Is 'killing' Gnome right for Linux?

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I just wondered what people here thought about :

this article in which some bloke says Gnome should be left behind and KDE embraced by all developers

I can't say I understand it all or even half of it, but it surprised me, being new to Linux. Is it just flame bait?

It doesn't seem likely, as far as I can see, that Gnome would be 'killed', as he says. I mean, KDE is fine but I tend to like the look of Gnome and I haven't tried others but will before too long (at least live versions). I imagine there are lots of others who like Gnome too and wouldn't want it to sink. Is the situation like what this bloke says? :huh:

PS : Warning, it is a long article but I did read it all and all the responses with interest. I just wanted to know what some of the Linux people here think, if they have a chance to read it.

[Barney T. Administrators]

Why limit choices? Just because the majority of computer users use Windows, does that mean we should get rid of OSX and Linux? That is just absurd. Variety gives the user the option to make personal choice preferences. And choices are a good thing.

Just my 2 cents.....

Barney

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

Yea, well I agree. I don't believe in limiting choices either. I guess I was asking more if you think one desktop will take over and leave everything else to be ignored and to die. I think it is cool that there is such variety with Linux. I guess it scares me to think that variety may give way to a 'one standard way' of doing things.

[Evolution]

well one advantage to having fewer desktop environments is that theoretically you'd have more developers working on the one instead of being spread out.

The only thing I don't really like about gnome is the file manager...

[Mike]

choice is a good thing, too much choice is a bad thing. it's up to you to decide what is 'too much', i'd go for keeping main desktop environments, kde/gnome/xfce and one of the *box's. it's pointless having a lot of desktop environments that add nothing new except looking different which generally could be done as a theme option for whatever desktop environment it got based off.

in short, linux should have options, but not too many where the difference in choices is just the default appearence.

[MR_Candyman]

honestly, I think gnome is falling behind. KDE is always striving to improve upon itself (even by making itself smaller and faster), and gnome just doesn't really try to advance itself much anymore.

I do like choice and would hate to see gnome go, but the developers are slowly making that happen it seems

[+virtorio MVC]

I pretty much agree with the article and believe it?s the lack of consistency which has always been (in recently history anyway) the main stumbling point of Linux.

That?s my 28 (NZD) cents.

[Evolution]

one advantage with choice, is that you get to see many developers have different solutions to the same problem.... adding more creativity and of course preventing the environments from being stagnant if they like to compete :D

...then again over the past few years I haven't seen much development for Linux in the desktop environment...

[Rudy]

i used to like gnome better but looking at the new kde 4 screenshots.......maybe it's time for gnome to go

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

And even then, it's just a group of people working on something they like, what's going to stop them from working on it?

[rpgfan]

In the end Linux professionals have less experience in the desired field of expertise than their windows counterparts.

I think that is not very fair at all. After all, what exactly is a "Linux professional?" A command-line guru? A Linux application programmer? Technically, I have more experience with the Linux command line than with Windows since I can write a shell script to do pretty much whatever I want. With batch files and shell scripting on Windows, I can do next to nothing, even though I use Windows about 75% of the time. That idea makes me wonder whether I would be a "Linux professional" or not considering the fact that I only use it 25% of the time and can use so many of the tools available. I personally consider myself a Linux newbie after two years of Linux use. Simply put, the number of tools available on Windows when compared with Linux (even with add-on tools on Windows) are too few and not as usable.

As for the article overall, GNOME probably won't die. The only way it would is if GNU suddenly died, which probably won't happen considering the amount of software that they provide. It would probably be the death of Linux! Do I think GNOME should die? No, not really. That's like saying Fluxbox, Xfce, IceWM, etc. should die because GNOME and KDE are the only ones that people use or that Linux and Apple should get out of the OS market because of the fact that MS Windows is the main one and has been for years. It isn't fair. The whole point is freedom of choice. GNOME and KDE are the most commonly used probably because of the user-friendliness of those two window managers (many Linux newbies like this concept), while the others are typically for speed, work efficiency, technical users, and other reasons and groups of users.

I like GNOME, but I like KDE more. I find it easier to use, while providing a colorful and pleasant environment in which I can work. As for others, I still prefer KDE to others because of the fact that KDE is so easily customizable whereas Xfce, etc. However, without GNOME, GTK+ wouldn't be so popular (it is rather unpleasing to the eye, by default). As a result, wonderful software such as Pidgin that are cross-platform thanks to GTK+ being cross-platform would either be remade using Qt, SDL or something else entirely. Let users have the choice of GNOME, KDE or whatever other WM they want. There's no point in saying something should "die" just because it doesn't suit the needs of a programmer. If you want to develop windowed software for Linux and you want applications to be independent of any WM, use X. After all, Windows still requires the Windows API. It is technically a dependency because without it, you can't write Windows applications. Alternatively, if you use .NET, you need the .NET Framework and I believe the Platform SDK as well. The same can be said of the Carbon or Cocoa APIs/frameworks on Macs. Nothing is without dependency. Linux simply calls it when it sees it. If you need GTK+ for certain applications such as Pidgin, GIMPShop and GIMP, the package manager on Linux should tell you that you need it. Likewise, if you want to install Kopete instead of Pidgin, you would require the KDE libraries. Considering those two are the biggest libraries in the Linux world, you can't just "kill" one.

[Evolution]

After reading the article I have to agree that having one desktop environment for linux would be better.... right now with all these choices, it's not very attractive for many developers to write programs for linux... having to modify them for each desktop environment.

