GNOME 3.28 Removes Option to Put Icons on the Desktop

[Cali3350]

Don't want to deal with Gnome? Plenty of other options out there like XFCE, Budgie, Cinnamon, MATE, KDE and many others. But yeah "Linux doesn't have a desktop that can contain folders".

I don't think this is a smart idea but they also aren't targeting the masses. They're targeting Linux users.

I'm in the boat where I may think this isn't that great of an idea, I don't care that Gnome is doing this. I don't put anything on my desktop and haven't in years. I used to hide it all on my Windows desktop too. I like a clean desktop with a beautiful wallpaper. When I'm at work and have to work on somebodies computer where their desktop is a shithole...it drives me insane.

No marketable or useable software that is used by the public depends upon third party installation for basic functionality. Linux has been, and continues to be, a bunch of developers who care more about their particular vision (not Linux's vision, just their personal vision).

And thats fine. Been using *Nix at work for years, I haven't even seen a Window system in many of those years since everything is CLI. But for somethinng like a UI manager, who's entire purpose is to MAKE software marketable... its baffling.

 

[Master_shake_]

imagine how many ipads apple would have sold if there were nothing on the main screen of the OS

instead you had to push the button twice to bring up the icon menu.

this is stupid linux too much too fast.

 

[Meeho]

Don't want to deal with Gnome? Plenty of other options out there like XFCE, Budgie, Cinnamon, MATE, KDE and many others. But yeah "Linux doesn't have a desktop that can contain folders".

Yes, until the developers of those decide to do something as retarded. But, hey, there's always the next choice with Linux that will really work for you. Until it doesn't. But, hey, there's always...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

No marketable or useable software that is used by the public depends upon third party installation for basic functionality. Linux has been, and continues to be, a bunch of developers who care more about their particular vision (not Linux's vision, just their personal vision).

And thats fine. Been using *Nix at work for years, I haven't even seen a Window system in many of those years since everything is CLI. But for somethinng like a UI manager, who's entire purpose is to MAKE software marketable... its baffling.

With linux you CAN install third party applications if you want to, but you don't have to. You just have to choose the right Linux for you!

Comments like these misunderstand what Linux is and what it isn't.

Linux as it core is a kernel, not a complete operating system. That kernel has been used in many applications from dedicated server operating systems, desktop operating systems, embedded systems, phone and tablet operating systems, car systems, etc. etc.

There is no such thing as a unified Linux operating system, so don't compare "Linux" to "Windows". That is a false comparison.

Compare - instead - one of the many distributions with Windows. These are complete packages with desktop environments, and everything that makes an operating system work. There is no need to add "third party" software for basic desktop support if you just choose the distribution that works for you.

There are enough distributions out there (~480 or so) that everyone should be able to find one that suits their needs. This timeline helps organize them. This is both a blessing and a curse, as it creates enough variety that most people can find one that suits them, but at the same time, it can be a little challenging to develop for because they're are so many. Luckily due to the shared kernel, and shared libraries for desktop environments (Like Qt which traditionally underlies KDE and these days many others, and GTK which traditionally underlies Gnome, and these days many others) the numbers of shared permutations and combinations is really not that large.

With the Kernel in common, and most distributions choosing either a Qt based or GTK based desktop environment, the level of binary compatibility between Linux systems is very high. The big differences are going to be more ini regards to how you configure, how you distribute/install software packages and how they behave cosmetically. And even so, most distributions with Qt based desktop environments include compatibility for GTK applications and most distributions with GTK based desktop environments include compatibility for Qt as well. Usually the biggest problem you will have if you run a QT based piece of software on a GTK based desktop environment (or vice versa) is that window decorations will not match the system theme, as window decorations are set in different apps for Qt and GTK.

TLDR version, yes, Linux as a whole is fragmented, but it is a lot less bad than it looks. Develop for your choice of either Qt or GTK and your program will run on like 99% of desktop linux distributions. The challenge is that you cant possibly do testing on them all, so just pick the top 3 or 4 most possible distributions and you probably get most of the way there, and can just tell everyone else that it will probably work, but that you are on your own from a support perspective.

TLDR2 version: Try changing your perspective to view individual Linux based distributions as distinct operating systems that just so happen to have a very high level of binary compatibility, and you'll do much better with it.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yes, until the developers of those decide to do something as retarded. But, hey, there's always the next choice with Linux that will really work for you. Until it doesn't. But, hey, there's always...

Freedom is messy.

If you cant deal with that, and want authoritarianism, that's your choice.

That being said, usually good things that people like stay in un-retarded form, or if they don't someone forks them and you can continue using a different version of it.

Example:

Gnome 2 was the long time favorite desktop environment of most Desktop Linux users for years. Ubuntu utilized this until 2011 when they made the boneheaded move to go with their own creation called Unity. At abaout the same Time Gnome 3 was starting to come out, but it made enough changes that people didn't like it much.

So what happened?

Suddenly new distributions popped up. You could now install Linux Mint, almost exactly like you used to install Ubuntu (because it is based on Ubuntu, except for one small detail, the desktop environment). in the beginning they were Gnome 2 based, until support ended for Gnome 2, and they gradually transitioned to a choice between MATE (a further developed fork of the Gnome 2 code) and Cinnamon (a new more modern Gnome2 work-a-like).

