A new Linux desktop, GNOME 3.0, is out and I'll bet you don't care.
GNOME 3.0 has a lot of features Microsoft advertised heavily for Windows 7, like windows which snap to one another so you can look at them side-by-side. Gnome also offers a YouTube site touting some of its new features. There are also a bunch of screenshots.
GNOME has been in the open source news because Canonical decided to abandon it as the interface for its next version of Ubuntu. Instead, a Canonical shell called Unity will be shipped.
A spokesperson told me that other distributors will be bundling Gnome with their Linux software, including Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, Knoppix, SELinux, Foresight, Mint, Mandriva, Gentoo, CentOS, and the BSD family. Most are stronger in the server space than the desktop space.
This has been one of the big problems for GNOME and rival KDE. Distributors have been promising "this will be the year of desktop Linux" for a decade, but nothing has captured much imagination, nor delivered anything but the look-and-feel of an early version of Windows or the Mac. There just aren't enough applications, and they're just too hard to load.
Now the world has moved on to phones and tablets, but you will be happy to know GNOME is following up. The new software does support touchscreens, and when that's what you have then you will only see options relevant to touchscreens when you look for help. GNOME.org believes this is an important feature.
Here's what they call the money quote:
Overall, GNOME Shell is a fundamentally new experience for users accustomed to the GNOME 2.x desktop and other desktops of that paradigm (Windows, Macintosh, KDE, etc.). Users get to experience the immersive full-attention concentration one might expect with a mobile device, but with all the functionality of a full desktop. Combining the benefits of multitasking with the benefits of single-minded focus on the current activity, GNOME Shell keeps the user in flow.
The bigger problem has always been more basic. If you're offering desktop software you're in a consumer business. You need to be scaled to handle millions of people, and to have most of what they do work seamlessly, intuitively. GNOME isn't even an operating system – it's merely the user interface. Thus it hasn't been able to scale organizationally to the real market.
Sysadmins and others who run servers like Linux because it's modular, fast, and bulletproof. They have the expertise needed to deal with hand-loading software, and they usually only do this once. They can handle the hassles of a user interface that's a few steps behind in order to save money and have a rocking installation.
That's not the way the consumer market works. Consumers don't even want to think of the user interface. They think of that and the operating system as being one-and-the-same. They think of the operating system and applications being a single whole, and they want to be able to add applications on a whim. This trend has incraesed in time, to the point where, in the mobile space, they're not applications at all but "apps," not general-purpose tools but purpose-built systems for accessing a single Web site or function.
GNOME may have caught up to Windows 7 in many ways, but in an app world that no longer counts for much. They may have won the last development war, but they're not even in the new game.
I find a lot of the opinions in this post sort of surprising. I agree with a lot of the later portion, but in the beginning you say that most of the Linux distributions you mentioned don’t focus on the desktop. Most of the distros you listed are all about the desktop. Also, KDE 4 for example, has shipped something that has all the features you’d expect from Windows or OS X and then some. Ever since 2008 it’s been ahead of the curve (although not quite stable until a year or two later).
I mean, you’re entitled to your opinion, but it sounds a bit exaggerated, as it needs to be to get attention. And hey, look- it worked.
I think Gnome 3 is a great improvement, especially for the people who aren’t crazy about Ubuntu or Compiz and want to see more of the insight of the original team. I think it’s good to have a few stable options to choose from here, and I think they’re all very modern (Unity/Gnome3/KDE4). I really honestly don’t see what people are complaining about. I think they just want to justify why Linux isn’t the number one OS on desktops by saying it’s not far enough yet or something silly like that.
Bottom line, after talking about this and researching it quite a bit, is that Linux doesn’t have a good public image, isn’t advertised anywhere in a very consumer-centric way, and doesn’t run every Windows application under the sun. And nor should it.
Even with all that considered, the actual number of confirmed Linux users is staggering, to match OS X. So I don’t think we really have a problem here- things are turning out really well.
Android is a great example of how Linux could have succeeded on the desktop, and it will probably continue to be a good example of why Microsoft is still so popular despite its consistent problems- it’s popular, entrenched in the market, and a pain to run away from without some planning. Let’s count ourselves lucky that an open platform, controlled by us, is the one dominating the mobile market.
Not ENTIRELY ideal, but more ideal than a Windows 7 phone. Netbooks are making Linux more obvious to people. You’re right- they don’t care about the interface, they care about the computer. Most people who buy Macs don’t even realize that there’s a difference between them and Windows computers outside of looks. They think it runs better because of the computer itself, not the system. It’s kind of hilarious, really. Our children will know far better than we, I’m sure.
I find a lot of the opinions in this post sort of surprising. I agree with a lot of the later portion, but in the beginning you say that most of the Linux distributions you mentioned don’t focus on the desktop. Most of the distros you listed are all about the desktop. Also, KDE 4 for example, has shipped something that has all the features you’d expect from Windows or OS X and then some. Ever since 2008 it’s been ahead of the curve (although not quite stable until a year or two later).
I mean, you’re entitled to your opinion, but it sounds a bit exaggerated, as it needs to be to get attention. And hey, look- it worked.
I think Gnome 3 is a great improvement, especially for the people who aren’t crazy about Ubuntu or Compiz and want to see more of the insight of the original team. I think it’s good to have a few stable options to choose from here, and I think they’re all very modern (Unity/Gnome3/KDE4). I really honestly don’t see what people are complaining about. I think they just want to justify why Linux isn’t the number one OS on desktops by saying it’s not far enough yet or something silly like that.
Bottom line, after talking about this and researching it quite a bit, is that Linux doesn’t have a good public image, isn’t advertised anywhere in a very consumer-centric way, and doesn’t run every Windows application under the sun. And nor should it.
Even with all that considered, the actual number of confirmed Linux users is staggering, to match OS X. So I don’t think we really have a problem here- things are turning out really well.
Android is a great example of how Linux could have succeeded on the desktop, and it will probably continue to be a good example of why Microsoft is still so popular despite its consistent problems- it’s popular, entrenched in the market, and a pain to run away from without some planning. Let’s count ourselves lucky that an open platform, controlled by us, is the one dominating the mobile market.
Not ENTIRELY ideal, but more ideal than a Windows 7 phone. Netbooks are making Linux more obvious to people. You’re right- they don’t care about the interface, they care about the computer. Most people who buy Macs don’t even realize that there’s a difference between them and Windows computers outside of looks. They think it runs better because of the computer itself, not the system. It’s kind of hilarious, really. Our children will know far better than we, I’m sure.
Umm, since when is a security enhancement (SELinux) a distro?
Umm, since when is a security enhancement (SELinux) a distro?