If there was just one OS, then Linux could actually unite and become a stronger force rather than fractured... It must just be me, but I haven't seen really any progress from any of the desktop environments....

while Linux does have a number of features, at least Microsoft is improving with each year etc. i.e. from XP to XP SP2 then to Vista.... Is Linux doing the same?

Unless you're a huge fan of Linux or writing exclusively for the command prompt, the developer will choose to write for Windows and Mac and not Linux.

[rson451]

i dont agree that getting rid of gnome would do anything other than **** alot of people off. for instance, lets just say the only two choices were gnome and kde. if gnome was killed off, what would people use with lower system specs. i realize that there are other things like xfce and all, but its a theoretical question. there are choices for a reason, choice isnt always because some people like how one looks over another.

[ViperAFK]

well one advantage to having fewer desktop environments is that theoretically you'd have more developers working on the one instead of being spread out.

The only thing I don't really like about gnome is the file manager...

Definitely agree, nautilus is horrible. I like gnome alot besides nautlius. I usually don't care which one I use. Usually whatever coems defualt in the distro. But KDE4 is looking pretty amazing.

[rpgfan]

Don't forget that too many choices can confuse people sometimes. See "15 Different Ways to Shut Down Windows Vista" for examples. :p

No, I'm not bashing Vista intentionally. I'm merely referencing the somewhat true article at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html. While things like Suspend, laptop-related stuff, and keyboard-specific stuff aren't universally valid, there are still two different ways to shut down Vista - Off/On icon in the Start menu and the "Shut Down" menu item in the menu list triggered by clicking the arrow next to the lock icon. Of course, hibernation is a form of shutting down, except it saves whatever was happening in memory, so that means that there is another way, bringing us up to three. Of course, one could create a shortcut on the desktop or in the Start menu, type "shutdown" with certain parameters in the Search/Run box of the Start menu, etc., but I'm merely referring to the everyday casual user that doesn't use the computer in a more technical way. Even if the title of the article isn't very correct, there is some truth to it. ;)

[JustGeorge]

I want to like KDE more, but everytime I try it, I get a bunch of stupid little bugs no matter what distro or hardware I run it on. Gnome just seems more stable despite its ugly visual appearance.

[shockz]

Typical... the one I like is the one everyone else hates.

[toadeater]

They should both be replaced by something that is plug-in based and isn't limited to one or the other's apps. It could scale from being a barebones GUI, to a giant, bloated 3D-multimedia monstrosity with apps for everything. Standardization on one system would definitely help development, and if it's not restrictive, users and distros would still have a choice of how they want to customize their stuff.

[CrimsonRedMk Member]

Gnome user, but KDE wanter....but...KDE hater? The thing is...each of the two has it's ups and downs. All developers should just keep doing what they're doing, it's working out great so far! Plus, what if I were to say that all developers should move to Windows, I mean, Linux only has like 4% market share and consumers don't like this and that (sarcasm*)...that's not right either.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Kill off everything but Gnome? Why not just kill of Linux, and have those developers develop for the One True Platform? All Windows, no Linux, no OSX, no BSDs. Does that make sense? Not to me, either.

People complain about the number of distros. They complain about the number of desktop environments. They complain about the number of text editors.

I just want to complain about the number of people complaining.

I like choice, and I don't want anyone else forcing their decisions upon me.

[ntbnnt]

This article makes no sense and sounds like a load of bait. I love choice and find myself completely capable of choosing what desktop environment I like and what programs I want to use. Choice has enabled me to find cool new things everyday and every time I cut on my computer; I didn't have that choice with Windows, which is why I popped in Debian and switched. I love the fact that I can switch to FLuxbox or KDE tomorrow when I feel like it (using Gnome now, but last month I was playing with KDE) or want a complete change of flavor. Freedom to develop, to switch, to choose is the whole idea of Linux, so I really don't see how removing Gnome will do anything but kick Linux in the ass.

All these people complaining is really stupid.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

Kill off everything but Gnome? Why not just kill of Linux, and have those developers develop for the One True Platform? All Windows, no Linux, no OSX, no BSDs. Does that make sense? Not to me, either.

People complain about the number of distros. They complain about the number of desktop environments. They complain about the number of text editors.

I just want to complain about the number of people complaining.

I like choice, and I don't want anyone else forcing their decisions upon me.

Unfortunately, that amount of choice does have it's downfall. For a new user, it's a daunting task to try to figure out what to go with. Not to mention, developer resources get split when there's 8 different UI's available. What Linux really needs is something like Ubuntu, but even better and something that can really gain the support of a large portion of the linux community and, through popularity, set some standards.

[kyro]

that is one ****ing flamebait article, who the **** is he to say kill off gnome? i can then say kill the ****ing people who try to ****ing blog such a ****ing flamebait article to get ****ing traffic.

****ing blogger.

[Sciuto]

Typical... the one I like is the one everyone else hates.

*seconds that* lol, I don't like KDE at all x_x;

And I agree, I don't like nautilus either, so I removed it and just using Thunar (XFCE's FM). Works just as well, only no desktop icons but you can fix that with rox or iDesk and such.. But I just don't like the looks of KDE, but that's a personal thing.

[tmahmood]

I don't like KDE. And I don't see any good reasons why anyone should consider killing a solid and usable DE like GNOME. And again Linux is all about choices and freedom.