TR Forums

The other day I had a Fedora install handy to try out (through no fault of my own), and it mainly left me wondering who thought Gnome's current state was a good idea. If I were stuck with the GUI, I'd actually rather use Win8. My complaints with it have mostly been covered elsewhere, so I won't bother ranting about it specifically, but it got me thinking about the state of DEs in general:

Gnome: Absolutely unconfigurable, ugly, janky, terribly slow¹ POS that was obviously designed for a touchscreen. 0/10
Cinnamon: Still terribly slow, but a bit more configurable and the defaults make a touch of sense. 3/10
MATE: Might actually be good. I should try it some time. ?/10
KDE: Polarizing, but good if you like it. 6/10
Unity: At least it isn't Gnome? (I don't know how good it can or can't get with configuration.) ?/10
Xfce: Generally good, but has laggy menus on mechanical hard drives. 7/10
LXDE: Doesn't suck. High praise, eh? 8/10

For comparison, I'd give Windows 7/8.1/10 an 8, a 2, and a 6, respectively. Old-school Gnome and KDE were in the 7 or 8 range, from what I recall.

Anyway, how do so many designers of these things manage to screw up so badly? We've been doing desktop UX for, what, around three decades now, and people still mess it up all the time. I get that sometimes they're not designing solely for the traditional desktop, but that's no excuse for some of the garbage that has shipped (including Win8). What really gets me is how the junk somehow gets shipped as default on big distros. Gnome might or might not work well for some users with touchscreens, but who exactly at Fedora had the bright idea to make it the default for everyone? The same complaint applies to Ubuntu and Unity, though slightly less so.

This stuff does hurt Linux's reputation with those who don't know otherwise. People may find this point contentious on its own, but I often enough set up Linux (usually with Xfce or LXDE) on old machines for users who aren't tech-savvy, and it works out great (far better than Windows). Many DEs are intuitive and/or similar enough to other OSes that people find it easy to handle. Gnome is so far from being alright in that application, it's not even funny. I think this is even worse than when someone catches a glimpse of my desktop with terminals everywhere and hardly any GUI, because (a) I can explain that I'm a power user with an odd config and use it to hype up the customization aspect, and (b) my config doesn't lie about having a bit of a learning curve.

I scanned the top of Distrowatch's list the other day and was surprised at the number of distros with their own DEs. How much work gets wasted on that stuff because the people who have been doing this for a decade plus insist on doing it wrong?

I'm doubly annoyed with that crowd right now because they broke my mouse. Arch switched to libinput by default, evdev is going to be depreciated at some point, and libinput makes systemd and pulseaudio look unquestionably sane (I'll probably rant about that too after I figure it all out tomorrow). So I'd just tell the new-age Linux crowd to get off my lawn and leave me to CLI in peace, but they're not going away very well, and my lawn is getting increasingly crowded.

¹ When I say slow w.r.t. Gnome and Cinnamon, I mean they can't even hold a consistent 60 fps on the desktop on an AMD E-300 or Westmere IGP at 768p, much less respond quickly to user input. (Yes, graphics drivers were set up right.) Meanwhile, LXDE feels downright fast on that Westmere system.

Heh. I've posted similar rants before. I started out as a GNOME user when I first started using Linux. When they revamped GNOME and wrecked it I tried Unity (and ran screaming to KDE); KDE had just been revamped as well, and was rather unstable, but I lived with it and it eventually got better. I'm still with KDE; at this point I have a lot of time invested in figuring out where they've hidden all the magical settings to fix all the brain-dead default behaviors, and how to use xbindkeys to get around shortcomings of the global hotkey binding mechanism.

I think a big part of the issue is that the developers on the major DEs don't believe in "if it ain't broke, don't f**k with it". GNOME 2 was (outwardly, at least) clean and functional; so what did they do? They rewrote it and released GNOME 3, which was a steaming pile. KDE 3 was decent; hey, let's do a major overhaul and trash the place with KDE 4! (And by the time KDE 4 had finally stabilized, KDE 5 was in the works.)

