as a strength rather than a weakness. With KDE 5 they want to correct that a bit, I'll tell you by then.
Probably because gnome2 was the base desktop for many distros.
Exactly vicky, good point.
KDE had a fork attempt apart from Trinity: Klyde. The problem, as with Razor-qt and LXQt, is that most KDE applications have kde-runtime as a dependency, which means akonadi and so on, for that you already install KDE, period.
Dissatisfaction with the GNU / Linux desktop in general, the main reason why forks arise, gives a whole article. I am one of those who thinks that since Gnome 2 has gone everyone is moving nowhere: Gnome 3 took 3 versions to put the power button back by default and today it has its own maps application (to which I don't see much use for it) but you can't configure its screensaver. I don't see any improvement in consuming more and giving fewer options. And they say that the work towards the tablet world is done; well, who wants Gnome on a tablet? In fact, is Gnome on Android or do you expect the desktop to become a tablet, in which case it can wait?
KDE has lost the ball with the social and has left the base. Check out this bug report: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224447 . 4!!! years to solve (not really, they rewrote the taskbar because they wanted new functions and the bug did not return) a problem that a lot of people have complained about and no developers following the issue (Martin Gräßlin, very quick to mess with Ubuntu but slow to put your house in order). That bug continues for example in Debian Wheezy stable. It is useless to be here up to date, those who were up to date in 2010 have had the problem for 4 years. But Akonadi and Baloo are still there, consuming. In addition, its dependencies are absurd: they force you to install Konqueror and Kwrite (and almost VLC), but few use that having Dolphin, Firefox / Qupzilla and Kate, it is so configurable that it forces you to have programs that you do not even want to see.
Xfce has lost its chance to unseat Gnome. I am a year or so late in its new version (which apparently will not come in GTK3, it is only corrections and small improvements), its applications do not measure up (does someone unzip with Squeeze or use Parole? given more disappointments than joys) and like KDE and Gnome, they pass on people's advice: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=601435, here we see how one of its developers literally says that he does not want to solve a bug with LaTeX thumbnails (I say, compile without that option, period), or https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=5959 We see it as an Xfce problem that has been dragged from Debian Squeeze and that to this day they are still not solved, although they have marked as "solved".
Cinnamon has always given me trouble when I have used it; Mate has few developers who don't make advances to File-roller or Evince clone programs (well, at least they don't backtrack like Gnome).
And Unity, ufff… What exactly is it going to be? Qt? Is it going to be based on Qt but still with Nautilus? It is not enough for you to consume what you spend now, right?
Whoever killed Gnome 2 should definitely step up and say "maybe" was wrong.
Very good comment. I am going to talk about KDE because it is the one I know the most, although I have also seen what you say about GNOME.
That also depends in part on who is packing, although Akonadi will always be around almost always. The foregoing also applies to this part of your comment:
And be careful, I share your opinion, but that depends on the distribution. And speaking of distributions, regarding this:
Here's a dilemma. Debian releases a version that they call stable and they do so with a version which they consider to be stable, although it is not the one that the Desktop developers consider stable. The same goes for other applications, say for example Mozilla Firefox. Its stable version is 29, but if it were in the Debian repositories, they would not use version 29 in Squeeze, but a lower version that they would consider "stable". Do you understand my point?
It is assumed that every time a new version of an application is released, old bugs are being corrected with it (as well as new options being implemented). The thing with Debian is that they should have KDE 4.13 in Squeeze, since it is the stable version of KDE, but they can't, because they would have to add other libraries (in their stable version) that they consider unstable. Anyway, quite a puzzle but I think you get the point. 😀
I'm glad to know that we both share doubts about the state of the desktop in GNU / Linux, :) I have high hopes for KDE 5 because if it is truly modular, Qt may take the lead and allow both KDE and LXQt to grow and end the dual libraries, since although the competition is good, a division as large as GTK and Qt it conditions things too much. And I say that I use and like GTK better.
