

GNOME Workstation OS - dananjaya86
http://blog.monotonous.org/2012/08/07/gnome-workstation-os/

======
adamtaylor
This article is strange: Some parts of it are sooo right, but then some parts
are sooo wrong. Yes, the Linux world should stop obsessing about mobile and
tablets, since they've basically already lost that battle. (And frankly: Who
gives a damn about mobile? Some of us have work to do...) And yes, they should
focus on their strengths in the desktop. But their strength is not web design
and multimedia. As someone pointed out, they lost that domain to Apple a long
time ago. Their strength is the scientific and technical desktop users. CERN
uses Linux heavily. Many of the screenshots from the Curiousity landing showed
a Linux desktop. I.e. people who need the computing equivalent of a truck, not
a car. That's the core audience that desktop Linux should be trying to serve.
And frankly, both Unity and the Gnome 3 Shell are steps in the wrong
direction. Unity is clearly aimed at netbooks and tablets, and both Unity and
Gnome Shell value simplicity over power, which is not what scientific and
technical users want.

For my money, the recent moves Linux Mint has been making are the most
promising ones happening in the Linux ecosystem right now: Don't fix what
isn't broken, and make a distribution the just works out of the box. When the
Gnome 3 goofballs eliminate yet another piece of useful functionality, do a
fork. (And now they've started selling Linux Mint branded hardware, another
smart move. One of the real problems with Linux these days is that you just
can't buy hardware with Linux pre-installed that is equal in quality to
Apple's hardware.)

Or at least that's my two cents.

~~~
jiggy2011
_Yes, the Linux world should stop obsessing about mobile and tablets, since
they've basically already lost that battle._

Well that depends on if you include Android or not and I don't really
understand the logic not to.

~~~
wmf
GNOME definitely does not include Android; it's a completely different OS that
happens to share mostly the same kernel.

~~~
donniezazen
I am less concerned about getting Gnome or Unity on my phone and more
concerned about an experience that you get between iPhone and Mac. A seamless
integration. Their is no single media player in Linux that does that. libmtp
doesn't really work.

~~~
jiggy2011
I don't know if I'm just old school, but I prefer just to plug my devices in
and drag files over. Seems fairly seemless to me.

~~~
donniezazen
I have thought about doing that but I would like to setup a media player which
automatically generate playlist based on my listening habits like most played,
recently played, etc. And it to work two ways.

Playlists can be very useful.

iSyncr and iTunes can do that but I haven't found a seamless solution for
Linux yet.

------
cs702
As a full-time Ubuntu user who _loves_ Unity and thinks it has a shot at
becoming a third major desktop platform over the next decade, I think this
kind of soul-searching is great for the Gnome project.

I selfishly hope this leads to better and closer collaboration between Unity
and Gnome developers -- and maybe a 'partnership of equals' between Red Hat
and Canonical, each playing to their respective strengths, on the further
development and improvement of the Free desktop.

~~~
duaneb
Unity felt like a large step backward from gnome 2, adding virtually no
functionality and removing most customization. It's the ez-bake oven of window
mangers. A toy.

~~~
velodrome
Ubuntu/Gnome simplified the interface without giving the power users a way to
go back. They should have made sure the fallback/classic modes were just as
robust as the old to ease transition.

Developer mindshare is scattered due to the radical interface change. These
developers want the older interface and were left something that was not in a
very usable for most power users. Naturally, they moved to desktop
environments that resemble the older interface (LXDE,XFCE,GNOME2) or started
new projects (MATE,Cinnamon).

I find myself in a nomansland. I am constantly changing my DE because of all
this bs. They bet the farm. All I want is stable and familiar Gnome2 DE! What
a serious waste of time.

~~~
cs702
velodrome: FWIW, the transition from Gnome 2.x to Unity was neither quick nor
easy for me, as I'd been a full-time Gnome user for years prior to the switch.

However, I find that I'm more productive now, with Unity, than I ever was with
Gnome. In no particular order, I love how Unity (1) gets out of my way (I've
set it to hide); (2) maximizes my usable screen real estate; (3) allows me to
use complex apps like GIMP and Inkscape without having to remember their menu
structures (!); and (4) lets me to do _everything_ (including window
placement) very quickly with the keyboard.[1]

Yes, Unity is different, but IMO it's also much better. Give it a six-month
try!

\--

[1] Here's a comprehensive list of shortcuts:
[http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-
keyboar...](http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-keyboard-and-
mouse-shortcuts/28087#28087)

~~~
velodrome
I was on gnome classic for a couple of months. I am trying unity for the next
few weeks. I think the major issue for me is:

<https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/1027949>

Basically, the unity bar is crowded due to apps on other workspaces. Also,
switching between windows of the same app is slower (I think I can deal with
this issue though).

Performance-wise, gnome3 is snappier than unity (compiz kind of sucks).