Plus there's a constant influx of developers who say "The existing DEs all suck, I can design a better one!"... with the result that we now have plenty of choice. Between a dozen DEs that all tend to suck in different ways.

Since GUI applications generally target a specific DE, whatever DE you use you eventually end up installing the runtime for *all* of the major ones, resulting in OS bloat. And living with the little UI inconsistencies that inevitably result when running a mix of applications which were designed with different DEs in mind.

Re PulseAudio and systemd... it is amazing how one developer has managed to cause so much churn and controversy. At least where the audio stack is concerned, *something* needed to be done. We could argue over whether PulseAudio was the appropriate "something" (i would've personally gone for a more user-friendly wrapper around JACK instead of reinventing the wheel), but at least it has settled down now, after several years of pain. Systemd appears to be another matter entirely... most of what I've seen/learned indicates that it is a slow-motion train wreck that is slowly sucking all of the major (and many minor) subsystems into its orbit, creating a dependency hell the likes of which we have not seen since the "bad old days" of early Windows releases.

I used to be a strong KDE user with KDE 3.x.x. I've tried Gnome 2.x.x for awhile, Xfce, then switch to Enlightenment(E17) and back over to Xfce. Of all the ones I've used I think I'll stick to use using Xfce now that I settled on using Manjaro Linux as my distro.

synthtel2 wrote:

MATE: Might actually be good. I should try it some time. ?/10

I like MATE. I'm running Ubuntu MATE on a few Pi 3s, and it handles acceptably there, so I'd think you wouldn't have any difficulty on the options you describe. It's a continuation of the Gnome 2 interface, so everything will be familiar if that's what you were once using.

I must be mental.

I like libinput, appreciate pulseaudio, and I don't have any real hatred for systemd.

Then again I use the CLI to tweak all of the above, I wouldn't be surprised if the recent libinput switch for almost everything has resulted in significant GUI carnage.

But that's also why I completely agree with you in regards to DEs.

Oh, I appreciate PulseAudio NOW. 5 years ago not so much. And I still tweak the audio stack on my primary desktop by slipping the JACK audio stack in between PulseAudio and ALSA, to get more control over things, and get applications which require JACK to peacefully co-exist with things that expect to see PulseAudio.

Designers aren't trying to screw up. They are laboring under some impossible restrictions, though.

1) A new UI needs to be flashy to draw attention to itself, so that you know you're using it and it gets mindshare. Also, it needs to be unobtrusive and out-of-the-way for day-to-day use.
2) You can't use an older UI because it's a stale, bad, old design. But the new UI needs to be just like the old one so that it's easy to use.
3) You need the interface to be optimized for the device. The device is a phone. The device is a tablet. The device is a desktop. The device is a workstation. The device is a television. The device is also a kiosk.

synthtel2 wrote:

*snip*

Gnome: Absolutely unconfigurable, ugly, janky, terribly slow¹ POS that was obviously designed for a touchscreen. 0/10
Cinnamon: Still terribly slow, but a bit more configurable and the defaults make a touch of sense. 3/10
MATE: Might actually be good. I should try it some time. ?/10
KDE: Polarizing, but good if you like it. 6/10
Unity: At least it isn't Gnome? (I don't know how good it can or can't get with configuration.) ?/10
Xfce: Generally good, but has laggy menus on mechanical hard drives. 7/10
LXDE: Doesn't suck. High praise, eh? 8/10

*snip*

¹ When I say slow w.r.t. Gnome and Cinnamon, I mean they can't even hold a consistent 60 fps on the desktop on an AMD E-300 or Westmere IGP at 768p, much less respond quickly to user input. (Yes, graphics drivers were set up right.) Meanwhile, LXDE feels downright fast on that Westmere system.

