PDA

View Full Version : New Gnome 2 fork



spcwingo
June 21st, 2011, 02:03 AM
I just wanted to share with ya'll what I just discovered on the interwebs. It's a new Gnome 2 fork called Mate Desktop Environment. This is good news for people like me who have no stomach for Gnome3 or Unity. Anyways, on to the meat and potatoes:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=121162

I just hope this one lives longer than EXDE!

Mmmbopdowedop
June 21st, 2011, 02:08 AM
I'd much rather go with XFCE than a fork, especially a new one in the field;

XFCE is very similar to Gnome 2, yet, more lightweight, faster and cleaner.

In my opinion, Gnome 2 doesn't need a fork, customizing XFCE would do that for you.

It's another pointless project. There seems to be a heaft amount of these in the OSS community.

SoFl W
June 21st, 2011, 02:19 AM
I will agree with Mmmbopdowedo... for now. I have been playing around with XFCE in virtual machines and on my laptop and I am impressed. If Gnome goes in a different direction then I like it is good to know I have choices.
I hope this fork takes off, choice and development are always a good idea.

spcwingo
June 21st, 2011, 02:20 AM
I'd much rather go with XFCE than a fork, especially a new one in the field;

XFCE is very similar to Gnome 2, yet, more lightweight, faster and cleaner.

In my opinion, Gnome 2 doesn't need a fork, customizing XFCE would do that for you.

It's another pointless project. There seems to be a heaft amount of these in the OSS community.

I believe that everything new is branded at some point "pointless project"...it doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile.

spcwingo
June 21st, 2011, 02:22 AM
choice and development are always a good idea

My point exactly...if I and many others happen to get a good deal of familiarity out of the deal, all the better.

Mr. Picklesworth
June 21st, 2011, 02:22 AM
The trouble with “forking” Gnome 2 is you need a lot of infrastructure, and that infrastructure is usually built up over a lot of time. A desktop environment is not just a heap of code. That is why KDE and GNOME are pretty well undisputed as the big desktop environments (from which all the little ones borrow pieces): they are a lot bigger than the sums of their parts.

In other words: good luck. You're going to need it.

spcwingo
June 21st, 2011, 02:28 AM
The trouble with “forking” Gnome 2 is you need a lot of infrastructure, and that infrastructure is usually built up over a lot of time. A desktop environment is not just a heap of code. That is why KDE and GNOME are pretty well undisputed as the big desktop environments (from which all the little ones borrow pieces): they are a lot bigger than the sum of their parts.

That's why I'm hoping someone big like RedHat takes notice, picks up the ball, and runs with it (I realize that they are already one of the major contributers to Gnome).

d3v1150m471c
June 21st, 2011, 02:43 AM
blackbox baby, woot!

Linuxratty
June 21st, 2011, 03:10 AM
That's why I'm hoping someone big like RedHat takes notice, picks up the ball, and runs with it (I realize that they are already one of the major contributers to Gnome).

Have you read about Fedora's project Bluebubble?

http://k3rnel.net/2011/05/26/project-bluebubble/

Bandit
June 21st, 2011, 03:12 AM
I'd much rather go with XFCE than a fork, especially a new one in the field;

XFCE is very similar to Gnome 2, yet, more lightweight, faster and cleaner.

In my opinion, Gnome 2 doesn't need a fork, customizing XFCE would do that for you.

It's another pointless project. There seems to be a heaft amount of these in the OSS community.

I have to agree with you. Everyone seems so uptight about wanting to stick with a name. Gnome2 was good, but XFCE is so close that after a few moments, it can be made to look the same. Its actually got more features now then Gnome2 does. I am sticking with my current install until the LTS. If Gnome3 or Unity dont impress me. XFCE will be my next DE for many years to come. Besides I rather stick with something that has a community backing it, then depend on a single person or small group working on a fork.

spcwingo
June 21st, 2011, 03:30 AM
Have you read about Fedora's project Bluebubble?

http://k3rnel.net/2011/05/26/project-bluebubble/

No, I haven't. Thanks, I'll keep an eye on that one too.


Everyone seems so uptight about wanting to stick with a name.

It's not so much a name as it is with just being used to the way things work, etc. With you being from the South too, I'm sure you've heard this many times "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, that's exactly how I feel about Gnome 2 and I'm sure there are many others that feel the same way.

Bandit
June 21st, 2011, 05:20 AM
No, I haven't. Thanks, I'll keep an eye on that one too.