~~~
cs702
velodrome:

You can make the Unity launcher (i.e., the sidebar) less crowded. Just run
"Appearance" (<Super><A>, "appea", <Enter>) and change _Launcher Icon Size_ to
32. I had to do this myself for the same reason.

You can also switch quickly between all windows of the currently focused app
-- just tap <Alt><`>. (The <`> key is right above the <Tab> key on US
keyboards.)

Also, note that the little triangular pointers on the launcher are different
for applications running in the current workspace versus those running in
other workspaces.

------
Paul_S
I agree, they should leave the streamlined gimmicky "we know what you want
better than you do" approach to Unity and stick to making a developer's
desktop. Canonical can invest money in Unity to pay devs - it's beneficial for
them to get non-programmers as users. This is not the case for Gnome which
relies on users to be programmers and develop it. If they can't use it because
it's no longer for them then they will not contribute to it.

~~~
icarus127
I completely agree with this. As a programmer HUD is the only thing keeping me
on unity. Gnome 3 is _way_ more stable on all of my computers and I prefer it
aesthetically.

------
igorlev
I used GNOME for 10+ years and switched to the Mac a few years ago. The nail
in the coffin was the Unity/Gnome Shell craziness that was so poorly executed.

Is it just me or this article outlining the most natural path for any Linux
desktop? Rather then chase the general consumer, focus on your core audience
who is already using your OS for the server.

Not only is it a more natural customer base, but you also have an advantage by
eating your dogfood. GNOME devs would have 1st hand knowledge of what works
and what doesn't for engineers and developers. And this sort of domain
knowledge is gold when it comes to designing good interfaces.

I would love to see this effort happen, and might even go back to Linux if it
really created something great.

~~~
pyre
I tend to agree with Paul_S that while GNOME would be better served focusing
on the content production side of things, Linux on the Desktop can still be
viable. The issue is that you need someone to throw money at it (e.g.
Ubuntu/Canonical) and hire non-developer designers, maybe commission usability
studies, etc.

Maybe once enough people are actually on Linux, non-developers with
professional skill sets will volunteer their time to Open Source projects, and
we won't need to necessarily use money to gain access to their skills. For
now, most of them are on Windows of MacOS, and are only going to devote time
to their current ecosystem, if at all.

~~~
jshen
There is only one thing stopping me from using Linux, hassle free hardware
support. I want sleep/wake, video card, etc, etc, etc to simply work. And
please don't pretend this is true already.

~~~
subsection1h
Have you tried Ubuntu Certified hardware and encountered problems? Everything
works fine on my Ubuntu Certified hardware: a ThinkPad and an OptiPlex desktop
that both have Intel GPUs.

~~~
jshen
I had an optiplex desktop that did not work well. It was a giant pain in the
ass to get video working properly, and it would often not wake from sleep.

~~~
pyre
OptiPlex covers a large number of models and hardware, just like "ThinkPad"
does. I'd imagine that the Ubuntu Certified Hardware list specifies models
that are known to work well.

~~~
jshen
1) It was the computer my employer gave me, I didn't have much choice (well, I
could have requested a mac).

2) I don't want to spend $500 to find out if certified really means everything
works.

------
buster
He is missing the point that the Gnome projects he listed are indeed Gnome
projects but the projects he mentions "we" should focus on are not Gnome
projects at all. It's not up to Gnome to make LibreOffice or Blender better.
It's up to the Gnome team to work on overall user experience and a solid base
on which the programs he mentions run. big difference!

He should probably not talk about Gnome but about Ubuntu or RedHat focusing
more other stuff or to the libreoffice teams or whatever.

Also: So far i enjoy the Gnome experience very much. It may have still some
bugs but all in all, in my mind, the Gnome team succeeded with Gnome 3.x and
the new design/layout/workflow.

~~~
wmf
I think many of the Linux desktop's problems can be traced to the artificial
walls between projects. Everything that ships on the GNOME OS DVD is GNOME's
responsibility, including apps like LibreOffice. If an improvement needs to be
made, it should be made in the proper place even if that is not "your"
project. And if LibreOffice doesn't accept GNOME's patches then GNOME has to
fork it.

~~~
buster
i think it became pretty clear from the latest Gnome articles that such forks
are very unrealistic. In my opinion it's the responsibility of the LibreOffice
team to deliver a good user experience on the supported operating systems.
Gnome develops appropriate APIs and guidelines and it would be Gnomes
responsibility to make sure LibreOffice has all the APIs it needs to work as
good as possible.

Also, this is no artificial wall, this is reality. MS isn't responsible to fix
Adobe Photoshop and Gnome isn't responsible to fix Blender.

------
dkhenry
I think its a little misguided to focus on _media_ content creation, that
market is locked up not by technical barriers but the industural attitude that
if your not using photoshop your an amature. The big area where you can make
headway is in the software/application content creation, but that doesn't
require flashy new features that get you lots of good press. It requires you
to make your enviroment faster and smaller.

