why so much schism?

[N00b-un-2]

no one is demanding anything, least of all customer service. I'm in a minority of one apparently so this conversation has obviously run it's course. Apparently I am the only person on this thread who sees anything wrong with the current state of Gnome 3 so continuing to discuss it is pointless.

[tartalo]

Apparently I am the only person on this thread who sees anything wrong with the current state of Gnome 3 so continuing to discuss it is pointless.

N00b-un-2, Also I believe that the high number of Gnome forks is an indicative of dissatisfaction with the changes in main project, and that it was nice when Ubuntu played a role that perhaps doesn't play so well recently.

But I think that you fail to understand what most people tried to tell you: That diversity in itself is actually a positive thing rather than a negative one, and that unless one is able and willing to make an effort to improve Gnome, celebrating the existing alternatives is wiser than feeling miserable about something that's out of your control.

Enjoy it.

[kevinmchapman]

Behind the times, I know, but a couple of pages ago....


I believe that our aims are incompatible, even though I agree with much of what you say. You see, against most of the correspondents here, I have no problems with someone imposing their way of thinking on others (because Linux can always offer an alternative, no matter how much one way dominates). What Linux could do with trying is pushing the one true way (Unity and Gnome Shell are trying). Diversity has failed at world domination. I suspect one direction will also fail, but worth a try

Not a popular viewpoint, it's true, but mine anyway. You like the idea of customising the one true way. I don't care.

Of course, what you are looking for is a customisable Gnome 2 with GTK3. Those days are over. I still don't think we need 6 or 7 different Gnome 2 alternatives, so I agree that far. Beyond that, I am more pragmatic.

[tartalo]

Diversity has failed at world domination. I suspect one direction will also fail, but worth a try

There are existing efforts for a common ground:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/colla...workgroups/lsb
http://www.freedesktop.org

But trying to dictate anything beyond a common ground wouldn't work. In the free software world, natural leaders will arise by own merits not by artificially limiting choice, which is impossible by the very same definition of free software.

[vasa1]

...
As Canonical pushes forward into emerging markets, more and more people will experience Unity as their first desktop environment.
...

The full Unity experience assumes, IMO, decent internet connectivity. Unless the user is knowledgeable enough to turn off suggestions sourced from the internet, using the Dash could be a drag for those with slower connections or capped bandwidth.

Just wanted to make this point even though it isn't the "issue" here.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

Ok, Noob-un-2: how about this:

1. Get in touch with the Gnome project and try to get involved i.e. as a tester etc. Any way you can have some influence over the project. Needless to say, as a newbie you won't have much of an influence at all at the beginning but you'll work your way up. I'm not being facetious here. If you want to influence the Gnome project, you need to get involved.

2. Lucid Lynx LTS still has a couple months of support left. I believe it goes EOS when Raring Ringtail is released. You still have a couple of months of Ubuntu + Gnome 2 in which you can think about how to bring the Gnome 3, Unity and Cinnamon projects back together again Skeksis/Mystic style. Prophecy, hmm?

3. Get back on your blog, which hasn't been updated since you wrote about Gnome 2 and schism back in May 2012.

[kansasnoob]

no one is demanding anything, least of all customer service. I'm in a minority of one apparently so this conversation has obviously run it's course. Apparently I am the only person on this thread who sees anything wrong with the current state of Gnome 3 so continuing to discuss it is pointless.

Therefore I'm going to respectfully request this be closed

Edit: You're not a "minority of one". If that were true not so many people would be working on "classic" projects like MATE, Consort, Cinnamon, etc.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

As I said before, I do not want LESS CHOICE. What I want is a singular robust distribution that is highly configurable without having to jump through hoops, install third party applications or change DEs. The canned responses like "you should ask for a refund" or "you can always just use [insert another distro/desktop here]" do not do anything constructive towards solving the problem. It's as though there is a giant pothole in the middle of the road, and instead of spending the time and resources to fix it, everyone's response is either "you should walk instead of drive" or "try taking 3rd street instead, it's only two blocks out of the way".