It's not so much a name as it is with just being used to the way things work, etc. With you being from the South too, I'm sure you've heard this many times "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, that's exactly how I feel about Gnome 2 and I'm sure there are many others that feel the same way.
I feel the same way. I like Gnome2, its stable and effective. Heck OSX basic design is still the same for the past 10+ years and apple doesnt seem to be steering away from it anytime soon. Even windows is the same since 95 with the exception of slowly looking better, its the same just with more bells and whistles. Now I know the porposed new look of Win8, but that isnt finished product so I will not discuss a unfinished product. If anything all Gnome team should do is ADD more features while retaining same design, except for the past 5 years they have been actually removing features with the argument that it makes Gnome "more user friendly".

spcwingo
June 21st, 2011, 06:05 AM
I feel the same way. I like Gnome2, its stable and effective. Heck OSX basic design is still the same for the past 10+ years and apple doesnt seem to be steering away from it anytime soon. Even windows is the same since 95 with the exception of slowly looking better, its the same just with more bells and whistles. Now I know the porposed new look of Win8, but that isnt finished product so I will not discuss a unfinished product. If anything all Gnome team should do is ADD more features while retaining same design, except for the past 5 years they have been actually removing features with the argument that it makes Gnome "more user friendly".

As far as "stable and effective", I couldn't agree more. That's the reason I moved to Linux, for the "function over form" factor.

I have to agree with you on just adding features to Gnome as opposed to a complete rewrite. It's true that the Gnome code has become a behemoth, but, all it needed was a little streamlining (note to self: I HAVE TO LEARN TO CODE).

The "more user friendly" thing...ha...we both know what that means..."excessive dumbing down while removing basic functionality".

With all that said, I would love to see this new fork take off, but that will take a LOT of work as Mr. Picklesworth has pointed out. It's not impossible, but will take a great deal of work and effort on the part of Perberos. Best of luck to him.

Thewhistlingwind
June 21st, 2011, 06:29 AM
Gnome 3 isn't that bad.

(Removing the minimize and maximize buttons was totally unacceptable though.)

The problem with forking gnome 2 though is that the GTK is at version three now, as I understand it, as GTK3 becomes the new standard, the GTK2 applications will slowly start evaporating, leaving a gnome2 fork without content to subsist on.

It'd be easier to use XFCE, which will surely keep up to date with it's dependencies.

CraigPaleo
June 21st, 2011, 11:21 AM
Why fork Gnome 2 when they could just add any features they're missing, to Gnome 3 panel?

The panel has already been ported to Gnome 3. It's the fallback mode. You can choose for Gnome 3 to start in fallback mode every time.

There are maximize and minimize buttons. The main difference is that system is now under your name instead of next to places and you have to press "alt" and right click in order to configure the panels.

Spice Weasel
June 21st, 2011, 11:26 AM
Ugh. GTK2 and Gnome-Panel.

Zero2Nine
June 21st, 2011, 01:09 PM
No, I haven't. Thanks, I'll keep an eye on that one too.



It's not so much a name as it is with just being used to the way things work, etc. With you being from the South too, I'm sure you've heard this many times "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, that's exactly how I feel about Gnome 2 and I'm sure there are many others that feel the same way.

It is broke in some ways. The little. still unfixed, panel bugs were quite annoying. I mean icons appearing twice or only half drawn, shutdown button disappearing every now and then etc. Maybe you never encountered these issues but I've seen quite some topics for them. On launchpad I read that these are never going to be fixed as the cause of this behavior is deeply rooted in the code of the panels.

Bandit
June 21st, 2011, 02:06 PM
As far as "stable and effective", I couldn't agree more. That's the reason I moved to Linux, for the "function over form" factor.

I have to agree with you on just adding features to Gnome as opposed to a complete rewrite. It's true that the Gnome code has become a behemoth, but, all it needed was a little streamlining (note to self: I HAVE TO LEARN TO CODE).

The "more user friendly" thing...ha...we both know what that means..."excessive dumbing down while removing basic functionality".


Yea I would have understood a rewrite based on existing design, even if it meant removing more features (as long as they added them back) to make it easier to build gnome. Currently the only sane way to build it is with existing binarys and libs already installed. IMHO building Gnome2 from scratch was harder then building linux from scratch.

But we can all say what we believe they should have done, but it will not change nothing at all. Lord knows when they went from xscreensaver to the gnome-screensaver program the main Dev on that project did not want to add a freaking Preview button and was very rude about it. I had to go to the lead team Developer over the Gnome project and talk to him to get it implemented.

