Linus Torvalds switches to XFCE, "a step down from gnome2, but it's a huge step up from gnome3."

Linus Torvalds Ditches GNOME For Xfce

https://plus.google.com/106327083461132854143/posts/SbnL3KaVRtM

 

LOL here we go again.

Somebody needs to tell Linus to bind the the terminal to a keyboard combo. I use windows+space for regular and ctrl+windows+space for root terminal shortcuts (also give them different color schemes to distinguish at a quick glance). I'd lose my mind without that.

XFCE is getting a lot of popularity from gnome 3... I gave it an extended try myself, I may go back to it when I start feeling antsy.

 

Even I tried XFCE last week and felt it to be very much usable compared to gnome3. Although I dont care about desktop shortcutus - I care about few things which make me never switch to gnome3 - compiz and all the effects, crazy window switching keyboard shortcuts just to switch between two windows of the same application (really ?), need to use the mouse too much (yes I'm a keyboard person unfortunately). And you know what the gnome3 fallback is way behind time even compared to gnome2's non-3d mode.

My only options now are:
1. Switch back to KDE
2. Swtich to XFCE or LXDE or some other environment where I can get things done
3. Just stay with the current version of openSUSE till something else comes up to fill the void

 

I don't know. I like using Gnome 3. Other than Gnome 3, Unity is my choice. Much easier going back and forth from Mac OSX to G3 or Unity.

I really think Unity is the best stab at making Linux mainstream.

 

True!
Nevertheless, I think I'll also switch to XFCE with the next Debian release. I've used Xfce since Etch on lightweight systems (until I replaced it with LXDE that came with Lenny) and I've always liked it. The only thing I'm missing are these nice system monitor applets for the gnome panel (mainly "hardware-monitor"). Sure, Xfce has its own but they seem not as polished. One could still use the Xfce gnome applet plugin but who knows if that will still be useful when only Gnome3 is in the repos.
If it weren't for these applets I might have already switched to Xfce.

 

Sorry, but I think Mr. Torvalds is acting rather childishly about Gnome 3.

Gnome 2 works so why fix it?

"In 2005, (Mr. Torvalds) took aim at GNOME developers for trying to oversimplify things. 'This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease,' he said. 'If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.'"

This is his comment on the Gnome 2 people are so reluctant to move on from today.

If he wants to move to XFCE, than he can. There are plenty of desktops GUI's available. What is lacking is one that converts the mindset of people that Linux is hard to use. Linux is not hard to use. It just seems that way.

Some people don't care about Market share. Maybe the Gnome people are hoping that a new Gnome desktop might increase its market share on the consumer desktop. Linux is not a success when it comes to penetrating the desktop market. Might be good to let some people try, without hitting them for trying.

I know he is the father or Linux and all, but when the Linux users try to enforce conformity, doesn't that defeat the very essence of Linux?

Someone could always continue Gnome 2 development if they wanted to.

 

I agree with Linus about this:
"In 2005, (Mr. Torvalds) took aim at GNOME developers for trying to oversimplify things. 'This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease,' he said. 'If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it."
Majority of Linux Users are smart people why dumb down the interface so you can let stupid people use it?
Stupid people are always the ones who messes up and they don't deserve to use it.

The world is doom if they continue to pander to stupidity, stupidity is the root of all evil.
Stupid people they the ones too lazy to READ the README/Manual
They are the ones who continue to download and install Malware.
They are basically the inefficiencies of the world because they are too lazy to learn.

 

Maybe Gnome should have stopped with perfecting Gnome 1.

 

Yeah still enjoying gnome 2.32, but when I have to XFCE is the way to go when gnome 3 is the only option.

 

I ranted in the other thread so I'll keep this short.

Dear Gnome 3 and Unity, I don't want to operate my mouse & keyboard computer with some kind of touchscreenish DE.

XFCE 4.8 ftw!

 

Yes, why would we want something like this (and this is the older version):



Seriously, we don't all use large screens. When my HP Compaq 6510b dies, Linux is going into a 11.6-inch laptop. If the AMD Fusion driver were up to snuff, it would have migrated two months ago.

 

^^^ mY EyEz!!!!

Seriously, that is bad news. I now see that the motivation behind unity is some sort of mac envy.

