Questions for deployments of GNOME [LWN.net]

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 10, 2006 21:35 UTC (Sat) by philips (guest, #937)
In reply to: Questions for deployments of GNOME by xtifr
Parent article: Questions for deployments of GNOME

> I do spot-check KDE articles once in a while, just to see if
> there are GNOME trolls as annoying as the KDE trolls,
> and the answer seems to be, generally, no.

There are no "KDE trolls". There are just ex-GNOME-users, proclaimed as "nobodies" by Havoc.

to post comments

Insecurity about the plusplus

Posted Jun 11, 2006 7:44 UTC (Sun) by warmcat1 (guest, #31975) [Link]

It seems Fedora is going to backburner KDE by pushing it into Extras for FC6. This is being sold as a chance for KDE to flourish under non-Redhat control in Extras, but the fact is Gnome will be in Fedora "Core" and KDE won't.

I repeatedly try Gnome at intervals because I am sensitive to the signals coming out of RHAT that Gnome is the future for them. But every time it turns into a Gnome desktop full of KDE apps (kate, even konqueror for the split views) and I just shrug and go back to KDE.

Anyway I wanted to propose a possible reason why there is such a divide other than the history over QT. How many Gnome devs know C++ I wonder? C++ in the kernel keeps coming back and each time it seems the problem is the bulk of devs there don't know C++, are leery of being newbified by it and so reject it. I wonder if this is part of keeping the two sides so polarized.

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 11, 2006 9:20 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (22 responses)

I don't know how many of us there are, but anecdotal evidence suggests to me at least that switching from GNOME to KDE is common (generally because you don't work in the One Way GNOME is set up to let you work; you can't change it because most of the customizability has been torn out), while switching from KDE to GNOME, well, it may happen (possibly if you're offended by the idea of `moc' or something, or hate the idea of C++), but I've never met anyone it's happened to. Why go from something flexible to something inflexible, unless you're trying to install it for a lot of random clueless users?

(There's nothing *wrong* with clueless users or users who dislike flexibility, but I doubt it describes your average LWN subscriber well.)

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 11, 2006 13:21 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (7 responses)

The reason you go from something 'flexible' to something simple is you go from something that 'doesn't work' to something that does.

It happenned to me with Gnome 1.x series continiously, which is why I refused to use it. You have a hundred different things, you don't know what they do, and if you select this or that shit would randomly break.

Same thing happens to me every time I try out KDE. It would start out ok, but then I try to set it up how I like it and it would all turn into crap. Fonts get messed up, themes get messed up. I don't have time or desire to figure all that mess out.

I think people got WAY to much time on their hands to troll on about KDE vs Gnome. The only thing I see is a bunch of resentment from KDE users that Gnome gets more attention or that they've 'lost' Suse or something like that.

What sort of customisbility is lost in Gnome? I hear people go on and on about that and when you ask them about it they usually cry about Metacity or whatnot.

That's very easy to fix; install openbox, type openbox --replace, log out while having 'save session' selected, log back in and you have all the keybindings and program by program window manipulation you could ever want. It has a very nice and well documented xml configuration file also.

If you don't like 'spatial' mode then a simple fix is to install gtweakui tools, run gtweakui-nautilus and check mark 'always use browser mode', OR use the file browser icon to browse files, OR go into the gconf stuff and edit it yourself.

Seriously Gnome is a very solid desktop environment, I can understand somebody wanting to use something else, but I can't understand people wanting to see it aborted.

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 8:23 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

People want to see it aborted because it's a high profile FOSS project (they even got the GNU imprimatur, back when QT was unfree) that explicitly, violently, and vociferously rejects the notion of letting the user control their own computer. For a start.

Also ironically enough for a project that started only because of QT licensing problems, they abuse the LGPL for benefit of slave-ware makers and tout that as an advantage.

I really wish someone would force RMS to use GNOME. I bet you within an hour he'd go postal.

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 15:09 UTC (Mon) by wilck (guest, #29844) [Link] (5 responses)

That's very easy to fix; install openbox, type openbox --replace, log out while having 'save session' selected, log back in ... a simple fix is to install gtweakui tools, run gtweakui-nautilus and check mark 'always use browser mode', OR use the file browser icon to browse files, OR go into the gconf stuff and edit it yourself.

Is that GNOME's notion of simplicity? If I'm a (GNOME, not Linux) Newbie, how am I supposed to figure this out?

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 15:12 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (4 responses)

If you're a newbie, why would you care?

