[HN Gopher] Everyone seems to forget why GNOME and GNOME 3 and U...
___________________________________________________________________
Everyone seems to forget why GNOME and GNOME 3 and Unity happened
Author : JetSpiegel
Score : 62 points
Date : 2022-07-27 21:43 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (liam-on-linux.dreamwidth.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (liam-on-linux.dreamwidth.org)
| xiaomai wrote:
| I vaguely remember the Microsoft/SuSe deal but never linked that
| to GNOME3. I really love gnome-shell, but one thing I always have
| to tweak is putting the minimize/maximize buttons back in the
| toolbar (couldn't ever figure out why they would get rid of
| those... now i know?).
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I assumed that it either had something to do with filesystem
| patents[0] or the vague patent claims they made on early
| Android vendors. UI design didn't even cross my mind - I didn't
| even know those were _patentable_ , and Apple's foray into
| "look and feel" lawsuits was something Microsoft adamantly
| fought _against_. Hell, if I 've heard correctly[1], Microsoft
| was the reason why those early UI design flourishes like
| faux-3D highlights made their way into CDE and Motif.
|
| Given that Miguel de Icaza already is calling BS on this I'm
| starting to doubt the veracity of any of this.
|
| [0] Microsoft still claims ownership over ExFAT, for example
|
| [1] It was vaguely mentioned somewhere in NCommander's very,
| _very_ long "Installing every version of IBM OS/2" stream
| bawolff wrote:
| If gnome's menu is a "start menu", then surely macOS classic's
| apple menu also counts as a start menu ?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.p...
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| The bar at the left of the desktop on Unity is very much like the
| Windows 7 taskbar, which can optionally be placed at the left.
| This doesn't seem credible to me.
| linguae wrote:
| This is news to me. I remember that the Linux desktop seemed to
| be on the ascendancy back in 2006. GNOME 2 and KDE 3 were very
| nice desktops; while they weren't Mac OS X Tiger (which still
| holds up as an amazing desktop), they were solid contenders to
| Windows XP. But then came GNOME 3 and KDE 4, which were major
| fumbles that set back the Linux desktop for years.
|
| If it's true that GNOME's radical direction beginning with
| version 3 is the result of threats from Microsoft to change its
| desktop to avoid influences from Windows, then that definitely
| changes my assessment of the era, and my distaste for Microsoft's
| anti-competitive behavior only deepens (this is the same
| Microsoft that complained about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuits).
| cube00 wrote:
| At the time I remember the discussions seemed to be "this how
| the GNOME team have decided things will be, it's better, deal
| with it"
|
| There was no discussion I saw that they doing all this under
| the threat of legal action, although maybe they didn't want to
| paint an even larger target on their backs by naming Microsoft
| or be seen trying to change things just enough to avoid the
| patents.
| toyg wrote:
| Plenty of stuff in the Linux world was done naming Microsoft
| in adversarial terms - that was definitely not the case on
| the desktop. All three main groups (GNOME, KDE, and Unity)
| always, _always_ stated they were making bold design choices
| for practical reasons related to UX. To claim otherwise,
| today, seems very disingenuous.
| int_19h wrote:
| GNOME already changed direction rather radically between v1 and
| v2. I specifically remember many people complaining about all
| the simplifications and removal of various configurable
| options, and blaming GNOME for drinking too much Apple kool-
| aid.
|
| For example, it was GNOME 2 that removed the address (path)
| textbox in the file picker by default:
| https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=609128
| dijit wrote:
| This is my impression to, as a person deep into the Linux
| desktop ecosystem from back then.
|
| I even managed to give gnome2 to my mum at one point and she
| remarked how nice everything was and easy to find. I had more
| difficulty than she did since I was much more into computers
| and had learned all the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of
| Windows.
|
| Then gnome3 came and was a huge regression in terms of
| flexibility, ease of use, aesthetics and performance.
|
| Plasma was the same, though, subjectively it looked better and
| was a lot less antagonising than gnomes radical redesign, it
| was still really heavy and buggy compared to kde3 (or whatever
| the predecessor was, I think 3).
|
| Plasma/KDE was also very windows-like, so I don't buy the
| argument that Microsoft was the cause, it was mostly gnome devs
| thinking that they could get a radical touch-first redesign in
| before anyone else.
|
| This is a very long way of saying: the parent is correct in my
| opinion.
| toyg wrote:
| I think that MS here is being used as a convenient scapegoat.
| This worry was never expressed at the time in significant terms.
| The FAT and SMB patents were much more of a worry than anything
| related to the desktop interface - only outright clones were
| being pursued.
|
| At the time, KDE, GNOME and Ubuntu developers alike, were simply
| drunk on popularity. Linux usage was in ascendancy, money was
| being thrown around, and the FOSS world was starting to attract
| young designers who saw it as a cheap way to build professional
| credibility. And then the iPhone happened and the whole UX world
| just went apeshit. The core teams really thought they had a shot
| at redesigning how people interact with computers, "like Apple
| did with phones". Interaction targets moved from keyboard+mouse
| to touch screens, because "convergence" and the fact that the
| mobile sector was suddenly awash with cash.
|
| It's sad that people try to justify their missteps in this way.
