Is 'killing' Gnome right for Linux?


Recommended Posts

seta-san

yeah. kill gnome. it needs to die. one desktop for a unified linux!

Link to post
Share on other sites
ntbnnt

^ one desktop will not unify linux, that's nieve... there is simply too many differences between the distros for one GUI to bring it all into one...

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

it's not a simple problem of choice. it's a problem of standardization for industry and developers. the existance of Gnome provides problems for creating a unified system supported by all.

If you don't ****ing like GNOME, install KDE and stop whining!
Link to post
Share on other sites
ntbnnt

No it doesn't - source code is source code - one GUI will not change anything but the GUI and maybe some apps built right into GNOME, but it doesn't mean they can't be built for something else. You can build the damn code on any platform you like. I mean, GNOME has its own devs, KDE has its devs, so what are you saying, move all the GNOME devs to KDE? That logic just fails to me, especially if each one has its own devs anyway. I see no lack of resources developing in the Linux community. I mean, what are you guys asking for, Linux 2008 then four years later a release of Linux 2012?

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

you are thinking too much in the "choice is good" mentality. the libs to make gnome are inferior to those of KDE. gnome could as easily be converted to the other. linux will NEVER EVER EVER succede in the desktop market with out any standardization. EVER!!! PERIOD.

linux will fail continually until there is commercial software available. not everything has to be opensource... such as computer games. the development of games is every bit as involved as hollywood production, if not more so. That kind of money definately warrents the developers getting to keep their own source code and all rights to production and distribution. without standard libraries and the such in linux it will be impossible to these peices of commercial software without a technical support nightmare.

I worked in tech support for Cox Communications for about two years. It's a painful experience supporting even the most simple things such as renewing an IP address when you are talking to someone who has no clue what they are doing... and you expect these companies to explain to users how to do something like setup QT OR GTK to work with their specific software... only for them to have to call another tech support line to get it reconfigured AGAIN! for another peice of software. It's your logic that fails to meet reality. Sometimes i think many linux years bible is the stupid GPL license. They can't get the word "Free" out of their head. Lets face it. this is real life... NOTHING IS FREE. It's a fairy tale written in legal terms made to make people feel like they are sticking it to the man.

No it doesn't - source code is source code - one GUI will not change anything but the GUI and maybe some apps built right into GNOME, but it doesn't mean they can't be built for something else. You can build the damn code on any platform you like. I mean, GNOME has its own devs, KDE has its devs, so what are you saying, move all the GNOME devs to KDE? That logic just fails to me, especially if each one has its own devs anyway. I see no lack of resources developing in the Linux community. I mean, what are you guys asking for, Linux 2008 then four years later a release of Linux 2012?
Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

Your "nothing is free" direction is toward "free as in free beer". When we say Linux is "free", it is meant as "free as in free speech". You are allowed to use it as you wish. Copy it as you wish. You have "freedom". I paid for my first copy of Linux. Does that mean "OMG! Linux is not teh fr33!!"? No.

As a Linux user, I understand that my ISP doesn't "support" me. That is fine. But when it comes time to checking connectivity, the command line is the same regardless of GTK or QT. And support staff has different instructions already for Windows 98 vs XP vs Vista and such. Relax a bit. If Linux starts getting popular, Cox can say they support "Ubuntu" Linux only, and add that to their variations of Windows, and OSX support.

EDIT: and I rather like the GPL. Not everything needs to be coded under it. I have UT2k4, and there is no need for me to protest that isn't Open Source, or GPL, or even BSD licensed. But for an OS like Linux, certainly you agree that the developers can choose to license their code as they see fit. And a License that requires the initially-given freedoms to be passed on isn't necessarily evil or stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7
Your "nothing is free" direction is toward "free as in free beer". When we say Linux is "free", it is meant as "free as in free speech". You are allowed to use it as you wish. Copy it as you wish. You have "freedom". I paid for my first copy of Linux. Does that mean "OMG! Linux is not teh fr33!!"? No.

As a Linux user, I understand that my ISP doesn't "support" me. That is fine. But when it comes time to checking connectivity, the command line is the same regardless of GTK or QT. And support staff has different instructions already for Windows 98 vs XP vs Vista and such. Relax a bit. If Linux starts getting popular, Cox can say they support "Ubuntu" Linux only, and add that to their variations of Windows, and OSX support.

EDIT: and I rather like the GPL. Not everything needs to be coded under it. I have UT2k4, and there is no need for me to protest that isn't Open Source, or GPL, or even BSD licensed. But for an OS like Linux, certainly you agree that the developers can choose to license their code as they see fit. And a License that requires the initially-given freedoms to be passed on isn't necessarily evil or stupid.

Yes, that is important to clarify. The 'free' distinction you discuss is also discussed here. This is what is more important to me than the money. For the record, everything on my computer now cost me nothing beyond the download costs. But, Seta-San, as Mark says, that is not the key here. The key here is freedom. And in my case also it is only MOST of my software that is free that way. I have an nvidia driver that is proprietary, but it cost me nothing. It is not 'free' in the way the word is used here though (because it is closed source). If there is software I really want and it is proprietary, I will buy it. But I prefer freedom.