About what you say, dependencies, the truth is that I have not looked outside of Debian, although I think Konqueror is yes or yes. But on the second topic, although I agree that Debian is very behind (this is for another article even: we say that GNU / Linux has a lot of diversity, but in Distrowatch there are only 2 distros that are independent and focused on the desktop: KaOS and Frugalware, all the others try to cover everything and you are a computer expert and you embark on Slackware, Arch, and others, or you allow bugs with Ubuntu, OpenSuSE and others, or very old repository strips with CentOS, Debian and others - which also have its bugs, but less-. And that's why I'm almost forced to use Debian), the bug that I link was 4 years in the stable branch of KDE. From version 4.3.97 to Debian freeze at 4.8.4 there is time to fix it. In the same way that some Debian things seem clumsy to me, such as backports with late security updates, in this I was tied hand and foot: they could not fix the bug because there was no official answer from KDE and they could not remove KDE from the repositories for an error like that ...
Try Manjaro is Arch compatible, but "for humans" they are trying to be the "ubuntu" of Arch. Another excellent option is Antergos, pure Arch, also made simple. The transition from ubuntu / debian is not as traumatic as many assume. I'd say it's even traumatic.
And obviously you can test it in virtual machine first to make sure it's like this
Thanks for the recommendations, but Manjaro already tried it: it crashed when opening Liferea, 🙁. I'll keep an eye on Antergos.
I join the recommendation of Miguel ... Antergos is very very good.
Kde and gnome rules.
The new development of new distros, environments I see no case. Because when creating a new one and the same they generate their pros and cons, but since they are starting there are too many problems / bugs.
It is better to send the opinions or improvements to this environment and polish it. As in gnome3, create a tweak-tools.
It seems to me that the indicator that gnome has so many froks is rather good, because:
1. indicates that there are developers interested in doing new things with it
2. that has a very diverse group of users
3. that its modularity indicates good scalability and flexibility, something very healthy for an ex-desktop environment
In my opinion gnome is doing an excellent job, I have been following them for about 14 months in the development of gnome 3.x and I have seen mock ups and concepts that other environments simply have not arrived or have considered, in fact the case calls my attention More recent to see a very similar design between gnome and the new OSX style, if apple is copying gnome it is because something has to be right.
I also want to emphasize that pantheon is not a gnome fork, it is programmed from scratch in vala using the GTK toolkit but without using the gnome shell at all, in addition to using a granite extension to make custom widgets for GTK pantheon shell uses mutter which is the lib in which the gnome shell is based, the interesting thing is that the elementary developers have not touched a line of gnome or GTK code to change something, this allows them to use the latest stable GTK relays and use granite to have their customizations characteristics, therefore I think it is not a fork itself, since pantheon shell is based on vala + mutter + GTK (originates without fork) and granite, so therefore they do not have the need to adjust GTK like unity and mate so there is no fork.
Friend that Osx copying Gnome is false, gnome copies IOS shamelessly and Osx is also inspired by it. Here the father of the child is IOS.
Regarding forks, the question is: why don't they use KDE instead of forks? It seems to me that reality is totally contrary to what the post indicates.
I think analyzing desktop forks is an interesting topic, but it seems to me that the author is wrong to simply reduce it to a competition to see who has the least forks.
Also, I get the impression that projects like Unity, Cinnamon or Pantheon, rather than mere forks, are complete projects with a vision quite different from gnome shell. I even understand that the next version of Unity will be based on qt, I doubt that the author considers that it will be a fork of kde.
Regarding the situation of the Linux desktop, contrary to what most people think, I think it is going through a formidable situation.
Many options, taking many risks, innovating, creating, and trying to adapt to new challenges, touch devices, mobile, convergence, etc. In addition, the vast majority of the environments mentioned in the article are very professional, perfectly usable and have nothing to envy what multimillion-dollar companies offer with resources that are almost infinite when compared with the limited means available to these community projects.
I sincerely believe that the gap between free desktops and proprietary is getting narrower.
It seems to me that a lot of progress is being made in terms of design. We started to see a lot of mock-ups discussed (hotly in many cases) in a collaborative way, and designers started to adopt many practices that are common for floss programmers.
I also see a healthy distribution of tasks, where designers think, discuss and put together mocks that are then taken over by programmers. A great example of this is all the work that elementary devs have been doing.
Well, there have been other shells for kde (as a replacement for plasma) bespin shell for example. Mate is a continuation of gnome2 (similar to Trinity but with much more active development). Pantheon is not a fork of the gnome shell (it was written from 0) although it uses gnome libraries. I'm also not sure that unity is.