 

I think the great thing about the Linux DE is the options.

I am staying with Snow Leopard, because I do not want the even more tablet oriented Lion, but that also means I am stuck at 10.6.8.

The Windows desktop works for me on larger screens, but I never liked it on smaller screens. I know you can scale fonts and icons, but it screws up something else.

With Linux, I like Gnome 3 or Unity for a small or medium sized laptop... if I had a desktop (probably 18.5-inches or more) or a DTR, I think I would be happier with Gnome 2, or XFCE. Gnome 3 could look really ridiculous on a large screen.

I could respect a person not liking a "eye candy" DE, but to dismiss it to the point of undermining it deprives the rest of us of a choice.

Another one for your eyes:



A bit similar to the Activities look of Gnome 3, though Gnome 3 behaves decidedly differently.

 

Yes I dont mind the eye-candy but I dont wanna change my usage habits just to do the same thing I am used to doing now in an altogether different manner especially when it becomes tougher now than what it already was.

IOW - I use linux with eye candy but not for the sole purpose of it. At all times I want a list of open windows so that I dont forget to close any windows I dont need.... And at least an easy way where I can see the list of all the titles of a window group.... I dont need all the eyecandy of compiz but at least some basic ones - easy ways for window switching like ring switcher, expose, etc. A couple more basic things like these...

If gnome3 can provide me all this with at least I dont mind switching to it....

 

I am not sure if this is what you want, but hitting the Windows key, clicking the Activities button or moving your mouse to the top right of the screen show you open windows this way.



Nine windows in one workspace.

 

Umm... ill stick with ubuntu 10.04 + gnome 2 for now
can some1 tell me why they're trying to imitate OSX now?

 

I want a small area that is always visible and shows me usage of CPU (for each core), RAM, HDD, network and the temperatures of CPU, HDDs and GPU. In Gnome 2 I have all of that in my top panel.
Additionally I also want an area that is always visible and shows me the list of all(! - sometimes up to 20) open windows (ungrouped) without pressing any button. Currently this is what I have my bottom panel for.
And on my 1920x1200 screen I want to be able to run a maximized but not fullscreen window (because of the visibility of the panels) of Virtualbox where the guest has a 1920x1080 desktop.

Can Gnome 3 give me that? If it can, I might use it.

 

I don't know about the windows list but system monitor is available through extensions:

https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet

 

Thanks! This looks like a good start.

 

Learning to use a tiling window manager, painful and old-school though it seemed for the first week, has honestly been the single biggest revolution in my personal computer usage since DOS Shell the very early 90s.

It forced me to think more about logically-grouping my work into associated tasks, reduced my mouse usage (a big plus for RSI reduction and productivity), and removed my dependency on various tools like graphical file managers. Amazingly, after just a week or so, I'm faster at file management on the command line than I ever was with Thunar or Nautilus.

I'd highly recommend you give it a try. I used musca, but play around with various WMs until you find one you like.

(Do *not* try this if you can't spend a week forcing yourself to use your new setup. It takes time to be proficient -- just like learning to use your machine for the first time did -- and you don't want to give up half way through.)

 

The way Lion, 11.04 and now windows 8 are going Im worried this will be the way all computing platforms will eventually go. Im not happy, nor do I enjoy the painfulness of using a wannabe tablet UI on a full computer. Now I love my tablet, but it by no means replaces my laptop and there are tasks that are just too painful on a tablet.

I really hope this is a failed trend and goes to the wayside like ME and beta...

 

The neat thing about *nix (and one of it's flaws in the desktop area, depending on whom you ask) is the choice it affords you.

In this case, it's a perk. So what if Ubuntu moves to a Fisher Price, wish-I-worked-at-Apple UI? Pick a better distro and use a different desktop environment.

It isn't 2005 anymore -- most distros are a *lot* closer to the "it just works" goal than they were when Ubuntu first started, and few try to force ideas on their users as much as Ubuntu does...

 

Yeah it is similar to expose - but I use expose only when I'm looking to visually see the contents of all the windows in a scaled down manner - not when I'm merely searching for a window that I know by its title.

Scrolling all throughout the screen area and scrolling through one line - I find the latter is easier when I just wanna switch to a particular window.