Is that the equipment you are testing these DE with. Because that is some really old and slow equipment. Linux development has moved past this lowest rung hardware for the most part and you need relatively modern equipment for it to feel snappy.  In general, I agree with your sentiment. While I appreciate the choice, I think linux for the desktop environment would be better served by focusing talents on making a couple of options great.
Personally, I roll with LinuxMint & Cinnamon on my primary laptop, Win10 on my gaming machine, CentOS/RHEL w/o GUI for servers. =)

I personally like vera, Semplice's custom DE based on Openbox, the most of all DEs.

DrDominodog51 wrote:

I personally like vera, Semplice's custom DE based on Openbox, the most of all DEs.

Hrmm, thanks for the link. I have some older laptops looking for distro that doesn't choke them, will need to try this one out.

Vhalidictes wrote:

Designers aren't trying to screw up.

Of course not. Every single one of them believes they're designing the ultimate DE, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

Vhalidictes wrote:

They are laboring under some impossible restrictions, though.

1) A new UI needs to be flashy to draw attention to itself, so that you know you're using it and it gets mindshare. Also, it needs to be unobtrusive and out-of-the-way for day-to-day use.

One of my biggest gripes with KDE 4 early on (first couple of point releases) was that there seemed to be a lot of attention paid to eye candy and flashy "gee whiz" (yet totally useless) features; yet the entire environment was horribly unstable and buggy, with regressions and missing features. Oh, I can take the calculator widget and rotate it so it is at a 17 degree angle... how useful. Now do something about all these desktop crashes, please!

Vhalidictes wrote:

2) You can't use an older UI because it's a stale, bad, old design. But the new UI needs to be just like the old one so that it's easy to use.

Removing features that people rely on as part of their workflow is bad. Taking away user choice and simply decreeing "you can't configure this any more because we know what's best for you" is bad. Providing ostensibly "helpful" behaviors that are ultimately more annoying than useful is bad; at least make them easy to disable, because some of your users don't want them.

Vhalidictes wrote:

3) You need the interface to be optimized for the device. The device is a phone. The device is a tablet. The device is a desktop. The device is a workstation. The device is a television. The device is also a kiosk.

Phones/tablets and desktops are fundamentally different devices, and should have different UIs. I don't WANT my DE to act like a phone, damnit!

Village wrote:

Hrmm, thanks for the link. I have some older laptops looking for distro that doesn't choke them, will need to try this one out.

For older systems, try Bodhi, or, for even older systems, SliTaz.

just brew it! wrote:

Phones/tablets and desktops are fundamentally different devices, and should have different UIs. I don't WANT my DE to act like a phone, damnit!

You're preaching to the choir, JBI. I just posted because I've had the questionable benefit of being peripherally involved in UI design once; It wasn't a good experience for anyone, but I like to think I liked it least.

"One UI For All Devices" is a very real concept in current UI design, and it's one that can't possibly work.

Vhalidictes wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

Phones/tablets and desktops are fundamentally different devices, and should have different UIs. I don't WANT my DE to act like a phone, damnit!

You're preaching to the choir, JBI. I just posted because I've had the questionable benefit of being peripherally involved in UI design once; It wasn't a good experience for anyone, but I like to think I liked it least.

"One UI For All Devices" is a very real concept in current UI design, and it's one that can't possibly work.

And the sooner UX designers(or perhaps marketing) realize this the better off we all will be.

whm1974 wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

"One UI For All Devices" is a very real concept in current UI design, and it's one that can't possibly work.

And the sooner UX designers(or perhaps marketing) realize this the better off we all will be.

I blame Java. I'd bet some UX people heard "write once, run anywhere" from a junior coder at some point and they ran with it.

Village wrote:

synthtel2 wrote:

*snip*

¹ When I say slow w.r.t. Gnome and Cinnamon, I mean they can't even hold a consistent 60 fps on the desktop on an AMD E-300 or Westmere IGP at 768p, much less respond quickly to user input. (Yes, graphics drivers were set up right.) Meanwhile, LXDE feels downright fast on that Westmere system.

Is that the equipment you are testing these DE with. Because that is some really old and slow equipment. Linux development has moved past this lowest rung hardware for the most part and you need relatively modern equipment for it to feel snappy.