I also think it has to do with the community around the desktop environment. Kde is much more open, while gnome is controlled by Red Hat
Yes it is true, but Bespin is a Shell for KDE, not a Fork of KDE. It's just another pretty skin. Pantheon is written from scratch, but initially I think it was based on GNOME Shell and Unity like that. Although what they all have in common, as you say, is that they use the GNOME libraries, although in the case of Unity I don't know what the hell they are, because they also use Qt ... well.
I don't use desktops, I use window manager (openbox) and the only thing I can say is that I can install gnome programs without many problems without wanting to install gnome dependencies. This is not the case with kde programs, with kde everything is a resounding one, you can't, don't even try ... etc etc, they have put the akonadi search system down to the bone so that you can't install anything from kde without taking that cancer to your system.
Both are pretty, but the minimalism of gnome program design is indisputable
they have what is just and what is necessary and if you are missing something almost everyone has the plugin mechanism to add those features… gedit 3.12.2 has me in love, I have installed the gtksourceview styles package from git and honestly in my life I had I've seen such syntax highlighting in all languages ... I've never seen that close in any kde program.
Without further ado, I will continue with openbox where the micro and the ram are for the applications, not for the environment.
And all because of a serious GNOME ERROR in deciding that gnome shell would not be as versatile as GNOME 2.
I read that even those who use GNOME 3 a large part go for the fallback or classic mode. They are still on time, why not a future GNOME that becomes cinnamonn / Pantheon / Classic but the more customizable oGNome2 / etc? In other words, instead of forks, they are extensions or configurations. Wouldn't Gnome's people be happier with more installations and more satisfied users?
For when a Gnome tablet with an Intel SoC? They are going to release 130 models with Android, surely if one only has a DUAL BOOT, it is sold like churos. Even if it has to be a little more expensive to carry a 64 or 128 Gbs SDD
Seriously, how can anyone draw the conclusion that forking software means that it is worse than not forking?
It seems that the author was only trying to disparage GNOME compared to the other desktops with an absurd argument. Because it is evident that if someone intends to make a better desk than the existing ones, he will forge the one that is closer to what he wants, unless he has to change.
To fork any software is to flatter it, that is, although I don't know the perfect one for me, it is the one that comes closest, the one that has the best basic work.
Obviously in a blog its authors can write their opinion whatever it is, and readers can give ours that it is a poor quality post, even if they try to excuse it.
I # @ $ # @% in everything that moves, another who did not understand .. When I said that GNOME was bad for having so many forks? When I said it, where is it in the article?
What a pity that they spend their time commenting only to say that they did not like the post, and what a pity that they do not have the minimum of respect by not valuing the time spent by "someone writing" whether it is the article they like or not. Please, leave the URL of yours, I would like to see the quality of them. 😉
The article is very good, it opens up the controversy, the issue is that some Linux users are very closed and if you touch them something they like they start throwing shit against everything that is put forward, or immediately they say this post is shit because I do not agree, I do not understand that way some people do not know how to argue and that we do not all like the same things, something that I am seeing very often lately, it is good to accept different opinions, you can always get something good out of everything. But good 🙁
When did I say that GNOME was bad for having so many forks? When I said it, where is it in the article?
«Everything is a matter of taste, but there is an indicator that can help us to know to what extent a Desktop Environment is good, or satisfies its users. What is that indicator? Very easy: Of the GNU / Linux Desktop Environments, how many of them have needed a fork (or fork) to please their users? »
This paragraph clearly says how good a desktop is, if you don't have a fork it is an indicator.
"The Desktop that has had the most forks (and that's not why it's bad, but hey, some of that tells us), GNOME."
Does any of that tell us?
"But I do believe that this could be a meter"
Alluding to the forks.
And you say that I have not understood it, because it seems logical to me to draw the conclusion that you think it is bad for having so many forks, I am not the only one who has thought about it, maybe it is what you have expressed.
To your second paragraph say, yes, I spend my time to say that I did not like the post, and I explain why, because it seems to me that you draw an erroneous conclusion from a piece of information to make it coincide with your personal tastes, and it seems to me that this Post lowers the general level of the blog a lot, but at no time have I lost respect, simply if you are not interested in the feedback, then ignore it, or whatever you want, and finally, I do not write in any blog to leave you any URL, yes The problem is that you only want comments from other bloggers, having indicated it and saving me writing the comment.
