Poll: Desktop environments

[rop75]

with some tweaking Gnome shell is really nice and usable

The problem is not that the Gnome devs have not yet incorporated these features, the problem is that the devs actually believe they shouldn't be there. Thus Shell is premised on a flawed design.

I think egrabrum's mention of 10 minutes is significant. It is not normal for a person to experience so many design flaws in only 10 minutes of use. This is open source, and we know that software can be made to work the way we like. I believe he is aware that all his complaints can be resolved by tweaking.

If you read his posts clearly, he was talking about bad specification design. If a person needs to do all the things you mentioned to bring a software to a usable state, then you have proven his point. Let me quote a post I made a page ago, which you may have missed:

The purpose of extensions are to extend. As you said, it is for anyone to adjust it to their liking. But something is wrong if there exists an entire ecosystem of extensions whose purpose is not just to extend functionality but to make it usable. Good software should have good defaults.

Let's say you configure Gnome3 for a friend you are converting to Linux. What if he creates a new user? What if he recommends it to his friends? Do they need to have you to reconfigure it to make it usable?

When Mint attempted to include Gnome3 in Lisa, they had to create their own extensions. Zorin also created its own set of extensions. SolusOS is still in Squeeze but when they migrate to Wheezy Ikey has said that it will have a heavily modified Gnome3. These distros wanted people to have a good experience on first try.

Think Firefox. Firefox has a good extension system, but has good defaults too. That is the beauty of open source. Now let's say I release a browser that has no URL bar or no support for bookmarks, because I don't believe in them anymore. Then lots of third party coders scramble to create extensions that restore these functionality. It is a sign that my product is bad by design. To rely on third parties to provide important things is irresponsible, and it's the ugly side of open source when people say "you want it, you code it yourself!" because it gives an excuse to do things badly.

Gnome made a lot of bad decisions which they won't even admit. Did you add a panel, or a maximize/minimize button? You had to add 10-15 extensions because the Gnome team believes that those features should not be there. Fortunately, Mint is a distro that cares about giving people good defaults.

According to your point of view (good software must have good defaults), Fedora must be a huge piece of crap (you can't create or edit any document, you can't see any videos, you can't hear MP3, you can't surf the web properly -as you can't visit flash or java based pages), but I can tell you Fedora is not hat bad and it is pretty easy to fix these problems. And not only fedora, there are many distros that are not usable and lack basic features at first, "because the devs actually believe these features shouldn't be there", and none of them are bad distros.

Of course, for Windows users Mate or Cinnamon are easier environments, but that is not my case (nor it is people who have taken part in this poll's case)

I know many Linux users, but I don't know any of them who has not tweaked their system and install new applications to make their systems more usable.

From my point of view, when I choose a software / distro / DE... I don't look at the default settings (because I know I'm going to change them) but what I can get using that software

[MALsPa]

And not only fedora, there are many distros that are not usable and lack basic features at first, "because the devs actually believe these features shouldn't be there", and none of them are bad distros.

Of course, for Windows users Mate or Cinnamon are easier environments, but that is not my case (nor it is people who have taken part in this poll's case)

I know many Linux users, but I don't know any of them who has not tweaked their system and install new applications to make their systems more usable.

From my point of view, when I choose a software / distro / DE... I don't look at the default settings (because I know I'm going to change them) but what I can get using that software

Absolutely correct. Everybody's gonna customize things to their own tastes, anyway. For me, the default stuff is almost irrelevant these days; it's kinda funny how people switch distros just because of the default desktop environment instead of just installing something else to use.

[moorewarner]

According to your point of view (1) good software must have good defaults), Fedora must be a huge piece of crap (you can't create or edit any document, you can't see any videos, you can't hear MP3, you can't surf the web properly -as you can't visit flash or java based pages), but I can tell you Fedora is not hat bad and it is pretty easy to fix these problems. And not only fedora, there are many distros that are not usable and lack basic features at first, "because the devs actually believe these features shouldn't be there", and none of them are bad distros.

Of course, for Windows users Mate or Cinnamon are easier environments, but that is not my case (2) nor it is people who have taken part in this poll's case)

I know many Linux users, but I don't know any of them who has not tweaked their system and install new applications to make their systems more usable.

2) From my point of view, when I choose a software / distro / DE... I don't look at the default settings (because I know I'm going to change them) but what I can get using that software

1) That of course depends on what qualities make up a particular persons variation of "good". But in the terms of this discussion where "good" is strongly weighted towards "ease of use" then yes that is correct, good defined in that way makes Mint "better" than Fedora.

2) This is a sweeping and incorrect generalization.

3) I look at both.

[moorewarner]

Absolutely correct. Everybody's gonna customize things to their own tastes, anyway. For me, the default stuff is almost irrelevant these days; it's kinda funny how people switch distros just because of the default desktop environment instead of just installing something else to use.

