MS and Gnome and Mono, oh my.

[jpollard]

So this is how gnome 3 got to be such a useless item

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTExMzM

[Wayne]

OS/2 deja vu!

[sea]

Look at the bright side...
Thanks to mono more Windows dev's could write applications for Linux.
And therefore increase popularity of Linux.

The dark side is:
M$ will gain more influence to linux things. Seems they plan an attack towards linux from several directions...
Secure boot and mono beeing 2 of them, so far.

[jpollard]

You left out gnome 3...

[mmix]

problem is X11, QT(the license), not gnome2/3, mono, IMHO.
MS best weapon is patent, reactos & mono is their target, sleep with enemy

[Gareth Jones]

Microsoft don't have influence over GNOME 3, it's porting Mono applications to GNOME 3 that this is about.

Whatever anyone's feelings about Mono, it isn't needed to run GNOME, and there are perfectly good non-Mono equivalents to all the common GNOME+Mono programs.

[jpollard]

My feelings on Mono are the same as with Gnome 3.

Useless.

And why does gnome3 and Windows RT look so similar?

[Gareth Jones]

Originally Posted by jpollard

My feelings on Mono are the same as with Gnome 3.

Useless.

Well, I'm sure Mono has its uses, but not on my machine. But it doesn't look like the future of .NET (or Java) is anything like as bright as their creators might have hoped for a few years ago, so I'm not going to worry about it.

We both know each others' opinions on GNOME 3 so I'll leave that one alone!

And why does gnome3 and Windows RT look so similar?

Apart from this comment, because they simply don't. They may be attempting to solve the same interface problems (with respect to touch-screens and tablets), but they've taken quite different paths. GNOME doesn't make my eye's bleed for a start, or make existing desktop applications run in a separate sub-environment with dubious future support, remove title-bars and, well, windows (except for programs which ask for it when maximized), prevent proper multi-tasking, etc. etc... Oh, and it's fully FOSS too. The only thing they have in common is that they require a different work-flow to be effective, which isn't to everyone's taste.

[bigflopper2]

I was warned several times not to start a rant-fest on gnome, this time I'll leave it to others..

[Skara Brae]

Originally Posted by sea

Seems they plan an attack towards linux from several directions...

Anyone read about UEFI and Microsoft's plans with it? (I am not allowed to post hyperlinks.)

Talk about a Microsoft attack on Linux

[Gareth Jones]

Originally Posted by Skara Brae

Anyone read about UEFI and Microsoft's plans with it? (I am not allowed to post hyperlinks.)

That has a thread here if you're interested: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=280369.

[jpollard]

Originally Posted by Gareth Jones

...
Apart from this comment, because they simply don't. They may be attempting to solve the same interface problems (with respect to touch-screens and tablets), but they've taken quite different paths. GNOME doesn't make my eye's bleed for a start, or make existing desktop applications run in a separate sub-environment with dubious future support, remove title-bars and, well, windows (except for programs which ask for it when maximized), prevent proper multi-tasking, etc. etc... Oh, and it's fully FOSS too. The only thing they have in common is that they require a different work-flow to be effective, which isn't to everyone's taste.

You are confusing "how they work" with "how they look".

One uses tiled windows, the other uses tiled icons (after bringing them up). This is not a tremendous improvement over some 1990s level window managers. And icons are nothing but small windows - they can have anything in them the application desires (even the size is up to the application). There really is little to no difference between an icon and a window.

Both put application windows in full screen. Gnome 3 puts it in a new workspace... not a tremendous difference in appearance.

Both require a search window to actually do anything.

Neither is that useful (yet) on its own and depend on something else for actual usability -RT depends on the non RT environment for most activity, Gnome 3 depends on plugins that break from minor patch level updates. Even Cinnamon, which works better than Gnome 3, isn't that good - mostly acceptable though (my wife is willing to use it, but not the base gnome 3 shell).

I will admit, it has been quite a while since I tried gnome shell. Cinnamon I used about a week ago (for some reason huludesktop requires a gnome environment or it just faults out).

Like other software developers, I use a workspace for context. One will have up to 4 applications going (1 editing, 1 compiling, 1 debugging, 1 application) and add one or two more when looking for documentation, or writing documentation.

If someone asks a question, I change workspaces if I need to look up information or check a network. And another if I'm doing it over email questions.

Having workspaces dynamically appear (and disappear) is not useful, in fact, it hinders use.

As far as desktop management goes, Nautilus is not bad. It would be nice if I could use a different instance in each workspace - each having it's own context for file management... and be able to start applications with that context. But no. not to be done. So I tend not to use Nautilus for much.

So you've lost me (and a lot of others much more noteworthy than me) as a gnome user.

[Gareth Jones]

Originally Posted by jpollard

You are confusing "how they work" with "how they look".

We're talking about graphical use interfaces, so that's not so easily separated. Window title-bars are an issue for both, for example.

Both put application windows in full screen. Gnome 3 puts it in a new workspace... not a tremendous difference in appearance.

GNOME Shell only makes windows full-screen if the application asks for it (like any other mainstream window manager since the 90s). Windows are only opened on a new workspace if you explicitly ask for it (e.g. by middle-clicking the launcher).

Neither is that useful (yet) on its own and depend on something else for actual usability

GNOME Shell is a shell. Anything beyond starting and switching between applications is a bonus (or bloat if you like). The application tool-kit API is still GTK+, although applications can optionally integrate further. If they don't, they run just the same as always, including non-GTK+-applications. Windows RT is a complete new API though, with forced new design principals.

I use a workspace for context. One will have up to 4 applications going (1 editing, 1 compiling, 1 debugging, 1 application) and add one or two more when looking for documentation, or writing documentation.

I use workspaces in much the same way. The only changes I'd make to Shell would be a setting to prevent "middle" workspaces from being removed when empty, and the ability to reorder workspaces. Other than that, dynamic workspaces work fine for me; I like never running out of new workspaces without over-crowding the pager when they're not in use.

So you've lost me (and a lot of others much more noteworthy than me) as a gnome user.

I've lost no one. (My tag line is Dan's joke! – I guess you can see why... )