The truth is that there are many troll without social life commenting, cawen to.
I agree on some points, especially with the amount of Gnome due to the discontent of the user community, and I'll be honest, I liked Gnome 2 more than 3 and Shell and Unity don't like me at all (it is only surpassed by Windows 8 as, for me, worse environment). Of the rest I do not think because I have not tried any and Mate is after all Gnome 2, without many changes.
Now the LXQt thing is more because of the issue that Gnome will stop supporting GTK2 shortly and GTK3 consumes a lot for the type of computers it is intended for, something that I myself commented at the time with respective entries. Qt4 consumes something more than GTK2, but not much more, I don't know how the consumption of GTk3 will go since I have few programs that use it, such as GMPC, File-roller and Rhythmbox
Forks are not always due to missing, many times they are due to surplus, as in the case of mate with gnome, if you make it clear that many of us are mate users because we liked gnome2, but it is not only that, it is about simplicity and use of resources, If mate became more complex over time, many of us would think of a fork or using xface (I am a user of mate and xface) And on the other hand, a hypothesis of kde fork gives me that it would never be based on adding something to it, more well it would be a tremendous pruning to return to the kde of years ago, without having to spend hours configuring and pruning after installing it so as not to need 4gm of ram, or for a machine with 1gb of ram to move.
Well, humbly my opinion is that, this excess of freedom to choose between desktop environments and forks is what makes the Gnu / Linux community scare off new users ... Particularly because looking at the comments here, it is seen that many of you have a great knowledge about it and they know how to defend their points of view extremely well. But what about new users? Those, which should be the goal point of the community, seeing so many distributions with so many environments, don't you think they would give up and bye?
I am a Windows user, I have tried quite a few distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, OpenSuse) and despite not being so demanding with the environments, they never gave me 100% satisfaction I don't know why ... Windows offers a single desktop, which can be vaguely customize, but if you ask me that has been the key to both Windows and OSX ... Imagine these 2 operating systems with as many freedoms as GNU / Linux, with hundreds of desktop environments, and even more variants or distributions of them ... They would be a total failure. I think this of the freedoms in free and open source software have many points in another, here is a proof of it.
Against*
my best desktop is windows, what a lazy gnome, which was my favorite, in each version the "revolution" is to fuck your usability with new eyecandy's
I was one of those who tried it and gave gnome3 time, and I ended up getting used to it and understanding it, but in each version everything goes to shit ... it would be so much to ask that the themes are at least compatible
When I got started on Linux I started with Ubuntu (the Unity era), and the first thing I did was install the GNOME Shell, as it looked nice and functional. But all of that fell apart when I discovered that it is usable after adding a thousand extensions and a fancy theme, as by default it is horrendous. Then I used eOS: nice, an elegant theme, I don't really have many complaints with it ... except that I can't place icons on the desktop. I went back to Ubuntu, but now with XFCE: functional, but it turned out to be an OS chimera, so I moved to Linux Mint XFCE. Finally a functional and friendly OS ... until the bug of "distrohopping" bit me: Manjaro XFCE the tickets. The good thing about this Desktop Environment with the wonder that is Pacman, until I moved to KDE. Now that I'm on Bridge Linux KDE is everything I was looking for, I fell in love with KDE and its design - more professional than XFCE or GNOME Shell in my opinion.
In conclusion, as the article says, the best DE is the one that suits what you are looking for: if you want functionality and / or productivity, XFCE. If you are old school, GNOME 2.x and their forks. If you are brave, GNOME Shell. If you want a professional desktop that you can show off to your friends, KDE.
I find that kde is by far the best environment, but there is no way that I like it ... I even consider that the most beautiful distros are KaOS and open mandriva [heir to mandriva and rosa -mageia is a joke-, which is far from the "tuneo" more spectacular to kde4]
Anyway, to download more distros [and fight with them] it has been said: laughs, Ubuntu gnome surprised me because it works better than Ubuntu, but at the same time, I was disappointed, LTS is not, it has months to be as stable as the 12.04 from which eOS = D comes out
Yes, gnome has the most forks. But they all depend on him. Wherever he goes they will have to follow him. It does not seem good or bad to me, indeed, it seems logical to me. For me, a gnome fan, the jump to gnome3, with its gnome-shell, has been great: I have known other things. And they are also great.
