Stating quick tasks does not equal measured results either FYI especially when it comes to productivity.
You have to actually open to up measured results in order to understand what they are. If you have never used HUD or Gnome 3 equal to the time you used traditional interface, argument is moot. Productivity regarding tasks is measured against time. HUD performs faster compared to menu interface on that.
Stating Linux is very dynamic on WM/DE changes front these days is also not much of a statement.
Sure it is not for you because you're not even keeping up with the changes in the WM and you are not even sure how those DE's are changed or from where they are forked and for what purpose.
Dynamic compared to what?
Dynamic compared to their own previous versions or even you can say windows versions. You can't beat linux WM's like dead horse by comparing gnome 2 version with windows 7 or 8, when you are not even aware that there are faster and more productive and responsive UI's coming out. If you're holding onto linux with your presumptions and going to be negative about it, then that is purely out of your perspective, that is not WM's fault.
Even in pre-Gnome 3 days there were many WMs/DEs unique to Linux especially when you factor in other micro-apps that change how windows are managed but are not full shells.
How many of them were more productive and eye candy or say polished at the same time? There was nothing unique in them when they were just mimicking the traditional desktop features that you can find on any other desktop. Problem with linux haters is that they're open to apple or windows innovation in UI or some design crap but if open source community does any innovation there is criticism for the sake of it, atleast criticism out of no strong points.
Mate is related to Gnome 3 because Mate was a reaction to Gnome 3. You know it's bad design when someone needs to recreate an old interface. Not only that but you can't hide behind the amount of time it needs since you didn't specify such an amount and you're railing on people not providing any measured result. These two are contrary.
Sure it was reaction to new interface. But in order to call it bad you have to use
it for equally long time like the old interface. Initial reaction was purely based on the look and feel and uncomfortable feel that people got while navigating the desktop. Nobody focused on productivity to get things done. On productivity scale it is far more superior. Have you even used gnome 3 for searching files, programs and to manage multiple workspace? I underestimated all this earlier with same arguments against gnome 3 and after using it I realized it was meant to save a lot of my time. Sure it resembles apple's design, but it is working. Your asssume that MATE retains the superiority of old interface with that fork,in reality MATE is just a refuge desktop that many people have as of now. Same goes for cinnamon. It is about time that linux like any other desktop going to make changes to the traditional interface, there is nothing wrong with that. It is natural for people who are into UI based desktop to get shocked to see major changes in their desktop. There is going to be another shock when tablets will be more cheaper and we'll be using new touch responsive UI in next year or so.
This is how Mate relates to Gnome 3. If Gnome 3 waited for MATE's maturity then there would have been less complaints. Instead it was force change. A change that wasn't just forced upon Linux newbies but forced upon long time Gnome users.
Again same thing. Is it hard for you to get the hard fact that MATE was born after Gnome3?
If you check the thread which i posted earlier you'll realize that MATE's maturity has nothing to do with gnome3. It's like saying baby shouldn't have been born before it gets mature in womb. Here is something for easy. Gnome 3 first and MATE second and also one important point, MATE is based on OLD gnome 2 code which used GTK 2+ which is now going to be deprecated. MATE was born because gnome-classic session is going to be ignored when gnome 4 comes for new hardware and 3d acceleration. It is not forced at all. Gnome-panel or gnome classic session was always there for people who wanted to use the old gnome interface. It was not forced
at all. You're talking about linux here, open source community always cares for people, because it is for people software, not profit. LIke donationcoders, they are running totally on worldwide donations and there are people working from around the world for gnome.
It is also disingenuous to both call the OP's words drivel and then to rely on his drivel to redefine the meaning of hobby according to him. Drivel means you can reinvent what he really meant when he said of hobby to support your own bias on what drivel really means.
Not exactly, it is
drivel. Google "confirmation bias" to validate whether it was my bias to call it drivel or it was drivel again linux to begin with. If you carefully read his post until he decided to approach linux with open mind. I am not here to defend linux or open source. I was in thread to see if he wants the solution to his problem then we got derailed to what we are posting right now.
you would rather side with what you consider drivel than what the common lay person understands as hobby or even what that article defines as unprofessional forced change, you are merely supplanting your own bias instead of debunking anything.
If you're talking about your ignorance for gnome-classic session which shows gnome 3 was not forced change, then I have posted about that in my previous point. I have nothing to debunk. It is something you want to make up from this discussion.