~~~
jiggy2011
Environments like that already exist, Xmonad/Xfce/Whatever. Linux already has
massive developer usage, apart from in.Net/Mac/iPhone developers who wouldn't
be able to use it anyway.

Media creation software doesn't have to be high level pro stuff. Having Gnome
ship with software that is great for amateurs who want to make youtube videos,
mess around with filters on digital photos, or record themselves jamming on
their guitar would be a great start.

The existing software like GIMP would certainly be powerful enough for this,
the main work would be in reworking it's difficult UI.

~~~
dkhenry
Right most recently people moved away form GNOME to Xfce because it was more
streamlined and lighterweight, but that doesn't mean that GNOME can't do that
better.

If you wanted to provide a refuge for the amateur then you are playing towards
one of your weaknesses. The camera that I buy at BestBuy is not going to have
instructions ons on how to use it with linux. If your not targeting teh
professional you have already lost.

~~~
jiggy2011
"Streamlined" and "lighter weight" are subjective phrases. I think the Gnome
team are building what they would consider a streamlined interface, just their
idea of what that is differs from some.

System resources are not much of an issue anymore, the amount of memory most
window managers require compared with other applications is fairly negligible
even with "heavyweight" Window managers. Unity+Nautilus together are using
~400MB/8GB on my Ubuntu 12.04 PC.

The hardcore "lightweight" WM fans only need a way to tile their terminal and
XMonad already provides that.

With Ubuntu 12.04 every digital camera I've tried has just worked. I plug it
in and and offers to import all of the photos for me straight away, no need
for instructions or drivers.

Getting professional software would require either persuading enough of the
big names in the business like Adobe , Steinberg , Avid etc to port their
stuff to the platform or it would require Gnome contributors to create full
equivalents for all of these programs from scratch with their already
stretched resources so very impractical.

Creating an iPhoto type front end for GIMP seems a more achievable goal.

~~~
dkhenry
That ~400M of ram comes with other penalities then just thw space it takes up.
This is the problem firefox got into. they just kept getting bigger
continually saying ram is cheap and desktops have tons of ram. Just because I
have 8Gb of ram doesn't mean I want my WM taking up all of it. What do I get
for all that ram anyway. I get to have my desktop composed using javascript.
This is why people left for XFCE this isn't a small subset of XMonad users,
there are actually lots of people in between who want a windowed desktop, but
don't want a huge heavy enviroment. GNOME can be that desktop.

~~~
jiggy2011
I guess I wouldn't consider Gnome a "heavy" desktop, at least not any heavier
than Windows 7 or Mac OS desktops.

I don't think ~400MB for a window manager on a dekstop is a big deal in 2012
and being able to compose your desktop using javascript is a breath of fresh
air vs using old arcane APIs. When you have as much excess horsepower as you
do in a modern PC (for most tasks) it seems wasteful not to use some of it to
make your life easier.

------
pan69
What I don't understand is, Canonical has a big opportunity to serve the
entire Workstation market. But what do they focus on instead, jumping on the
mobile/tablet bandwagon. Do they honestly believe they are going to be a major
player in that field going up against, Apple, Google and Microsoft?

If instead they'd focused on the Workstation market, which currently isn't
really catered to by anyone serious, they could have got them selves into a
nice little niche.

------
chrismonsanto
I like Unity, it is fairly keyboard friendly.

But really, I just don't want changes on the desktop at all. I live in Emacs,
the rest should just work.

------
darkstalker
I don't get all this fuzz about gnome3/unity and all that stuff, been using
fluxbox since years and it's all I need, everything else seems redundant

------
hnriot
We (hn) have this gnome debate often enough it has been talked out to death.
Nobody likes unity except for a few. Many of us using Ubuntu (me included)
don't really care much about the desktop GUI, I spend most of my time in
shells. Anyone that does care about the windowing likely switched to OSX years
ago.

That aside, this article seems to think that new media production is being
done on Linux. My experience is that this is owned by osx. Adobe's creative
suite is the lifeblood of any media development and the Linux equivalents are
not as good. If you're commercially invented to create new media then you'll
use the best tools for the job.

Linux has contributed to media creation in rendering farms and such, but gnome
played no part in that decision.

~~~
fmoralesc
> My experience is that this is owned by osx. Adobe's creative suite is the
> lifeblood of any media development and the Linux equivalents are not as
> good. If you're commercially invented to create new media then you'll use
> the best tools for the job.

Which is _exactly why_ media production should be a target for linux
development?

~~~
duaneb
Linux oses suck at so many things, why pick media production? Why not become
the best enterprise system, or the best browsing system, or the best home
media system?

