Source?

services.msc.

Source?

services.msc.

Source?

Subjective impression.

MATE is a window manager based on gnome 2 source code.

Gnome 2 is not a window manager.

DE is fine. A desktop environment contains the "desktop" and some applications AFAIK, like KDE, so Gnome 2 is a DE too (Evolution etc.).

No, because of wrong things said.

Quote

MATE is not a WM or DE though. That's what most techies may underrate.

MATE is a window manager based on gnome 2 source code. It is going to be ported on GTK3+ soon. I am tracking mate changes on github and it is DE written over gnome 2. It was forked because many old gnome 2 users wanted menu based panel navigation instead of gnome3.

Why didn't they port said WM or shell then from the beginning? (You know...before calling it Gnome 3)

Did no one seriously think people wouldn't want menu based panel navigation or however the techies phrases it?

Like I said, underration. There's two main philosophical need why a DM or WM or shell is made besides a hobby.

1) Someone wants to port over a better or more familiar user interface.

2) Someone wants to bring something better.

MATE was not done/is not being ported for that purpose. Worse, gnome 2 was not broken. Even worse, not many embrace it's attempt.

"Oh it's just a WM."

"Oh it's going to be ported anyway."

To quote the first paragraph of one of the first search results when you Google for Gnome 3 sucks:

http://ingeek.com/yes-gnome-3-sucks/

What a complete disaster. More troubling than the technical implications is the attitude prevalent among developers and fans of this holy new version of Gnome that we should adapt to our computers rather than have them adapt to us. A perfect example of why programmers, just like many other types of smart people, suck. They think their intelligence qualifies them to make better choices for others.

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:

Open source is a fantastic development model. It produces superior software at an obviously lower price, which results in a win-win situation for the consumer. I do however believe that one of the underlying causes of what I will refer to as “the Gnome 3 problem” is the simple fact that free and open source software is not market-driven to the extent that commercial software is. A commercial software firm would never dream of implementing such radical and unpopular changes especially in such a short period of time. It would be disastrous. Users would revolt with their wallets and money would be lost. Just imagine if Microsoft Windows were to completely revamp their front-end; remove desktop icons, minimize and maximize buttons, and kill the start menu. It would be suicide.

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.

Yes, OP was far from serious hence my usage of the word "If".

Again I go back to the article:

Forced change (key word: forced), by definition, causes friction and therefore hurts productivity.

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.

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.

Again to quote the link:

The worst part about the destruction of customization options in the name of “ease of use” is that it seems to have backfired horribly. Gnome 3 is not easy to use. For the developers who created it, maybe, for all of us normal people, no. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Three clicks to get to an application? Then when you complain, some Gnome 3 fanboy tells you it’s actually easier, since you can just type the name of the application? Brilliant! If I wanted to type the names of my applications, I would be using the freaking command line.

I don't know if I can get to you however. You're intermixing hobby with the rebuttal of new vs. old. Neither is really connected and I didn't merge them.

Note that any working thing can be stopped from being a hobby by a boss, a design philosophy, beta testing, controlled migration, etc. etc.

As far as the new vs. the old. 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?

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 interface which was shoddy implementation of a so called interface being adopted to the change of the decade as if that justifies forced change especially within the context of it's initial release.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. It also goes counter to you ignoring his drivel. Again this is a strawman rebuttal. You omit crucial words such as "Ifs", 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.

No the arguments can't be moot because,

1) productivity is not just based on speed (i.e. time management)

2) speed is also based on the user's knowledge and skills with utilizing certain aspects of a feature (say mouse clicks vs. hotkeys)

3) You were the one who lumped the other side as all not using measured results so you raised the issue. By calling it a moot argument, you would be calling your own original statement a moot argument.

4) Blind tests are more important than being opened to measured results. In fact, while opening up is important to users less willing to experiment, it is also deadly for more intelligent users who might be biased towards a positive result.

5) A small increase in productivity can't make up for the longer time to adopt a new piece of interface and Linux by default is plagued with other areas that are just as time consuming besides the DE/WM.

Mind you you're wrong. It doesn't require any advanced user to keep up with developments to know how dynamic Linux WMs can be. You're showing your faulty prejudices here.

You can't even figure out something as basic as I think Linux WMs are dynamic so just because I raised the issue of Gnome 3 you immediately assumed:

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.

...when caught on this you went back on your statement and rephrased the question into:

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.

Problem with people with prejudices is that they jump to conclusions.

1) Desktop features can still mean many things depending on how the usability goes. It's not traditional vs. new but you're trying to lump those to paint a straw man where you can then argue against "criticism out of no strong points".

2) Many Windows user do use things like BB4Win.

3) If Gnome 3 was polished, there wouldn't have been as much complaints.