I switched from Ubuntu to Mint precisely because of their more usable defaults. After about the 50th install each with it's 10 extra steps to get to "usable" nothing seems funny anymore. I think the idea of *not* switching to a distro that is closer to what you want is funny personally.

[MALsPa]

Absolutely correct. Everybody's gonna customize things to their own tastes, anyway. For me, the default stuff is almost irrelevant these days; it's kinda funny how people switch distros just because of the default desktop environment instead of just installing something else to use.

I switched from Ubuntu to Mint precisely because of their more usable defaults. After about the 50th install each with it's 10 extra steps to get to "usable" nothing seems funny anymore. I think the idea of *not* switching to a distro that is closer to what you want is funny personally.

Well, I understand your point. But if you're like me and only installing a distro for yourself (not 50 times -- I'm assuming that's for 50 different machines?) then it's easy enough to just change the defaults (which most Linux users are going to do to one degree or another anyway) instead of switching distros. But, no offense intended towards people who switch distros because of the default desktop; I shouldn't have said "it's kinda funny" -- sorry about that.

Of course, it's all a matter of perspective; I find Ubuntu to be closer to what I want than Mint. Again, use what works best for you, I guess.

[KBD47]

I used to think you can just change the desktop, but Ubuntu 12.04 is not playing nice with anything lately, tried KDE, MATE, Xfce, and they were each buggy to the point of unusable. This was not the case with Ubuntu 11.04 and 11.10. I thought I could make Unity 2D usable, and had it tweaked nice, but the first updates that came along borked it, could no longer shrink the Unity 2D launcher size. I've thrown in the towel with Ubuntu Unity and Gnome 3. I want what works and is stable and reliable, I don't mind change when it's for the better, but I'm not seeing better here.

[Lumikki]

Having usable defaults functions is different than having ability customize the enviroment for your own personal use. Because no everyone can create functions if they don't exist yet. But customize means there is allready function, but it's question do you want to use it. Bad design "defaults" is something where you can't even customize something way you want. Also unability customize can be that the function doesn't even exist or you don't know how to do it. Good defaults is when most people don't need to customize something, it is usable as it is.

[steve88]

I am reading the debate on default usable desktops with interest and think a few comments are due:

If you buy Windows XP or 7 to install on a PC yourself, (or if you buy a PC with with these systems installed as is probably most likely), you are getting an operating system which has a 'default' desktop, a 'default' operating system, and a few basic applications/tools as part of that package. Whilst Microsoft allow limited customisation to the extent of desktop art, icon views etc. it purposely limits your ability to 'customise' or reconfigure the desktop and underlying operating system to within strict limits as they do not want different configurations of their systems. Although there is little choice in what you get, Windows purchases are happy to have a 'default' operating system and look no further to alter it (if they could)

In order to add features to windows systems and enhance functionality, it is simply a matter of buying and installing in the main well known proprietary software e.g. MS Office, Photoshop, etc. etc. It is not difficult to do and can be done 'in store' at purchase if need be. This software is itself largely preconfigured and just need to be installed, i.e. a sort of 'default'. This is what windows users generally want.

With Linux, it is possible to start from virtually nothing and create a full package comprising operating system, desktop, and applications completely from scratch e.g. Arch Linux, or alternatively use a developed system offering various levels of completeness/flavours/shades/usability in between dependant on distro selected.

From the comments and views in this forum, most respondents demonstrate that they have a sufficient/high levels of familiarity, knowledge and skill, and profess to be able to select a suitable distro from the many, 'look under the bonnet', and 'customise' both desktop, operating system and applications to suit their needs.

Without mentioning the 'command line'; one of the biggest barriers to a wider take up of Linux systems in the individual user situation has always been (albeit hopefully passing reputation) for being 'geekish' and difficult to use.

Not having to 'fiddle under the bonnet' but still having a complete default usable and efficient system (not just a desktop) is a great aid to attracting new users to Linux and retaining inexperienced users. Once they have a complete default system up and running without a lot of 'aggro', and being used for the normal things they need to do, they are more likely to learn about it and discover it's full potential, and learn of it's greater potential and how to adapt it further to any specific needs.

On one hand it would seem that we have 'default Linux' desktops which are less easy (by design) to adapt and configure e.g.Ubuntu Unity/Gnome 3 and at the other extreme Arch Linux. The seemingly ideal mid position is a default usable system, that has good desktop default and all normally needed application pre installed, but also has accessible and complete tools for those that want to experiment and/or tweak their systems.

I feel it is a great mistake to 'dumb' systems down and make them inflexible (Unity), but also a mistake to assume all Linux users are adept at understanding the inner workings and 'jargon' of Linux and can manipulate the system to suit their needs.

Linux needs supporters and must attract 'converts'. And this applies to various distro's if they are to survive.

By definition “Most people are average”, (I.e. 68% fall into the +/- one standard deviation range of a normal distribution curve) . IMHO this is very true of peoples understanding of PC technology. We all think we know it, but in reality I wonder if it's more a case of “In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is King”.

