Recent Posts
I have yawcam set up so you can see me.
I need something portable this time. Mac Mini with linux ? I'll see if there is any similar box for linux.-mahesh2k (July 18, 2012, 05:05 PM)
See my post above.
(see attachment in previous post)The MintBox. Article here.
It's made by CompuLab. If you're not interested in this particular Linux Mint configuration, there are also 'bare metal' PCs on their website. They make the popular fit-PC series that the MintBox is based on. Grab one of those and install whatever distro you like best.-40hz (July 18, 2012, 06:27 PM)
There's nothing wrong with experimenting as long as you don't insist large portions of your user communityWhy are we blaming canonical for that? Unity was built on top of gnome3. It was gnome which started this new change,they enforced it, not canonical. Mark and canonical are only taking gnome3 ahead where gnome3 is stagnated with no further improvements. That said, there is nothing wrong with tablet UI's, afterall the days old desktop UI are outnumbered. I know, I used to mock from the other side, but after using it I feel way more comfortable than to click on button, open menu that takes entire screen space type UIs.
Where Canonical really wants to go is fairly obvious. They want a piece of branded hardware, and will probably introduce one within the next year. Once they have that, you can expect Ubuntu to drop support for regular desktop users. They'll keep their server because they are now offering their own cloud solutions. But Shuttleworth is firmly convinced the future lies in tablet devices so it's only a matter of time before Ubuntu shifts its efferts in that direction.What's wrong with that too? They are not going to be walled garden like apple or windows, you and I both know that for sure. There is nothing wrong with canonical attempting for tablet. As for ditching desktop users, mark made his statement on future vision, so your assumption is nowhere near what He thinks about desktop. So that assumption about desktop is purely out of fear.
Apple got where it was today by customizing a borrowed OS core and building their own proprietary device to run it. Why can't Ubuntu do the same?Apologies if I sound so cynical towards Ubuntu. It's only because I am.At one point we don't like unity being like apple UI and on another we like apple's minimalism?
Why ubuntu has to do everything that apple does? Why ubuntu has to be what windows users want? I am damn sure now that HUD on windows and apple platform could have been praised but just because canonical released it, people are not talking about it. Why? 
Stating quick tasks does not equal measured results either FYI especially when it comes to productivity.
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?
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.
As you said, MATE broke the mentality of a WM ported for the better. Therefore it's not your traditional WM. It was a port to bring back a one generation change because of the forced change that occurred.Exactly.
No one is saying change should not happen but this was not only cutting edge design (something many designers tend to prevent average users from having by default) but it was failed cutting edge design both because it didn't have MATE built in as a counter measure and because it's just not that good.If you don't give new interface the amount of time it needs to make things more productive, you'll never find out how usable they are. I am spending time with Unity (which is built over gnome 3 shell) and I find it more productive over the menu interface of gnome or KDE. It is all about adopting if it's more productive. HUD (headsup display) on unity is quite useful and more productive compared to old menu based interface. I can see how much they are usesful on tablets if gnome or ubuntu based tablets ever make it to the market. That's all i can say about forced change vs not wanting to change thinking.
You're intermixing hobby with the rebuttal of new vs. old. Neither is really connected and I didn't merge them.Not exactly. If we go by OP's definition. Hobby is something that is not working as per his perception of how things should work as he was taught at first place(being familiar and all). Going by that definition when windows user tries MAC it becomes hobby. For windows user, linux is hobby because they're too lazy to understand how things are different than their walled garden windows.
Gnome 3 did not just try to be new. It was bad.
It was bad because it didn't wait for Mate to mature before being Gnome 3 and it's bad because no one simply said "it sucks".
Of course it doesn't cut it if the words "it sucks" were said with no other explanation or justification. No one did though so why reply to this straw man instead of the actual implication?Simple because many people who gave that reaction failed to use that interface and presented no measured results.
It's just as bad as your inability to grasp the difference with desiring for a familiar interface because you don't want the new interface vs. the desiring for a previous generation old interface because it's both familiar and better than the new interfaceI don't think it's my inability to grasp things here where I corrected you MATE was born out of gnome 3s change of direction. It shows your inability to understand things here that old interface is soon going to be deprecated by WMs because of the touch interface hype. I never said I don't want the new interface in fact I have changed on that over time, I don't know what gave you that impression. As for previous generation of interface being familiar, MATE is going to change on that too. Are you going to still hold the same argument against them without keeping track of changes? Linux is all about changes, I learned that hard way. You can not quote old things on linux (or it's apps, wm's) and hold strong opinion on their current changes. Linux is very dynamic on WM/DE changes front these days.
as if they know the universe......
Why didn't they port said WM or shell then from the beginning? (You know...before calling it Gnome 3)What do you mean? I didn't get you here.
Did no one seriously think people wouldn't want menu based panel navigation or however the techies phrases it?On touch interface menu simply don't work that is why Touch based KDE is different from desktop. Many other WM/DE are thinking about touch interface as well. So this decade is more of change for all of us. Saying it sucks doesn't cut it. I used to hate unity and gnome 3 too but it seems to be making me more productive compared to menus. In case of gnome, they wanted to make interface same for both touch and desktop. Still menu-less interface is not that bad, it's just that windows migrants feel odd using it. Mac and the long term linux are not criticizing gnome 3 as much as windows migrants do. So i don't know what are you trying to prove here with context related to "gnome 3 sucks" when almost every commercial OS has it's shortcoming which are even worst.
MATE was not done/is not being ported for that purpose.'
Like I said, underration. There's two main philosophical need why a DM or WM or shell is made besides a hobby.Gnome 2 is traditional interface which was inspired by old mac interface. Gnome was following mac's design practices. With gnome 3 they made many new changes in the design that doesn't go with regular desktop expectation. MATE was not ported to make it more better, it was ported because people are used to old interface.
1) Someone wants to port over a better or more familiar user interface.
2) Someone wants to bring something better.
The next paragraph also makes a case for why it is a hobby regardless whether the OP was serious or shallow or trolling in the thread:If you want to make any working thing hobby then nobody can stop you. Even apple and windows can be hobby and we can go on quote trolling with why windows vista sucks, why apple jaguar sucks etc. Point is that just because people don't find it usability in it or learned to fail the new technology doesn't make it hobby, it proves their inability for things.
I mean look at your reply even. You basically omitted all context only to stick with a technical semantic where you in turn get called for your technical semantic and even if the OP was serious, the essence of his title would be lost and hijacked by whether MATE is or is not a WM/DE.I didn't omitted context, i simply wanted to point out that MATE is now working WM/DE and is not being treated like gnome 2 fork anymore because many parts of it are rewritten. As for my replies being semantically corrected, I have noticed that member doing the same in many other threads with his own ways of trolling for finding semantic arguments which he thinks is right. So i simply ignore his comments as they lack some valuable contribution or are not meant to be helpful at all. As for your point on OP being serious, it was started as a drivel thread and he took more positive approach based on replies he got. If he were to get some replies to agree with him, this thread could have gone in more drivel than being what is currently discussed. OP was far from serious.
You'll wake up tomorrow with a 10 year old daughter and wonder what happened to the previous decade.
MATE is not a WM or DE though. That's what most techies may underrate.