4) You talk all these good game but really the only example you have stated so far is Gnome 3 and the only thing you have hidden behind so far is Gnome 2. I don't deny that you may be more knowledgeable and aggressive at keeping up with news of development but it's like a mainstream fan talking about mainstream stuff and then railing all about polish and then flip flopping and talking about productivity all without defining much of them and when asked for proof after raising their measured data argument, then goes back on their statement and just say the argument is moot and you have to be open to the argument at the same time.

Sorry. Your vague line is contradictory. You can't say you follow developments only to say it's all about productivity only to then say it has to be polished only to then say some other things when the context was whether Linux simply has dynamic WMs/DEs. You're making new criterias as you're caught when you know my original statement is true so long as you don't make statements as as you go along:

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.

Some proof:

http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=107488

http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=101604

As small as these were, these were generally what got people excited about windows management in general and you didn't have to be a techie or a Linux user or even a constant development news stalker to grasp your mind around that these were fresher concepts that didn't need to hide behind what's new or old or mainstream.

The fact is you've already listed the facts:

MATE came after Gnome 3 because G3 is bad/was not polished. If you want to soften it up then fine: Gnome 3 is mediocre/above average/average.

MATE came after Gnome 3 because people wanted Gnome 2 but there was no way to go back to Gnome 2 on Gnome 3.

Hence from the beginning it was bad. Again, two words forced change. You want to make it semantic with things like settings, fine: forced default change.

It doesn't matter what new things you keep bringing up. You were the one who first replied to me, I clarified what my post meant based on your initial statements, and I simply replied based on the information you wrote at the time.

Not only that, some of the new issues you bring up are pretty sketchy. MATE never retained gnome 2 completely. That was one of the arguments why people constantly railed on Gnome 3. They said MATE is not just doing it for them.

...then some of the things you insert are flat out malicious. Secretly injecting the word superiority so that you can argue that Gnome 3 is superior for example:

Your asssume that MATE retains the superiority of old interface with that fork

I'm not saying you're intentionally planning it out but come on! Show a little sincerity here will you?

Is it really that hard for you to get the hard fact that Gnome 2 came before Gnome 3 and MATE only gained in popularity after because Gnome 3 wasn't doing it for certain people?

Is it so hard to understand that MATE's maturity is linked to the maturity of Gnome 3 because MATE's maturity is linked to getting back the maturity of Gnome 2?

Some of the new stuff you're bringing up are just so weird. You realize how close you sound like a cult member when you say things like:

open source community always cares for people

It's all over the place. Again, I probably won't get you because you're accusing me of making shit up and by showing you where you're making shit up it's probably coming off like now I'm the one accusing you back but you have to see some of the obvious faulty jumps to logic you're making up.

Late to the show here. First, the most popular Linux distro (distribution) has been "Ubuntu" (Ubuntu is actually Debian-based). Linux Mint (and a few others are actually Ubuntu-based). Kubuntu is an Ubuntu derivative that uses the KDE Desktop Environment rather than Gnome. Ubuntu Ver. 10.10 was the last version to use Gnome 2. It switched to the Unity Desktop in 11.04 (which, from what I understand, Windows 8 Metro mimics to an extent - not sure how much, since I could never get any of the three Win. 8 Previews to install in VirtualBox, in spite of sufficient memory and HD space on a new Win. 7 AMD64 machine). Other Distros have moved to Gnome 3. The one thing I liked about Ubuntu (and some of its derivatives) was the ability to install inside a Windows directory (called a Wubi install) and avoid dual booting which can cause problems on occasion as the Windows loaders and Grub (Linux loader) do not play nicely with each other. The Ubuntu CD cotains an "exe" file, named "wubi". It actaully installs Ubuntu in a Windows directory, like installing any other Windows app. I have an older XP laptop with this setup and Ubuntu runs just fine (I do defrag occasionally). With Win. 7 and a heftier system, I installed VirtualBox on my Win. 7 machine and have 4 different Linux distros installed in VMs. I can run Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome faster in a VM Linux distro than they actually run native on Win. 7. Performance of other Linux apps seem to be just fine.

The one thing I didn't like with Unity, was Unity Dash (Metro-like) and when you had a file manager display (like a directory display) it moved the Winows "Min./Max./Close" icons to the left side (similar to Apple) there is a config file that can be modified to set them back to the right side. I did notice in Ubuntu 12.04, that Ubuntu Tweak (like Windows Tweak utilities), you could set it back to the right side (where God intended). Another thiing, you can install multiple desktop environments in Linux. The site http://www.renewablepcs.com/about-linux/kde-gnome-or-xfce/ is a nice starting point on the more popular desktops. When you get the Log-on screen after boot-up, the top-right corner of the log-on box has an icon, click on it and choose the desktop - assuming it is installed). You have a number of GUI ways to install desktops and other apps on Ubuntu. The first way is using the Synaptic Package Manager (SPM). You can see all available apps (or apps in a specific category). Check a box and click "Apply" and let it install. Another way is via the Ubuntu Software Center. Although the format is somewhat different than the SPM, you select an app and click on install. While the install is taking place, you can click on another app and it will be stacked for install. You can also select "Software Sources", which opens up access to S/W apps not in the Ubuntu repository. You can also download Linux Debian-based apps (.deb) and use GDebi as the GUI to install. Also, Redhat (Fedora) apps (.rpm) can be downladed and converted (Alien) and installed. While I suspect some may not run smoothly, those that I have tried did not have any problems).