| Microsoft was (and is) a terrible company and a constant threat
| to the FOSS ecosystem, but defining some of the biggest design
| choices of the Linux desktop only in antagonistic or reflective
| terms does a real disservice to those projects and the people who
| worked in them.
|
| If experience is the name we give our errors, refusing to accept
| errors were made means stating you've learnt nothing.
| marcodiego wrote:
| TLDR:
|
| > SUSE signed a patent-sharing deal:
| https://www.theregister.com/2006/11/03/microsoft_novell_suse...
|
| > Note: SUSE is the biggest German Linux company. (Source: I
| worked for them until last year.) KDE is a German project. SUSE
| developers did a lot of the work on KDE.
|
| > So, when SUSE signed up, KDE was safe.
|
| > Red Hat and Ubuntu refused to sign.
|
| > So, both needed _non_ Windows like desktops, ASAP, without a
| Start menu, without a taskbar, without a window menu at top left
| and minimize /maximize/close at top right, and so on.
|
| I remember Unity was born because GNOME (Red Hat) wouldn't accept
| Canonical changes. I remember GNOME 3 was born like a long term
| project that could adapt better for the future (nascent adaptive
| UI's) just like KDE4. It was known to be slow in its first
| iterations to get better over time.
|
| Of course, if the described reasons really make sense, it is not
| something that would be discussed in the open, but is not what I
| felt at the time. I even vaguely remember the "genie" effect in
| Compiz needed two curves when minimizing a window to be
| "different enough" from apple, but that was all. I also remember
| you couldn't play a DVD or an MP3 out of the box because of DRM
| and patents. Everything else... never had the vision the author
| described.
|
| Disclaimer: around 2010-2013 I was a sporadic contributor to
| Compiz and GNOME.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| I still think the Applications/Places/System triple menu was
| absolutely superb in terms of usability. You had three clear and
| coherent categories where all the GUI software in your system was
| placed, which made all that stuff easily scanneable by anyone
| even if they have never used it before. It shouldn't have been
| ditched, if you ask me. That clever way to separate and
| categorize that stuff was and is superior to any 'start' menu
| Windows (and any other desktop environment) has ever had.
| smm11 wrote:
| Nextstep 1.0, 1989, with a dock.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I'm pretty happy with i3/sway and can't believe how much
| Microsoft spent on case studies when tiling window managers do
| appear more productive
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This is one of the biggest problems to Linux on the desktop that
| hasn't been addressed with all the work. If it gets large enough,
| Patents.
|
| Design patents by Microsoft, Design patents by Apple, Design
| patents by Google, Design patents by third parties, software
| patents on algorithms, and countless codec patents that Linux
| users violate every time they download an H.264, H.265, or AAC,
| or AptX encoder or decoder, and DMCA laws they violate every time
| they play a DVD. To this day, Fluendo sells $20-$30 Gstreamer
| Codec Packs that are legally licensed in the US for businesses
| who notice and care. However, so few care at this point Fluendo
| discontinued the legal DVD player, leaving basically no legal
| equivalent on Linux.
|
| It's easy to ignore when the companies that own most of them
| don't feel threatened. But if GNU/Linux was on 40% of PC
| Desktops, Microsoft would be absolutely eyeing those patents, and
| MPEG LA + Access Advance would be figuring out how to launch
| codec lawsuits, and the DVD CCA with the MPA would be running
| after anyone with a copy of VLC, Adobe might be hunting for
| patents in the printing stack that could be construed as
| PostScript-related, and on and on.
| easytiger wrote:
| The mention of solaris is interesting. The Gnome 2 based Java
| Desktop was part of what would be used to sell commercial
| institutions that had regulatory requirements for things like
| Accessibility (e.g. banks, government) - and it did win
| customers. This meant Sun put a lot of fixes into G2 upstream
| that helped stability and viability.
|
| I used it natively on solaris 10 on a desktop for several years
| with few limitations or issues. You could even use it on a SunRay
| but the performance would never compete with the dolphins
|
| Then, at a critical time it just kind of stopped being. Sad day
| indeed
| rzzzt wrote:
| Project Looking Glass was also a Sun/Java thing that led the
| OSS 3D window effect bandwagon:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass
| migueldeicaza wrote:
| This is nonsense.
| gwd wrote:
| I appreciate that in the heat of the moment, you want to
| correct the record quickly; but this adds very little to the
| discussion. I look forward to your longer comment / blog post
| setting the record straight.
| joneholland wrote:
| Lol. I came here looking for your reply.
| haunter wrote:
| GNOME 2 was perfect. I use the spiritual sucessor MATE wherever
| it's possible. It's not perfect and arguably "boring" but there
| is really something to it https://mate-desktop.org/
|
| On a side note a similar project exist for KDE 3. Trinity Desktop
| https://www.trinitydesktop.org/
|
| And on a second mildly related side note: /r/linux had a thread
| about a modern (2009) OpenSuse spin with KDE 2 a few months ago.
| It was released as an april's fools joke but the ISO file totally
| disappeared from the internet. Or at least the sub couldn't find
| it (and the archive.org mirror is corrupted)
| https://blogs.kde.org/2009/04/01/new-kde-live-cd-release-bri...
| Maybe someone here have it? :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-27 23:00 UTC)