Please do not return Linux to the 'Dark ages' and debar many very 'average' enthusiastic users/converts or potential future users by just concentrating on the two extremes, or by assuming they have the same level of skill as yourself.

Please help them 'hit the deck' running, and give them systems they can understand and use initially with good desktop and application defaults, but also encourage them to experiment by giving them default tools that are easily accessible and understandable for when they reach that point and want to move on and customise.

[Frankynstone]

The things you write are very good. Especially the "most people are average" thing.

I might be slightly above average when it comes to using (not tweaking or building) Linux. But I like good defaults. This is because I want to show less experienced users how great Linux is, especially Mint, which has a very good set of features. Less experienced users benefit from clearly arranged menus and settings. And I benefit from simplicity by having less to explain.

So, before I start to change everything, I try to live with the defaults to get to know the operating system as is. At the moment I'm not happy with Gnome Shell or Cinnamon and I will return to Xfce quite soon. It's a pitty that there is no LMDE with LXDE.

My wish list:

• LMDE Gnome 3 with Shell and Cinnamon for modern and open minded users
• LMDE Gnome 2 with classic Gnome 2 and MATÉ for traditionalists
• LMDE Light with LXDE and Xfce for people like me, who don't need much, but that must work

[Grez]

Although having used GNOME 2 since Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy) and dabbled with KDE and Unity, I like GNOME 3.

Am I weird?

[TomFreeloader]

- Gnome 2 and MGSE are discontinued and do not appear in this list. If you run either DE, instead of which desktop you currently use, please indicate which desktop you plan to switching to in the future. We know both Gnome 2 and MGSE are popular but we're interested in measuring the popularity of the desktops which will be around going forward.
- Because the forums polls only allow 10 voting options, Enlightenment, Trinity, RazorQT, ROX, non-listed DEs and the "no-choice" options were put together.
- This poll replaces the previous poll organized using Twiigs (http://www.twiigs.com/poll/Technology/Computers/93216) which results were unfortunately manipulated. If it's your second time voting please accept our apologies, if it's your third/fourth/fifth/hundredth time... well.. don't do it again!

You don't like KDE that well do you, Clem? I voted for KDE although I am kinda impressed with Cinnamon. It's nice.

[Frankynstone]

Grez, you aren't strange at all. And Tom, Cinnamon is nice, indeed. But it needs a bit of learning and rethinking. I have started with Ubuntu 6.06, by the way.

All I need is: an application menu, a places menu, a settings menu and a task+notification bar. All the 3d fun stuff and special effects are senseless overhead and may please vanish immediately. I am weird and I know it.

[Bigou]

Hello!

My everyday desktop is Cinnamon. That's not always easy with Ubuntu, but I'm a bit Shadok, ("Why do it the easy way when you can do it the hard way?") like alls others french people, I think.

I also use Unity, (in Ubuntu 12.04 it's a pretty good desktop, but I fear what is planed in future) and Enlightenment DR17. (But e17 isn't truly stable on my computer. Moreover, apps uring EFLs aren't truly common and often designed only to work on enabled devices. And if that was not enough, sometimes it's hard to find how to download theres apps.)

Edit:
Thanks steve88! Like you said, GNU/Linux also want average users. And average users want a desktop they can use "out of the box", without editing a config file, or worth, (re)coding a part of their desktop.

[bamm]

Clem, I think this poll can be closed now.

[zoli62]

I am using LXDE edition and LMDE with MATE and XFCE desktop enviroment. I like the MATE and XFCE interface, easy to use.

[Goz]

My favorite is MATE, but i am like Cinnamon and LXDE too.

Right now I'm still using 10;10 and am waiting to test Mint13..
Meanwhile,to answer your question,I've tested Mate on Mint and Xfce on Xubuntu and like both. It's going to be really hard to choose between Mate and Xfce. When Mint 13 is out,I'll burn it and check it out. If I like what I see,I'll add Mate or Xfce as the default desktop.
Since I need Compiz scroll zoom feature,I can't use Cinnamon. I'd like Enlightenment as well but it does not have the zoom feature, same for KDE. So Mate and Xfce are at the top of my list.

[Zin]

I just tried MATE on LM13 RC. Wow! It sure has come a long way! I didn't realize how much it had improved since i first tried it. I love both DEs (Cinnamon & MATE), and will be using them both (on different machines). My preference for the default LM13 DE is Cinnamon (since it was developed by the LM project), with MATE as the alternate. IMHO, Cinnamon is the most visually appealing Linux DE to date. To Clem and the LM team.........excellent job, as always!

[SCrid2000]

Wish MGSE was being maintained, that was IMO the best DE to date.

[heavy metal]

I voted for KDE but started giving me some issues after, so I'm now using LM Lisa LXDE and I find that is very good, I'm starting to like it even more than KDE, Gnone or Unity, so I wish I had voted for LXDE in the first time!

[AlbertP]

Is the poll closed? Or is it just impossible to change your votes?