Poll: Desktop environments

[cwwgateway]

SolusOS is still in Squeeze but when they migrate to Wheezy Ikey has said that it will have a heavily modified Gnome3.

I don't think you're right here. I know the SolusOS devs like Mate but they haven't yet made a final decision on the desktop.

Ikey will use a heavily hacked gnome 3 fallback that makes it like gnome 2 (applets are compatible, etc).

[egabrum]

I have to say, that I find it a little strange to hear that Gnome-Shell is unusable, etc...

Let me explain some of the reasons why, in my opinion, Gnome Shell is a step backwards in efficiency, usability and ergonomics:

[*] I have no visibility of the windows and applications I am working with. There are all 'hidden'.
[*] I have 2 bars basically dedicated to tell me what is my current window. The one at the top of the screen, telling me name of the application in use (I already now that), the time (with a huge waste of real estate) and some notification icons (these are OK). And a second one: the top bar of the window I am actually using. If I click on the section telling me "what I already know" (the active application), I only get the option to close the window (thanks for nothing).
[*] To switch to another window, I have to go all the way to the farthest end, find out where the window I want is (it might be anywhere, not where I put it) and then go back to the center of the screen to click on it. Screens are big these days... that is a long trip just to switch windows.
[*] Alt-Tab: even worse. If I have 2 windows of the same application open (this is 100% of the time for me), I need 2 hands to switch: one for the alt-tab and the other for the arrow or mouse to select the specific window. What were they thinking??? Merging windows of a same application is copying a bad idea from Windows7 ...and at least W7 allows me to revert it.
[*] To open an application, I have to go all the way to the farthest extreme, go back to "Applications", then all the way to the other extreme of the screen (are you playing with me???), select the application group (you don't expect me to browse in the merged group of 100-something icons, right?) and then go back to the center of the screen to select the app I wanted to open. Again: what were they thinking?? Yes, I can do it with the keyboard, but you don't have to punish me by making me take a tour on my screen if I want to use the mouse.
[*] Same thing if I want to switch desktops (although desktops don't have any utility _for_me_): trip to the top left, trip to the right...
[*] What is that thing hiding at the bottom right? Don't I have already a notification icons section at the top right, in the bar allocating 30 cm to display the hour.
[*] Other way to switch windows: trip to the far top-left, and down to that panel on the left. But I only get 1 icon per application (W7...). If I click on it, which of the several windows of that application do I get? Only Gnome Shell knows... It's the Lottery feature of Gnome Shell. Oh, wait! There is a law to it: it gives me the latest window that I was using ...thanks for taking me to where I just come from. So, If I am on window A of Nautilus and want to go to window B of Nautilus, I go to the Activities, click on the Nautilus icon of the left panel and I get to... window A of Nautilus. Another tour courtesy of Gnome Shell.

These are only the design flaws I was able to spot in 10 minutes of use... I wish there were a standard test to measure the ergonomics and usability of different DE. If only in miles traveled by the mouse, the designers of Shell would be embarrassed.

The task bar concept might be old but, once you have invented the wheel, you don't put octagons on your car... You improve the wheel and only replace it when there is a new technology available. Shell's paradigm is not new technology. It's an octagon.

It's not that I don't like Gnome-Shell (it has a nice look), it's that it is a perfect example of bad, bad design. It has the worst problem of any piece of software:
bad specification design. Debugging it only gets to closer to a perfectly bad product. I am persuaded that the developers only had in mind innovation (at all cost), 'coolness' and looks when they developed Shell, instead of efficiency and ergonomics which, in my opinion, are the sacred laws for a desktop environment.

P.D. None of my comment should be taken personally. It's just constructive criticism, because I care. I honestly don't want to offend anybody.

[bamm]

I have a question guys, what is better Windows Xp or Windows vista. I used to be linux user.

Try linux mint. It is available from www.linuxmint.com and it is better than either of the systems you mentioned.

[bamm]

Let me explain some of the reasons why, in my opinion, Gnome Shell is a step backwards in efficiency, usability and ergonomics:

Nice summary. An idea crossed my mind. Perhaps if we can come up with similar criticisms of Cinnamon and Mate, then it would help the Mint team make it better. The big difference being that the Mint team listens to criticism, unlike other projects.

[monkeyboy]

I have a question guys, what is better Windows Xp or Windows vista. I used to be linux user.