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 17:29 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Because a Linux user who was not used to GNOME might want to... retain some of the system behaviour they were used to?

(This should be obvious.)

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 19:55 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (2 responses)

Good, a Linux poweruser should be able to read the doc, or search...

If you want to have poweruser features, you should be willing to learn the system. Why should those that just want the base featureset have to face a zillion things, that are useless to them?

You set stuff like that up ONE TIME, gconf is perfect for that. (Ok, I'm getting tired of gconf myself, but that's because I'm constantly playing with Compiz/XGL, and checking new stuff out constantly, which isn't really what gconf is meant for).

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 22:38 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

gconf is not meant for situations in which you might want to configure the system?!

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 22:51 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

Yes, but not repeatedly like I'm doing.

The things you need to change often is, of course, in a dialog.

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 0:19 UTC (Mon) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link] (1 responses)

I tried KDE first, and still prefer GNOME (though I don't use either one as my main desktop). I know several people who have tried both and chosen GNOME for its cleaner, less cluttered interface. I also know several who have chosen KDE for its simpler, more up-front tweakability. But most people I know have simply stuck with whichever one they encountered first (or whichever one happens to be the default on whichever system they're using now).

Inflexible? You obviously have not looked at GNOME very closely. I find the number of options--the amount of flexibility--to be truly mindboggling! Of course, they made a deliberate decision to not clutter the basic interface with a million options, but that does not mean that they removed the options--far from it. Granted, you may have to read a little more documentation to take advantage of some of GNOME's more advanced options, but I wouldn't think your average LWN subscriber was scared of documentation.

The system I normally use instead of either GNOME or KDE has no visible options whatsoever. All configuration is done with a text editor. And my own setup is HIGHLY tweaked and configured. Would you describe this as inflexible? And if not, then how can you possibly say that GNOME is inflexible?

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 11:12 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Well, how should I put it. Many GNOME options are available only from something which appears to have been designed by looking at the Windows registry editor and removing what vestiges of usability remained in it. We have all the joys of limited documentation, no way to associate options with each other, no way to add comments, no sensible way to synchronize options between machines without messing around with gconf-backend stuff...

... as I see it, we have all the disadvantages of non-GUIs, and all the disadvantages of GUIs, and damn few advantages.

gconf is a nice idea, but the way it's been *used*, *shudder*. No, a centralized configuration system is *not* an excuse to push all the user-interface part of that configuration into a single app that does no part of its job very well (an app that is, note, *not accessible* from the user interfaces of the programs it configures).

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 8:11 UTC (Mon) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] (3 responses)

I think the only truth here is that there are huge amounts of trolls and "IMHO the truth is like this":s around.

I used KDE for 6 years, then changed to GNOME. I've now stayed with it happily for 2,5 years. For me the reason is that with GNOME I actually worked more with the applications, not the desktop environment itself. Like is often said.

KDE is nice, too, and if KDE4 is cleaner / less cluttered, I could try it too...

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 11:16 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

OK, I think I've had enough disproof: some people really don't like customizability.

(I'll bet you're all *vi* users too. ;} )

This is probably symptomatic of a fundamental division between big-ball-of-muddists and theoretical-cleanliness-and-damn-the-torpedoesists. (Both like clean underpinnings; they differ in the amount of stuff they're willing to tolerate piled atop those underpinnings.)

As the continued existence of Emacs/vi wars testifies, this division is unlikely ever to close, and I suppose it shouldn't be considered surprising that it's manifested in the GUI world as well.

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 20:32 UTC (Mon) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] (1 responses)

> (I'll bet you're all *vi* users too. ;} )

Actually i think vi stinks reminds me too much of "edlin" piece of dross

give me "joe any day ..

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 22:40 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

How surprising that you're not aware of the ancestry of vi, despite its wide documentation in hard-to-find places like the vim documentation (hint, it's a new face on ex, derived from ed, of which edlin is a crude and braindamaged clone).

It is not even slightly surprising that vi is reminiscent of edlin. The difference is that vi is actually useful (even though I can't remember how to use it from moment to moment, demonstrably millions *can*.)

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 16:32 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (7 responses)

I don't know how many of us there are, but anecdotal evidence suggests to me at least that switching from KDE to GNOME is common (generally because you don't work in the total UI chaos KDE is set up to let you work; you can't change it because you can't find where in the forest of of options, like "Open In Cervisia" the thing you want is.), while switching from GNOME to KDE, well, it may happen (possibly if you're offended by the idea of `Glade' or something, or hate the idea of C), but I've never met anyone it's happened to. Why go from something intutive and usable to something with a totally chaotic UI, unless you're trying to install it for a lot of random clueless users and are looking for job security?