I really like the idea of free software. I don't know how to write software code so I can't make it. But I want to learn more and help others when I can. I also bought some stuff from the Ubuntu shop to support them because I use Ubuntu (and because I think their branding is cool). I am also excited about Shift Linux and am going to give the final of 0.5 a try. Wouldn't it be cool if Neowin became the place to go for a great Linux distro and support for that distro here in the forums?

Seta-San, just look at the companies out there making money off of 'free' software. That is because, well... just because it is free as in freedom doesn't mean it has to be free as in beer. :D

PS Foub, I'm a bit of Gnome fan myself. It strikes me as a clean and efficient desktop. I know others like other desktops, and that's fine and cool. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
moonfleet

Personally, one of the reasons I like Linux and I don't just give it up is BECAUSE I can use GNOME. I like the more minimalistic, more elegant look. I've used both KDE and GNOME, but I prefer the latter. KDE seems cluttered and just too much like Windows to me. Not that I hate Windows, since I do use it a lot of the time, but when I use Linux, I want something different. I also think that even if someone could standardize the Linux desktop more by eliminating all but one desktop, it would be "window-izing" Linux. Linux is about choices. If we don't have choices, what's the point? And besides, only newbies think that the desktop is Linux itself. The desktop is an option, something that is on top of Linux. That's the one thing that has always bothered me most about Windows. What you get is what you get, and very little customization is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wildworld_ammsa

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=512334

Gnome and dieing? i don't think so!

At univ i desperately tried to find (and found) a servers with ssh and gnome support because of standard suse+kde setup they had there. i cant stand kde and to be honest i don't see it's posing any threat to gnome anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sartoris
...

Desktop Environment (eg, GNOME, KDE, Flux, etc) -- what we as users see
	 ^
	 |
Development Platform (eg, GTK, qt) -- what developers use to make the programs
	 ^
	 |
Linux kernal -- what Linus Torvalds and his pals make

The developers have a problem at the middle level: which platform to use? If there were more cross-over at this level, things would be easier for developers. I have no opinion here as I am not a developer, but whatever attracts more developers to Linux seems to be a good thing. Is it?

...

So if Gnome where to be rewritten with qt, or KDE with GTK, would everyone be happy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou

I don't think Gnome should be forcefully killed off but what I do think should happen is that all the key Linux supporters / developers get behind one consumer based Linux distro (as well as a consumer orientated server, like with Windows) and put all effort into that. They should pick either KDE or Gnome, but not both. They should pick ONE internet browser, whether Firefox (for cross-platform consistency) or something else. They should then pick the best application for each desired feature and remove the rest. They should pick one theme, with variations on it and with the option for users to pick a completely different skin (though they won't be included). Everything should be aimed at producing a user friendly experience designed to rival Windows but with more flexibility. What Linux needs for consumer success (a logical aim if Linux doesn't want to fall behind the big players like Apple / Microsoft) is an indentity, not an absurd number of applications that few people will ever use. Then instead of creating new distros based off that for everyone that ones something different people should create new modules that replace existing core modules, much like Firefox is developed to replace IE rather than shipping a new version of Windows with just a different browser.

That's my opinion but obviously a lot of people disagree otherwise we wouldn't have so many different distros. I think the huge variety in Linux is a serious problem to widespread adoption but it's hard to tell whether that is even an aim of Linux. It was hyped up many years back with distros appearing on the front of many magazines for years but then died out when XP came about because it offered a much better experience to the general user.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

Even if you took all current KDE devels, and brainwashed and forced them to love only Gnome... How many KDE users do you think would say "I still like KDE better than Gnome"? And a certain percentage would also be programmers (not currently working on KDE), but would be able to continue development.

You see, you can't force something to die when it is open source. It will die on its own when it is no longer practical or is feature-replaced by something else that competes against it. No one has the ability to arbitrarily declare something "dead".

Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK
I don't think Gnome should be forcefully killed off but what I do think should happen is that all the key Linux supporters / developers get behind one consumer based Linux distro (as well as a consumer orientated server, like with Windows) and put all effort into that. They should pick either KDE or Gnome, but not both. They should pick ONE internet browser, whether Firefox (for cross-platform consistency) or something else. They should then pick the best application for each desired feature and remove the rest. They should pick one theme, with variations on it and with the option for users to pick a completely different skin (though they won't be included). Everything should be aimed at producing a user friendly experience designed to rival Windows but with more flexibility. What Linux needs for consumer success (a logical aim if Linux doesn't want to fall behind the big players like Apple / Microsoft) is an indentity, not an absurd number of applications that few people will ever use. Then instead of creating new distros based off that for everyone that ones something different people should create new modules that replace existing core modules, much like Firefox is developed to replace IE rather than shipping a new version of Windows with just a different browser.

That's my opinion but obviously a lot of people disagree otherwise we wouldn't have so many different distros. I think the huge variety in Linux is a serious problem to widespread adoption but it's hard to tell whether that is even an aim of Linux. It was hyped up many years back with distros appearing on the front of many magazines for years but then died out when XP came about because it offered a much better experience to the general user.

Firefox is pretty much the standard in most distros already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tmahmood

GNOME is not dieing.period. End of discussion :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.