I open most of the apps through gnome-do - since I know the name of the app almost always - so I dont mind if gnome3 doesnt display the main menu and uses a tablet style icons as I wont be using it anyways....

Does anyone know if a taskbar like plugin is available in gnome3 to show me all my open windows ?

And thanks for teh system monitor extension for gnome3 - I too use it a lot in gnome2, could come in really handly with gnome3 too

 

That is the one thing I missed most when I first went to Mac, and the one thing that I miss in Unity and Gnome 3. I know we want to maximize vertical space, but the taskbar is just one line of text or so. Over time I got used to it.

 

Finally, someone appreciated tiling WMs
When I've tried tiling for first time (about 1 year ago) it felt awkward. I couldn't force myself to use more keyboard than mouse. But now... I don't even use mouse for launching apps - I've binded almost whole keyboard with hotkeys. And sometime ago I've got this feeling - "OMG! It's so fast. Waaay faster than mouse!".

And I also like this great feeling when someone wants to use my computer and can't even find a way to start a browser

 

Interesting. I personally have used terminal for everything file/directory as its much faster then the gui. I think it comes very easy to us that experienced pre GUI computing at the beginning of our computing days. I started off with a win 3.11 riding on dos and most everything was done through CLI.

 

It only took me 15 years...

Seriously though, they're not for everyone. For people who don't have easily-organized workflows, I think they might actually be an inferior choice. It really depends on the user.

Also, if your work is mostly mouse driven (such as is the case with graphic artists), the whole "hands off the mouse" bit is probably a *bad* thing...

 

Most people will probably spend most of their time in front of a PC using a web browser, games and next to that a word processor.

For the power user, the default Linux interface should not be an issue. It can always be swapped out. For the average user, it is just an app launcher. He won't spend much time there. Gnome and Canonical are trying to get the rest of the market which is still not using Linux to use Linux. But I don't think it will work. Anyone new to Linux will come to Forums like this for help where DE's like Gnome 3 and Unity have a less than warm reception.

A decade ago, kids first encounter with the PC was a desktop with Windows on it. Linux made little headway in that environment in the consumer desktop space. Today, kids first encounter with a computer will be with a smartphone running Android, Bada, iOS or Windows Phone 7. After that, they may even go through a tablet. I think Gnome 3 and Unity are preparing for that type of future.

Two decades ago people even questioned the need for a GUI and a mouse. But the father of Linux has spoken, and I think the general Linux community agrees. Where does Linux go from here?

 

Am I the only one that doesn't care what Linus Torvalds thinks? I thank him for creating the linux kernel, but linux can live without him now. His opinions are just... nothing to me. Not to sound like a jerk, but some people worship him like the apple boys worship Jobs. I say no need.

 

And there are many more apple boys, and Apple has more shiny new toys. Apple has the power to change users perceptions of what things should be like. Linux does not.

 

Well, Apple doesn't have the power to change my mind on things, I just don't care. I pick what I want, and do what I want, regardless of popular opinion.
I just think this Torvalds worship is pointless, just like when the media has a frenzy over the president's dog, and fill up the air waves with videos of the president's dog being cute. It's all rather pointless IMHO.
So if I switched to XFCE, why can't that be big news? Why would Linus switching be such a big deal? He's just a person like you and me, same with Jobs. Nothing special. Linus created the linux kernel, but it's the community that keeps it going, and spreads the words and drives adoption.

 

I think I took your post in a different context. Sorry.

Linux has succeeded in servers, in embedded devices and now in mobiles (Android). Linux desktop has failed to grab the imagination of the average user. Linux on a desktop is really the only place where Linux has failed. I think Mr. Torvalds does deserve a large degree of credit for that, and that is why what says matters, as well as what the members or communities like this say.

 

I think his role in the current GNU/Linux ecosystem is at least overrated.

IF there is somebody in the FLOSS scene who could be called a messiah (with all the good and bad attributions) it's Richard M. Stallman. Yes, this guy is crazy, but that's what genius people often are. At least he has a clear vision and he fights for that. Linus is just too pragmatic for that role.