Except for this: I've installed Windows 10 on Arrandale-based laptops (and some even older desktops), and for general use it performs well enough.  Microsoft, in spite of chasing squirrels during their Pieces of Eight phase, has nicely optimized their interface for a wide range of hardware.  If Linux can't do that, it's because of the too-typical scenario where five developers pursue fifteen new ways of solving three problems, instead of optimizing the existing solutions.

Presumably, because it's sexier to develop something new than to improve what's already there.

ludi wrote:

Village wrote:

synthtel2 wrote:

*snip*

¹ When I say slow w.r.t. Gnome and Cinnamon, I mean they can't even hold a consistent 60 fps on the desktop on an AMD E-300 or Westmere IGP at 768p, much less respond quickly to user input. (Yes, graphics drivers were set up right.) Meanwhile, LXDE feels downright fast on that Westmere system.

Is that the equipment you are testing these DE with. Because that is some really old and slow equipment. Linux development has moved past this lowest rung hardware for the most part and you need relatively modern equipment for it to feel snappy.

Except for this: I've installed Windows 10 on Arrandale-based equipment (and some even older desktops), and for general use it performs well enough.  Microsoft, in spite of chasing squirrels during their Pieces of Eight phase, has nicely optimized their interface for a wide range of hardware.  If Linux can't do that, it's because of the too-typical scenario where five developers pursue fifteen different ways of solving three problems.

I've use Linux on some fairly old and low end hardware before, and based on my experience the Xfce and Enlightenment(E17) desktop environments work fairly well. Of course it has been awhile since I had to install Linux on some friend's old system.

synthtel2 wrote:

Gnome: Absolutely unconfigurable, ugly, janky, terribly slow¹ POS that was obviously designed for a touchscreen. 0/10
Cinnamon: Still terribly slow, but a bit more configurable and the defaults make a touch of sense. 3/10
MATE: Might actually be good. I should try it some time. ?/10
KDE: Polarizing, but good if you like it. 6/10
Unity: At least it isn't Gnome? (I don't know how good it can or can't get with configuration.) ?/10
Xfce: Generally good, but has laggy menus on mechanical hard drives. 7/10
LXDE: Doesn't suck. High praise, eh? 8/10

I have been using MATE for the past couple of years on my main Linux machine and I'm happy with it.  It's snappy and looks nice, and things are easy to find.  I was using KDE 4 (kubuntu) for a while on my laptop, and also liked that - despite the goofy names for everything - but there were some random annoyances that made me go back to MATE.  

cphite wrote:

I have been using MATE for the past couple of years on my main Linux machine and I'm happy with it.  It's snappy and looks nice, and things are easy to find.  I was using KDE 4 (kubuntu) for a while on my laptop, and also liked that - despite the goofy names for everything - but there were some random annoyances that made me go back to MATE.  

This is more or less exactly what i've been doing/feel about the current DE's

I started with KDE1, then 2. KDE3.x was too cartoony for me, so I switched to GNOME 2. GNOME 3 sucks, so I moved back to KDE4.

KDE4 was much better than I thought it was going to be, once I found I could replace their hideous default start menu with a normal menu type one I really liked 4.x. That said I moved to it relatively late and it took 4.x a long long time to mature, especially with it came to multiple monitor support.

Now running KDE5.x and it's good, I like it. Still not sold on the flat buttons but its okay. 5.x is a lot more modulate than 4.x it seems. Anyway 5.x seems to be maturing much faster than 4.x did and I don't see a Qt6 on the horizon yet so I think it will settle down. The next big transition I see is going from X to wayland.

cphite wrote:

I was using KDE 4 (kubuntu) for a while on my laptop, and also liked that - despite the goofy names for everything

Ehh... yeah, some of the names are silly, but that doesn't particularly bother me. Anything I use more than occasionally tends to get assigned to a launcher icon in an auto-hide panel at the left edge of the screen and/or a global hotkey. So no need to type the application name or hunt it down in the Applications menus.

cphite wrote:

- but there were some random annoyances that made me go back to MATE.