(There's nothing *wrong* with looking for job security, but I doubt it describes your average LWN subscriber well.)

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 12, 2006 17:30 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, that was funny, but... not useful. Most of your attempted inversions, well, weren't.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 12, 2006 19:58 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] (4 responses)

The inverted post was at least as useful as yours. That you choose KDE over GNOME is fine, but please spare us the condescending speculation about why someone might have a different preference. Offended by C++? Get a grip.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 12, 2006 22:42 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, I originally picked GNOME over KDE because I found moc to be aesthetically ugly; it's provably unnecessary, as libstdc++ makes clear. Later, the simple usability gap forced me to switch back, unwillingly at first.

So it wasn't a `condescending speculation'; it's actually based on reality.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 13, 2006 16:53 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] (2 responses)

Regardless of whether C++ offends you the tone of your comment was condescending and you deserved the sarcasm you complained about. I've tried KDE and each time I find it an unusable mess, but unlike you I attribute that to my own preferences rather than some deep desktop principle that only the clueless could fail to appreciate. I'm glad you're happy with KDE but you're going to have to accept that not everyone wants the same things from a desktop environment.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Posted Jun 14, 2006 21:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

You really are completely incapable of comprehending what you read, aren't you?

I was quite clear from the start that I don't think that `everyone wants the same things', and that the existence of GNOME is a good thing. I'm just interested in finding out what it is that GNOME users think they can't get from KDE (I don't need to know what KDE users think they're not getting from GNOME: I know that already).

This is not so that KDE can 'conquer' GNOME or some childish idiocy like that. It's so that *both environments can get better*. (Where your `only the clueless could fail to appreciate' stuff came from, I have no idea. I *do* think that GNOME is probably well-targetted *at* the clueless, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily targetted *only* at the clueless, the protestations of some of its developers notwithstanding.)

Of course, if you prefer to believe that everyone who prefers one environment to the other does so for entirely unrelated reasons, and no general principles can be drawn from any of them, well, why are you even *having* this discussion? If you're right, you're not doing anything but wasting your time arguing with me; and if you're wrong, you're *still* wasting your time. If I'm right, I might be able to help the desktop environments improve, in some small way...

Nonsense from Start to Stop

Posted Jun 14, 2006 21:56 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

Wherever did I get the idea that you think only the clueless would not appreciate KDE? Here: "Why go from something flexible to something inflexible, unless you're trying to install it for a lot of random clueless users?" That is not some high minded query aimed at understanding what GNOME users think they can't get from KDE. Take a break from patting yourself on the back for armchair desktop improvement and you'll discover what you've actually posted is inflammatory bigotry.

Where is your evidence that I believe "everyone who prefers one environment to the other does so for entirely unrelated reasons"? What I actually said was that not everyone wants the same things. That doesn't rule out groups of people who do want the same things. I'm amused that you accuse me of not comprehending what I read (mostly because you don't comprehend what you wrote) and then immediately demonstrate your own reading abilities... or lack thereof.

Questions for deployments of GNOME

Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:13 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Every time I try GNOME I'm left with an impression that it's a disparate bunch of applications with a window manager over the top. KDE seems more coherent as a whole, to me.

Every time I try KDE, it isn't long before something stops working, or fails to start. That doesn't seem to happen with GNOME; GNOME seems more stable, to me.

But then, those are just initial impressions... because every time I try either of them, it isn't long before I end up scurrying back to a blend of fluxbox and screen. 20 years of developing GUI programs and they're not actually getting any better, just bigger; everyone is convinced that they know The One True Way to present everything, and nobody can agree on what it is, whilst in the meantime everyone's so busy tacking "features" on the side that nothing ever gets smaller or works better. (No, I'm not going to go out and buy a brand new computer just because you can't be bothered to consider efficiency.) And then the most useful programs to me - bash, mplayer, vi, emacs, mutt, elm, xpdf, firefox, OpenOffice, seq24, dillo, links, LyX, Ted, TeXmacs... I could go on - don't even integrate with either system anyway!

If I have to live with a bunch of disparate interfaces and philosophies anyway, why on earth should I give up the relative simplicity, stability, speed and compactness of the command line? Honestly, until you can be vaguely useful to me without being annoyingly slow and/or crashing every 5 minutes on a box with half a gig of memory, a CPU which doubles as a storage heater, a plague on both your houses!