Users won. They got to have the experience they wanted, pretty much uninterrupted, with the same underlying Ubuntu base they were used to.

That's the great thing about this "fragmentation" as some call it. When users don't like something, they have 479 other choices to move to, and they do, and a new distribution becomes king overnight.


Think of it this way. What if when Windows decided to do the Metro interface with Windows 8 people had the choice of just picking a different new version instead from a competing project, that ran all the same programs under the hood as Windows 8 did, but looked and felt like Windows 7, and continued to get all the Winsows 8+ scheduler and kernel improvements, full support for the newest CPU's and DirectX 12 support.

Or when Windows 10 came out, if users could choose an alternate competing project that did away with the Microsoft store, all the forced Microsoft apps, Cortana, Xbox integration, etc. etc. but got the same under the hood improvements, and Game Mode enhancements as before?

Would that be a BAD thing? It might for Microsoft, but for the user it would be bloody fantastic.


To me it sounds like you are selling the biggest problem with Windows, the fact that Microsoft has the power to shove whatever they want down our throats and we don't have much of a choice as some sort of benefit, and that is just silly.

 

[Merc1138]

Freedom is messy.

If you cant deal with that, and want authoritarianism, that's your choice.

That being said, usually good things that people like stay in un-retarded form, or if they don't someone forks them and you can continue using a different version of it.

Example:

Gnome 2 was the long time favorite desktop environment of most Desktop Linux users for years. Ubuntu utilized this until 2011 when they made the boneheaded move to go with their own creation called Unity. At abaout the same Time Gnome 3 was starting to come out, but it made enough changes that people didn't like it much.

So what happened?

Suddenly new distributions popped up. You could now install Linux Mint, almost exactly like you used to install Ubuntu (because it is based on Ubuntu, except for one small detail, the desktop environment). in the beginning they were Gnome 2 based, until support ended for Gnome 2, and they gradually transitioned to a choice between MATE (a further developed fork of the Gnome 2 code) and Cinnamon (a new more modern Gnome2 work-a-like).

Users won. They got to have the experience they wanted, pretty much uninterrupted, with the same underlying Ubuntu base they were used to.

That's the great thing about this "fragmentation" as some call it. When users don't like something, they have 479 other choices to move to, and they do, and a new distribution becomes king overnight.


Think of it this way. What if when Windows decided to do the Metro interface with Windows 8 people had the choice of just picking a different new version instead from a competing project, that ran all the same programs under the hood as Windows 8 did, but looked and felt like Windows 7, and continued to get all the Winsows 8+ scheduler and kernel improvements, full support for the newest CPU's and DirectX 12 support.

Or when Windows 10 came out, if users could choose an alternate competing project that did away with the Microsoft store, all the forced Microsoft apps, Cortana, Xbox integration, etc. etc. but got the same under the hood improvements, and Game Mode enhancements as before?

Would that be a BAD thing? It might for Microsoft, but for the user it would be bloody fantastic.


To me it sounds like you are selling the biggest problem with Windows, the fact that Microsoft has the power to shove whatever they want down our throats and we don't have much of a choice as some sort of benefit, and that is just silly.

And a new distro becomes king overnight, with developers abandoning whatever system you might have currently had in place. Yup, that's just wonderful...

You try to make it sound as if fragmentation is a good thing, but there's a difference between choice and a clusterfuck. Linux fragmentation is a clusterfuck. A similar clusterfuck would be android that doesn't get updated from a central source leaving people without updates for months/years until a vendor gets off their rear end and actually pushes out an update if they ever bother to, that's not good for the consumer, it's actually quite terrible.

Yeah there are linux desktop users who accept the fact that it will never be mainstream due to these things, but we've been hearing about "this is the year of the linux desktop!" since the '90s and we aren't any closer in 20 years, effectively leaving almost the entire consumer market with two real options, Windows and OSX.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

And a new distro becomes king overnight, with developers abandoning whatever system you might have currently had in place. Yup, that's just wonderful...

You try to make it sound as if fragmentation is a good thing, but there's a difference between choice and a clusterfuck. Linux fragmentation is a clusterfuck. A similar clusterfuck would be android that doesn't get updated from a central source leaving people without updates for months/years until a vendor gets off their rear end and actually pushes out an update if they ever bother to, that's not good for the consumer, it's actually quite terrible.

Yeah there are linux desktop users who accept the fact that it will never be mainstream due to these things, but we've been hearing about "this is the year of the linux desktop!" since the '90s and we aren't any closer in 20 years, effectively leaving almost the entire consumer market with two real options, Windows and OSX.

Well, my take is that the standardization steps needed to make Linux main stream in the way you suggest would ruin everything I like about it, so I am very happy with keeping things the way they are.

That being said, having a gold standard large volume distribution locked down in the way you suggest wouldn't be a bad thing. As long as it maintains binary compatibility with other implementations it could serve as the development target for testing purposes. Other distributions might work or they might not, but the expectation would then be "we validate against this one diatribution". You are free to use others if you want to. It will probably work, but comes without any guarantees or support.

A model like that effectively cuts down on the fragmentation from the developers perspective and shifts the onus of testing from the software tester to the distribution when it comes to maintaining compatibility with the gold standard distribution.

For Enterprise we pretty much have this already in RHEL and in the consumer market we pretty much already have this in Ubuntu.

The fragmentation issue really doesn't seem as bad as everyone is making it out to be.