Most of the random annoyances have workarounds. Yes, I know you shouldn't need to use workarounds, there should be configuration options for things that people might find annoying; and KDE has so many arcane things that CAN be configured it makes you wonder about some of the more basic things that CAN'T.

For me, one particularly egregious random annoyance was the (arbitrary) inability to use the numpad as global hotkeys. With GNOME I'd gotten accustomed to using Ctrl-Alt-<number> on the numpad to select virtual desktops; for some strange reason KDE wouldn't let me do it via the built-in hotkey mechanism. But xbindkeys + the qdbus tool + a suitably crafted .xbindkeysrc configuration file works.

srg86 wrote:

I started with KDE1, then 2. KDE3.x was too cartoony for me, so I switched to GNOME 2. GNOME 3 sucks, so I moved back to KDE4.

srg86, I'm kind of surprised you're not using MATE, since that's essentially an updated version of GNOME2...

just brew it! wrote:

Removing features that people rely on as part of their workflow is bad. Taking away user choice and simply decreeing "you can't configure this any more because we know what's best for you" is bad. Providing ostensibly "helpful" behaviors that are ultimately more annoying than useful is bad; at least make them easy to disable, because some of your users don't want them.

I know that Gnome hid a lot of stuff by default, but I really hope you've at least visited extensions.gnome.org at least a few times.  Out of the box, gnome3 is simple, but the UI is definitely customizable via extensions.

Vhalidictes wrote:

srg86 wrote:

I started with KDE1, then 2. KDE3.x was too cartoony for me, so I switched to GNOME 2. GNOME 3 sucks, so I moved back to KDE4.

srg86, I'm kind of surprised you're not using MATE, since that's essentially an updated version of GNOME2...

To be honest, I think at heart I've always been a KDE person, my GNOME 2 era (using ubuntu) I think was more the exception. That said I've never really used keyboard shortcuts, always been a mouse person from Amiga, to Windows to Linux.

srg86 wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

srg86 wrote:

I started with KDE1, then 2. KDE3.x was too cartoony for me, so I switched to GNOME 2. GNOME 3 sucks, so I moved back to KDE4.

srg86, I'm kind of surprised you're not using MATE, since that's essentially an updated version of GNOME2...

To be honest, I think at heart I've always been a KDE person, my GNOME 2 era (using ubuntu) I think was more the exception. That said I've never really used keyboard shortcuts, always been a mouse person from Amiga, to Windows to Linux.

Gotcha. Since you're a KDE person, can you tell me what the "K" stands for? I've read about it a bit here and there, and every answer is different. I feel like I'm missing something basic...

Vhalidictes wrote:

Gotcha. Since you're a KDE person, can you tell me what the "K" stands for? I've read about it a bit here and there, and every answer is different. I feel like I'm missing something basic...

The "K" stands for "Kool". I'm old enough to remember the Usenet posts announcing new versions of the "Kool Desktop Environment".

Yan wrote:

The "K" stands for "Kool". I'm old enough to remember the Usenet posts announcing new versions of the "Kool Desktop Environment".

That's insanely great! Now I'll have to upgrade all my old KDE VMs and use only that desktop. To do anything else... wouldn't be kool.

GNOME 3 is definitely the Linux equivalent of Windows 8. As for why it happens, remember that these are volunteer developers which makes it a great opportunity for someone with a Grand Vision to indulge their ego and force it on everyone else. Microsoft's advantage is supposed to be that they don't do this kind of thing, too bad they went full retard a few years ago.

I run MATE on CentOS 7, it's essentially a fork of GNOME 2.6 with a few minor usability tweaks. Works great for the most part, but some applications like VMware don't like the file browser very much. Xfce on netbooks and such.

Speaking of forking older versions of desktop environments, has anyone tried Trinity?
http://trinitydesktop.org/index.php

Yan wrote:

Usenet

Way to go full retro.