There is a reason why posts have a useful shelf life, past a certain point they often become troll bait. Enjoy

[veggen]

Let me explain some of the reasons why, in my opinion, Gnome Shell is a step backwards in efficiency, usability and ergonomics:
...

QFT.
Seriously, this is the most succinct explanation of what's wrong with Gnome Shell and why we need Mate/Cinnamon I've ever come across. Everything you said is 100% true. And I especially love and agree with this part:

It's not that I don't like Gnome-Shell (it has a nice look), it's that it is a perfect example of bad, bad design. It has the worst problem of any piece of software:
bad specification design. Debugging it only gets it closer to a perfectly bad product....

This servers as a perfect answer to the usual "let it mature" arguments. Maturing won't help it if the foundation is rotten.

[AlbertP]

• I have no visibility of the windows and applications I am working with. There are all 'hidden'.

Exactly why I don't like the shell. Your other points are also very true but this is my main problem with it.

• To switch to another window, I have to go all the way to the farthest end, find out where the window I want is (it might be anywhere, not where I put it) and then go back to the center of the screen to click on it. Screens are big these days... that is a long trip just to switch windows.

With a mouse it's okay for me, I only have 1280x800 here, but on a touchpad this is the slowest way of window switching ever invented. The official workaround is to use the Windows key instead of the hot corner but yes it also needs a faster way to switch windows by mouse.

[veggen]

Is there a way to, for example, show the overview if both mouse buttons are pressed together (perhaps using a third-party utility)? It seems to me like that would help a little.

[bamm]

This servers as a perfect answer to the usual "let it mature" arguments. Maturing won't help it if the foundation is rotten.

Another example of this is Unity. Unity has matured since it first appeared. Its bugs have been fixed. It is now close to perfection of a bad design.

[AlbertP]

Cinnamon is perhaps nowhere as close to perfection but is not a bad design at all. I've voted Cinnamon.

[bamm]

Cinnamon is perhaps nowhere as close to perfection but is not a bad design at all. I've voted Cinnamon.

True. "Let it mature" is applicable to Cinnamon and Mate. These desktops are good in design but buggy. In contrast, Unity is very stable in 12.04. Its bugs have been fixed. But its flawed design masquerading as "forward looking" makes it hard to use, bugs or no bugs. Personally though I would rather use Unity than Shell.

[Verix]

Let me explain some of the reasons why, in my opinion, Gnome Shell is a step backwards in efficiency, usability and ergonomics:
...

QFT.
Seriously, this is the most succinct explanation of what's wrong with Gnome Shell and why we need Mate/Cinnamon I've ever come across. Everything you said is 100% true.

Agreed, great post. I might also add:
- Say you have gEdit, Firefox, and LibreOffice Writer all open. It's likely all of these have mostly white pages, so the thumbnails in Activities look almost identical. With no presence of an icon next to the thumbnail, the only way you can tell them apart is by reading the thumbnail titles, which makes app switching even more cumbersome.

[rop75]

I have to say, that I find it a little strange to hear that Gnome-Shell is unusable, etc...

Let me explain some of the reasons why, in my opinion, Gnome Shell is a step backwards in efficiency, usability and ergonomics:

[*] I have no visibility of the windows and applications I am working with. There are all 'hidden'. FIXING THAT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT...YOU JUST NEED TO INSTALL AVANT WINDOW NAVIGATOR, DOCKY, CAIRO DOCK... OR YOU CAN PRESS THE "WINDOWS" KEY
[*] I have 2 bars basically dedicated to tell me what is my current window. The one at the top of the screen, telling me name of the application in use (I already now that), the time (with a huge waste of real estate) and some notification icons (these are OK). And a second one: the top bar of the window I am actually using. If I click on the section telling me "what I already know" (the active application), I only get the option to close the window (thanks for nothing). THE RUNNING APPLICATION ICON ON THE TOP BAR IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USEFUL BUT TO BE NICE, ACTUALLY i LIKE THE WAY THE TOP BAR LOOKS IN GNOME SHELL THAN IN GNOME 2 / CINNAMON. BY THE WAY WITH THE LATEST GNOME SHELL VERSION, THIS IS STARTING TO BE CHANGED AND THE TOP BAR ICON OF YOUR RUNNING APPLICATION IS GOING TO BE MORE USEFUL
[*] To switch to another window, I have to go all the way to the farthest end, find out where the window I want is (it might be anywhere, not where I put it) and then go back to the center of the screen to click on it. Screens are big these days... that is a long trip just to switch windows. OR YOU CAN INSTALL A DOCK
[*] Alt-Tab: even worse. If I have 2 windows of the same application open (this is 100% of the time for me), I need 2 hands to switch: one for the alt-tab and the other for the arrow or mouse to select the specific window. What were they thinking??? Merging windows of a same application is copying a bad idea from Windows7 ...and at least W7 allows me to revert it. YOU CAN PRES THE "WINDOWS" KEY TO SEE ALL THE WINDOWS OF ANY APPLICATION YOU ARE USING.
[*] To open an application, I have to go all the way to the farthest extreme, go back to "Applications", then all the way to the other extreme of the screen (are you playing with me???), select the application group (you don't expect me to browse in the merged group of 100-something icons, right?) and then go back to the center of the screen to select the app I wanted to open. Again: what were they thinking?? Yes, I can do it with the keyboard, but you don't have to punish me by making me take a tour on my screen if I want to use the mouse. OR YOU CAN INSTALL A DOCK. IF YOU WANT TO OPEN AN APPLICATION WITH GNOME 2/MATE/CINNAMON (USING THE DEFAULT SETTINGS) YOU NEED TO GO TO THE MENU, LOOK FOR THE APPLICATION AND CLICK THE ICON, EXACTLY THE SAME
[*] Same thing if I want to switch desktops (although desktops don't have any utility _for_me_): trip to the top left, trip to the right... I DON'T SWITCH DESKTOPS EITHER SO i CAN'T HLP YOU WITH THIS
[*] What is that thing hiding at the bottom right? Don't I have already a notification icons section at the top right, in the bar allocating 30 cm to display the hour. HERE YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THE NOTIFICATION AREA
[*] Other way to switch windows: trip to the far top-left, and down to that panel on the left. But I only get 1 icon per application (W7...). If I click on it, which of the several windows of that application do I get? Only Gnome Shell knows... It's the Lottery feature of Gnome Shell. Oh, wait! There is a law to it: it gives me the latest window that I was using ...thanks for taking me to where I just come from. So, If I am on window A of Nautilus and want to go to window B of Nautilus, I go to the Activities, click on the Nautilus icon of the left panel and I get to... window A of Nautilus. Another tour courtesy of Gnome Shell. OR YOU CAN JUST INSTALL A DOCK OR PRESS THE WINDOWS KEY.

These are only the design flaws I was able to spot in 10 minutes of use... (I CAN SEE YOU'VE ONLY TRIED IT FOR TEN MINUTES, BUT, WITH THE DUE RESPECT, IF YOU HAVE ONLY TRIED IT FOR TEN MINUTES, THEN YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW) I wish there were a standard test to measure the ergonomics and usability of different DE. If only in miles traveled by the mouse, the designers of Shell would be embarrassed.

The task bar concept might be old but, once you have invented the wheel, you don't put octagons on your car... You improve the wheel and only replace it when there is a new technology available. Shell's paradigm is not new technology. It's an octagon.

It's not that I don't like Gnome-Shell (it has a nice look), it's that it is a perfect example of bad, bad design. It has the worst problem of any piece of software:
bad specification design. Debugging it only gets to closer to a perfectly bad product. I am persuaded that the developers only had in mind innovation (at all cost), 'coolness' and looks when they developed Shell, instead of efficiency and ergonomics which, in my opinion, are the sacred laws for a desktop environment.

P.D. None of my comment should be taken personally. It's just constructive criticism, because I care. I honestly don't want to offend anybody.

Sorry for the capital letters, I am not angry nor shouting at you. I agree with you when you say that the default configuration of the gnome shell might be a bit discouraging (and you forgot mentioning the window buttons and the power off setting in the original Gnome shell), but with some tweaking Gnome shell is really nice and usable, in fact is my favourite DE with LMDE.

[bamm]

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.

[Kimaster]

Xfce is really cool, check out new version 4.10: http://xfce.org/about/tour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjyLk6rUY4

[cwwgateway]

Xfce is really cool, check out new version 4.10: http://xfce.org/about/tour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjyLk6rUY4

While I haven't used version 4.10 (I'm too lazy to figure out how to install it ), I agree that it really is pretty darn good - both light and feature rich. In addition, I've heard nothing but good things about version 4.10.

[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.