Canned responses? I'm merely pointing out that you're expecting that a project you don't pay for, which many people are perfectly happy with, should dance to your tune.

You have a specific scenario for using Ubuntu in your head i.e. to make your non-Hackintoshable computers look like Macs. Ubuntu no longer fits that scenario.

I know it's difficult adapting to new situations and sometimes when something isn't broken, you wonder why someone decided to "fix" it and mess up your happy life.

What seems to have happened here is that Gnome decided to totally reinvent their desktop, according to their vision and long-term strategy. The world is in flux right now and nobody knows what to do, really, as things are now changing too quickly. So they're taking a stab at what might be good and taking calculated risks. A by-product of this approach is that they more frequently get it wrong than in the past, when the landscape was clearer.

I'm sure if you sat down with a Gnome project leader, he or she would be able to justify all the changes they've made and what they're trying to achieve in the long term.

The problem came when Canonical and Clément Lefèbvre the guy who rethemes Ubuntu as Mint decided that they didn't share Gnome's very singular vision. After all, you're spot on when you say Gnome 3 has little flexibility. They basically don't want you to modify it at all.

So this put Ubuntu in a difficult position. They could push forward with Gnome 3 and risk alienating pretty much everyone - although Gnome 3 does have its fans - or they could take a chance on their own desktop, seeing the arrival of Gnome 3 as an opportunity rather than a problem. You may not like Unity but I for one think it provides a better user experience than Gnome 3 does. Cinnamon is very user friendly but its primary strength is that it takes less chances. However the point is, Ubuntu and Mint didn't create the schism, Gnome did.

Nevertheless, I think there is a hardcore of long-term Gnome 2 users who assume that the sky fell in for everyone else too when Gnome 3 came along and it simply didn't. Consumers have things "as they like it". Productive people just get on with it and get stuff done because, as the cliché goes, a poor workman blames his tools.

From Gnome 2, you've now got Gnome Shell, Unity and Cinnamon. So post-schism we have Xfce, KDE, Gnome (shell), Unity, Cinnamon, LXDE and E17, 3 more DE's than pre-schism. It's not a dramatic change and I suspect that in the long term Cinnamon will marginalise Gnome 3. E17 is not very good and LXDE is generally for special uses. So I foresee a future comprising primarily: Xfce, KDE, Unity and Cinnamon. I find KDE camp and childish but there's people out there for whom it is the only useable DE. Where's the possible common ground?

Really, your best best is to get involved with a project. That's the way changes happen. Of course, other people will have different ideas but that's life. However, in spite of what you might think Ubuntuforums is not the primary locus of change in the Linux world and so you might be wasting your energy here.

http://www.gnome.org/get-involved/

[Paddy Landau]

… I do not want LESS CHOICE. What I want is a singular robust distribution that is highly configurable without having to jump through hoops, install third party applications or change DEs.

Maybe I'm being just a little stupid here, but isn't that a contradiction? A single distribution = less choice.

… "you can always just use [insert another distro/desktop here]" [does] not do anything constructive towards solving the problem.

But, N00b-un-2, that is the solution. If you don't like Windows, go to a different OS (a.k.a. distribution). If you don't like OSX, go to a different OS. If you don't like Gnome 3, go to a different distro. If you don't like Ubuntu, …

You get the point.

You want more choice, but you want to achieve it with less choice. It doesn't make sense. There are many, many, many choices out there. Gnome 2 became Gnome 3.

You know what — Windows became unusable for me with Vista. Instead of complaining to Windows, I just voted with my feet and went to Ubuntu. Now it's your turn. Gnome 2 became unusable for you with Gnome 3. Vote with your feet. Go to a distro that you like; by the sound of it, something like Mint or Xubuntu would do fantastically for you. Just do it. Stop complaining.

[cariboo]

This thread seems to be repeating itself, and the op seems to be finished also. Thread closed.