But gnome3 continues its way, and it is not that of the common user. Red Hat wants a specific desktop and it is within your rights. Others want theirs, and they have it too.
Using ambiguous terms will appeal to the Savonarolas on duty, and I also like to read their diatribes disguised as "reasons." Today I am conformist and conciliatory. Am i sick : p
Perhaps to clarify the issue of whether or not pantheon is a fork of the gnome shell, you should listen to what the developers themselves say: http://elementaryos.org/journal/5-myths-about-elementary
«Elementary has never used GNOME Shell, and the user experience between the two is quite different. Because work on Pantheon was happening around the same time that GNOME was developing GNOME Shell, many people seem to think that Pantheon is actually a fork of or built from GNOME Shell. »
«… Many people seem to think that we've forked GNOME Shell and / or Mutter for our DE Pantheon or window manager Gala. Neither is true (check the source for yourself) »
I'm sure that in case of talking with the developers of the other 'forks' the answers would also be extremely interesting
It's not that gnome3 is bad, it's unusable, accidentally the other days I came across an Ubuntu 12.04, what a pleasure Nautilus, thank God there are many alternatives to get rid of the bad, long live the alternatives
Nowhere in the article did I read that gnome was a bad DE or that others were better.
It seems to me that the central question is whether the few possibilities of customizing gnome shell led to the creation of its well-known forks.
I personally believe that it is so. The changes from gnome 2 to version 3 left a lot of discontent among users and even more so with gnome shell.
Certainly gnome shell can be customized as desired using gsettings or by editing the * .css, * .js and * .xml files of the themes but this is too complicated for most users and gnome-tweak-tools is insufficient .
In a survey from January this year, I read that 18% of users use gnomes and 17% use their forks.
If this is so, it has to be, and according to what can be read in different forums, that certain inflexibility of gnome-shell has something to do with it. although it is not the only reason.
Hail Mary pure .. someone who understands me .. Thank you 😀
GNOME
interesting article ... I had never thought about the amount of forks that gnome has.
the passage from gnome 2 to gnome 3 was chaos and left a huge void ... that xfce and kde can only occupy part (not everyone likes), I think that is the best explanation for the existence of so many forks on gnome . I am a clear example, when I ran out of gnome 2, I tried kde, xfce and lxde. I ended up using lxde for a while, because the other desktops did not convince me, lately I spend it around the gnome forks
Saying that kde or xfce are better or superior just because they don't have a fork doesn't seem very accurate to me.
This starts from the assumption "the more forks, the worse the desktop", perhaps if we take other variables, a different result could be reached.
An indication of worse or better would be the errors that each desktop has since if we use a desktop as it comes without any modification (difficult in Linux itself) there would be no reason to create forks, since I agree with you, these were made to customize it and Personalization doesn't make it better or worse just different or "less customizable."
It's an opinion I like KDE better.
Impossible not to give an opinion haha. I return to previous comments to those I already read: the article is bad because it does not investigate the reasons why people create forks. But it is definitely useful because it opens a good point of view to continue discussing the quality of certain projects.
In my point of view, many forks are a product of "how to implement functions." For example, visually GNU / Emacs and XEmacs are identical, in fact the same extensions can be installed, the real difference is in "the bones", that happened with Gnome and Unity for example. On the other hand, sometimes a user takes a FLOSS program and makes a fork to control its development or customize it in their own way, without having to be aware of whether "the patch was accepted or not" and I see a lot of that in Cinnamon .
Finally, another group of users created "forks on a smaller scale" precisely because the original software is very good. For example, I use DWM as a graphical interface, I think the standard software is excellent, but I add my own patches and additional ones precisely because "I think only I use it" and I rarely synchronize my DWM with the official one. You can see that in github or other similar networks there are many forks created like this, it is true, they are forks of smaller projects but why wouldn't a group of users do the same with something bigger?
As you see, there is much more to write in this article. Regards.
Elav. Don't waste time with people who only criticize. Differentiate constructive criticism from those that are only made to touch balls. The best thing you can do is ignore them. It is precisely what bothers them the most because it is just the opposite of what they want. In my town they say. What does not leave, leave it.