So IMHO, if I want a DE I can compile without getting an aneurysm, gonna be around in current form so some time, full featured and familar layout. Its gonna have to be XFCE, or I am going back to WindowMaker. :-p

3Miro
June 21st, 2011, 02:10 PM
The OP link is not about a fork for Gnome 2, it is Gnome 2 for Arch Linux. The official Arch repos now work with Gnome 3, this gives the Arch users the ability to still use Gnome 2.

Gnome-panel and Metacity have already been ported to Gnome 3 and GTK 3. In a standard Gnome 3 installation, you can select between Gnome-shell and Gnome-classic. Original info was that Gnome-panel and Metacity would not be further developed, however, this is no longer the case. Gnome-panel has seen major changes and is still under active development.

Ubuntu 11.04 comes with Gnome 2. Ubuntu 11.10 (which I am using right now) comes with Unity 2D and 3D by default and you can install gnome-shell and gnome-session-fallback to get Gnome-shell and Gnome-classic interfaces. Note that the whole thing is still somewhat buggy.

Making a real fork of Gnome 2 makes no sense.

BrokenKingpin
June 21st, 2011, 02:56 PM
I'd much rather go with XFCE than a fork, especially a new one in the field;

XFCE is very similar to Gnome 2, yet, more lightweight, faster and cleaner.

In my opinion, Gnome 2 doesn't need a fork, customizing XFCE would do that for you.

This. Most Gnome applications and utilities work and integrate well with XFCE.

Frogs Hair
June 21st, 2011, 03:09 PM
Seems like an ambitious project keeping Gnome 2.xx viable with new releases . I wonder how long there will be enthusiasm for it ? My choice is to move on .

Zero2Nine
June 21st, 2011, 03:28 PM
Seems like an ambitious project keeping Gnome 2.xx viable with new releases . I wonder how long there will be enthusiasm for it ? My choice is to move on .

Not too long I guess. For Natty there is still classic desktop so no reason for running a gnome2 fork yet. Suppose there is no classic desktop in 11.10 and people really really not want to use Unity then there is still a full year of support for Natty ahead and of course Xubuntu, Kubuntu en Lubuntu to try out.

3Miro
June 21st, 2011, 03:33 PM
Suppose there is no classic desktop in 11.10 ...

Alpha 1 for 11.10 does come with Gnome-classic. It is available in the repository as gnome-session-fallback.

Bandit
June 21st, 2011, 07:20 PM
This. Most Gnome applications and utilities work and integrate well with XFCE.

True that..

Linuxratty
June 22nd, 2011, 04:46 AM
With you being from the South too, I'm sure you've heard this many times "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, that's exactly how I feel about Gnome 2 and I'm sure there are many others that feel the same way.

Yup. And if it is fixed,don't break it. I feel my Gnome is being broken and I'm not pleased. Yeah,I know everything changes,but Linux is about choice and I feel my choice is being removed.

cariboo
June 22nd, 2011, 05:22 AM
Yup. And if it is fixed,don't break it. I feel my Gnome is being broken and I'm not pleased. Yeah,I know everything changes,but Linux is about choice and I feel my choice is being removed.

You have read the rest of the thread haven't you, you can still use the retro two panel interface, when you upgrade to Gnome 3/gnome-shell.

Linux is about choice, you just may have to make the choice to use a different distribution. Remember Ubuntu =/= Linux.

screaminj3sus
June 22nd, 2011, 05:50 AM
Have you read about Fedora's project Bluebubble?

http://k3rnel.net/2011/05/26/project-bluebubble/

That seems more like a hack to install gnome 2 rather than a gnome 2 fork, and the author seems to fully realize the stupidity of doing so.

And IMO a gnome 2 fork is a terrible idea. This new fork is one dude, it ain't gonna last long. Also considering XFCE is very similar to gnome 2, as is gnome 3 fallback mode with compiz its wasted effort. perhaps better effort would be towards making a more gnome 2 like shell for gnome 3...

johnnybelfast
June 22nd, 2011, 02:09 PM
People can write whatever software they want... It's a free world. Power to the people!

Linuxratty
June 22nd, 2011, 03:51 PM
You have read the rest of the thread haven't you, you can still use the retro two panel interface, when you upgrade to Gnome 3/gnome-shell.

Linux is about choice, you just may have to make the choice to use a different distribution. Remember Ubuntu =/= Linux.

Yeah I sure have.And lots and lots of reviews for months.
Yeah,I'm looking rather fondly at Mepis and have taken it and Fedora for test drives. I have plenty of time to decide..No hurries.XFCEis indeed another possibility.