I preferred the Gnome 2 desktop, but under Unity, I installed the XFCE desktop as it is close to Gnome 2 (as is Classic Gnome). The thing I used heavily in Gnome 2 were the 2 panels (task-bars), top and bottom. Gnome 2 also allowed me to easily moved the icons on the panels to where I wanted them. There is also another Ubuntu based distro called Zorin_OS. The lastest is Release 6 (Core). What makes it interesting is you can select one of 3 desktop/menu environments - Gnome 2, Windows XP or Windows 7. There is a paid version which, I believe, also allows for an Apple desktop. The core underneath is still Linux, of course, but it does give that familiar look and feel. Zorin_OS installs with its own browser, but you can select from the menu (Applications -> Internet -> Zorin Browser Manager) Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome or Midori (in Zorin_OS 6 - Zorin_OS 5.2 Core, it was under Applications -> System Tools -> ZBM). Those who are interested in trying it out, can download it from the Zorin site http://zorin-os.com/free.html . I don't know if Zorin OS 5.2 can be found anymore - Gnome 2 and Zorin_OS 5.2 had on the top left corner, the menu items "Applications Places and System" - in Zorin_OS 6, they moved part of the "System" under "Applications -> System Tools" - probably due to the underlaying changes made in Ubuntu 12.04 (as 5.2 was based on Ubuntu 11.04). The download is 1.3GB (32bit) or 1.4GB (64bit). There are 4 sites, I recommend the NLUUG site as the fastest. Softpredia also offers the downloads - I presume from their site and not a redirection to the Zorin site.

BTW, someone posted a comment their was no equivalent to the Windows Task Manager, there is - it is the "System Monitor", found under "Administration". I have its icon installed on my top panel so I have ready access in case an app ever gets hung up.

Speaking of Zorin...

Have just tried 6 and these are my initial observations:

Pros:
-Installation process took a little over 15 min.
-Installation of initial major updates didn't stop me from using the browser (or other apps).
-Gives the impression of being lightweight.

Cons:
-The name Zorin sounds like some kind of medication.
-The Z logo is un-aesthetic.
-Google Chrome is proposed as default.
-Opera couldn't be found in the Software Manager.

Otherwise, i think i prefer it over Ubuntu for sure!
Will keep on tinkering with it to see how Firefox and Opera behave.
Chrome is doing pretty good (considering i only have 1G of RAM to play with).

@dantheman - you should be ok with 1GB. I'm running Mint on an old 2Ghz Core2-Duo laptop with 1 GB of RAM and 1 GB swap space and everything works just fine.  

For some reason, (just like Ubuntu too!)  , my monitor dims (during more intensive work like installing updates) and comes back.

Check your power management settings and see if the "Dim when idle" monitor option is selected. If it is, turn it off. I never use it because it's flaky with some graphic adapters and the power savings it provides are minuscule for most people. I just set my screensaver to black out the monitor after 15 minutes and call it a day.

Glad to see you're doing what Linux users the world over are discovering every day... Using what works for you.
But back to the question: in all that, did you feel like you were tinkering with an amusing hobby?  Or were you performing vital troubleshooting procedures in order to produce a usable workstation which would serve your computing needs for the foreseeable future?

That, I think is one of the dividing lines that must be crossed in order to differentiate between one or the other.  Seems so logical to say that Windows or Mac isn't a hobby, because they are production-ready systems that so many people actually do work on, for, and with.  Linux has classically been the domain of the tinkerer, power user, or the merely intellectually curious; yet, it has stood the test of production systems for years now.  Even now, a sizable chunk of the internet is powered by Linux or BSD (the "other" hobby OS),  and I am constantly absolutely boggled by the fact that people have absolutely no clue that their most trusted communication link (cell phone) could possibly be running on a hobby OS (android).

Like I said in my first response, it is what you make it.
I've used Linux in some incarnation for ~10 years now as my main, and now only OS, and it's as vital to me as any Windows or Mac would be to anyone else.  Granted, when my Linux breaks and I can't fix it, I go to the "community" instead of to the "experts", but really that's the biggest difference anymore.

8 more cents, and you'd have a dollar...