And even from a technical point of view what we are mostly talking about in this forum is not Linux but GNU. How many of the topics here really deal with the kernel? Most of it is about the userland.
Afair Linus himself said that he would not have developed Linux if the BSD kernel would have been free by 1990. I think that is the biggest historical problem with GNU. Linux as a GNU kernel was never more than a emergeny solution. The design principles of HURD are fantastic but that's also the reason why it's so hard to implement. But GNU realized that too late. So now we have a GNU/HURD kernel dying in its infancy, a well working Linux stopgap and a good BSD compromise betwen the two slowly gaining ground (if the examples set by Gentoo and Debian will spread) but being 20 years late.

 

Apple produces hardware. Linux is typically run on Windows PC hardware, and that in turn shapes the outward perception of Linux. To put it another way, OS X would be a much less impressive initial experience if you were using it on a 3-4 year old PC notebook.

Yes, I know that there are small businesses that preload Linux distros on generic "whitebooks," but honestly, that's not a very appealing aesthetic choice.

 

I got my start on an Amiga, using the CLI there way more than the very primitive windowing system it had. Then I moved to RedHat 5 (not RHEL5, but RH5, back in 1998 or so) with NextSTEP GUI. You had to configure your menus in a text editor, and we liked it like that! haha. Memories come flooding back.

 

It's remarkable that Linus Torvalds would actually make a public statement regarding a desktop. To be honest, I think we're all aware that there are many professional developers working on the Linux kernel and it's not just the work of one man. It's worth remembering that the well known "public faces" of Linux, such as Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth do have a broader role in the community.

But yes, it is "a big deal," to the extent that we haven't seen this level of desktop fragmentation in the Linux community for over 10 years. Linus Torvalds didn't lead the charge against Gnome 3, but simply joined the chorus.

 

Didn't Richard M. Stallman state: “Its Linux and not GNU/Linux..." back in April? Didn't he finally write off HURD in 2010? Does anyone at this point believe that BSD, with the exception of OS X, is going to make headway as a Desktop OS?

Kernel development is still important, and if you don't believe me, ask users of new or just newish hardware. It's no fun waiting for the kernel to catch up with the hardware cycle.

 

Sorry but Stallman is way more talk than action, and Linus is more action than talk. Stallman wrote a bunch of utilities any 3rd year CS student could have written. Linux wrote and then wrangled development on one of the fastest and most stable computer OS kernels. There's just no comparison. One is a mostly political animal with a modicum of programming skills, the other is primarily a programming animal with a modicum of political skills.

Choosing a messiah, I'd rather have the coder making the pragmatic decisions that make things work.

Linus has made it clear on more than one occasion that he codes the linux kernel primarily for the desktop user, i.e. he will not make compromises to it to make servers faster than make the desktop slower. he may be a kernel developer, but he uses linux daily for everything, and from the desktop he wants good performance etc.

 

No, he always said the opposite. He is the one behind the term "GNU/Linux". [1] [2]

Source?

OS X has no BSD kernel. The underlying Darwin is mainly a BSD userland with a Mach kernel. [3]
Anyway, I don't know if I should believe that BSD will make it as a desktop OS. But I hope so. Actually it already is. There are Free* open* and netBSD with lots of "distros" based on them. If you consider them to be relevant or not is just a question of your subjective measurement.

Who said the opposite?

That's right. But both do a very good job at what they do and both are criticised for that. It's just that most people know more about talking than about coding which is why Stallman gets more negative feedback.
The way RMS says things is often questionable but I usually agree with what he says. If you worship GNU for being free (as in freedom) you need somebody or some organisation that fights for this freedom in a world whose form of government is economocracy and whose laws are defined by patent trolling*. This is exactly what RMS and the FSF do and I'm happy that they are there even if I don't like their continued FUD campaigns against non-free competitors.

*) Patents are a good idea if they are used to protect small creative inventors from being swallowed or pushed out of the market by sheer financial or political power of bigger competitors. But the way they are used today with patent pools just built to sue others and press loads of money is just crazy.

[1] Richard Stallman's Personal Page
[2] Linux and GNU - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
[3] Mac OS X Technology Overview: About the Technologies for Developing Mac OS X Software

 

Most people I meet think that Linux does not have a GUI. I think the general market has the wrong perception of Linux.

 

In other news, MS released a screenshot of the newest unity shell which looks a lot less annoying (and hopefully less buggy):

 

If all fails there is always KDE.