Hi.

I haven't been around Linux for long (since Ubuntu 9.04), but I've been noticing what looks like crisis when it comes to desktop environments.

Gnome2 (now facing extinction) to me was extremely stable, and when Unity came along, worlds collided. Gnome3 has also been getting an awful lot of stick and I've read mixed reviews about KDE4 as well.

So basically, is there a crisis? Are DE developers fixing something that definitely isn't broken. Is there a genuine reason for them to sacrifice stability by trying to stay "ahead of time"?

Or could it simply be that I've missed the fact that previous versions of Gnome and KDE received the same criticism before the developers had polished the DEs, and that Gnome3, Unity and KDE4 will eventually gain blessing by users?

Which one is it?

Developers have bought the hype that the future is a tablet in the clouds.

Whenever there's a major change in something with a lot of users, there's going to be complaints. In some cases, the complaints are legit, in others just dislike of change.

Remember that Gnome 2 and KDE looked similar, though KDE was definitely more oriented to eye candy: menus launched from the panel, desktop icons if you wanted them, system trays or whatever-the-Linux-term-is-I-forget with quicklaunch icons and widgets such as network managers and clocks in them, and so on. That has been the layout of a desktop environment long enough to be called "traditional."

Both Gnome 3 and Unity were significantly different from the traditional, so lots of complaints were to be expected. Some persons have adapted to the new look and even come to like it. Others have bailed.

Me, I don't like either of them and dislike desktop icons. I did use Gnome 3 long enough to get good at it, but I still didn't like it. I find the idea that everything should eventually look and act like an iGadget rather appalling, for that matter.

I find the KDE desktop attractive, but dislike that akonadi thingee.

I think I'll stick with Fluxbox.

I would take this one as most likely.

You mean most Developers want interface that looks like the iPhone ? Saying that Unity looks like the iPhone ????

Early versions of kde 4 were pants. And, it is a good job that pants don't often read Linuxquestions, or I'd be getting complaints from them about that comparison. Current versions are more stable and closer to feature complete, so if you have been reading old reviews of KDE 4, then 'mixed' would be an understatement.

Yeah, I've never really been a Gnome fan, but it did get a lot of criticism around the change.

In a sense, some of this is inevitable; if you radically redesign how the user interface works, the first attempts are going to be a bit rough. And, with an Open Source app, people don't tend to do usability testing behind closed doors, and wait until they have the most egregious of rough edges rounded off before the wide world gets to see it.

They throw it out to the wider world, and respond to the howls of complaint if and when they come in. If they don't, they don't get testing and without testing they don't get bug reports and they don't get real user feedback how the new interface works for the users.

Sometimes, you have to make radical changes, though. Otherwise, you might have taken yourself down the wrong road, and be stuck.

No, no crisis. And, you can have something that wasn't broken on a desktop or laptop, but is broken on a smaller screen or a touch screen.

A better question, is why there isn't more warning of, eg, early unstable versions of kde (there was a warning that the first version wasn't really an end user version, but that doesn't cover 4.01, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13...and probably up to something like 4.4 or later) and why the old versions aren't 'supported' for a bit longer during the transition period, to ease the pain. That would also include, perhaps even starting 'official' forks of the older version, for support, and backward compatibility versions/scripts for the newer versions to make them 'old-version-work-alikes'.

And, better info to distros, so they could plan support better (when the early versions are know to be a bit 'experimental').

Well, in part, it is clear; the developers working on the new versions think that it is going to be the next big thing, and that everyone will clearly want to make the transition, but, in the real world, some people will want to take things more slowly.

With FLOSS projects there is only so much manpower so releasing 3.x/4.x while continuing to support 2.x/3.x would not be viable.

Personally I think the recent hysteria regarding desktops is overblown and there are a few factors involved.

Firstly people are resistant to change, for example I use windows at work and I'm still on XP. When I have to deal with a Vista/7 system - it annoys the hell out of me, because simple and useful things have been moved, hidden or just removed altogether and replaced by some crap which is supposed to be "easier"... it's not easier it's fscking stupid. When it comes to windows I have no choice but to sit there and moan - with GNU/Linux I can get rid of the desktop and install another...

gnome's dumbing down started back in gnome 2.x - it may have started earlier than that - but it has been obvious for quite some time that the gnome team are allergic to too many features [which confuse the user].

Secondly a lot of the perceived complaining has been driven by angry 'buntu users who have been served up gnome as the default DE for years and are now facing Unity instead. Many of these people don't actually know they were using gnome 2.x before - they simply want "ubuntu classic" back...

I think the combination of unity in 'buntu and gnome 3 appearing everywhere else is making this seem like a bigger issue than it actually is. The DE quite simply isn't everything but with all of this recent hullabaloo you'd imagine it was the entire operating system.

As to KDE, it's not my cup of tea, but if you have a system that can run it, there's actually nothing wrong with it now that 4.x has started to mature. If the smartphone-like appearance of unity or gnome shell offends but you still want some eye candy then KDE may be an option. It allows a lot of customisation and configuration that the others may not and does not require compositing.

As for me, I intend to stick with IceWM for now.

Before there was KDE or Gnome, there was Xfce, and the people saw that it was good. But there were some who lusted after eye-candy, and the developers heard their pleas, and were seduced thereby. And lo, desktops became cluttered and bloated, until the users cried "enough!" And those who had remained faithful to Xfce waxed smug.

My three cents: people these days have weird ideas about what a desktop should do. Personally, this is what I want out of a "desktop environment": display windows and applications. Do it as fast as digitally possible. The moment I want Firefox or my e-mail client or a terminal, it should be there. It should do this with as few of my resources as possible. It should display system resources or other useful information to me in some lightweight and unobtrusive manner.

Sure, bouncing icons and burning window frames and plasma widgets and 3D spinning workspaces may look great on a YouTube video... but really people... what's the ideal we are striving for here?

Personally, I said "screw the desktop environments" and made my own. Xsession + Xmonad + Conky + dmenu gives me everything I want at little cost. I suppose some people will want some other integration features, but I hope you get the drift of what I'm saying.

+1, DE should not be as intrusive, with effect everywhere. I admit I use computer mainly for work

I found the windows shadow feature nice though, it helps to get focus on top window

To be honest, in my opinion, both XFCE and LXDE feel like an incomplete GNOME 2. I have grown to really like ICEWM, and I do not believe it's going for any major revamp soon. For the everyday user, I think both KDE and GNOME have become a bit too much. You are forced to ask yourself - what's the point? It's shiny and fancy, sure; but how will it help me get my work done any faster? Is it an improvement or merely a change?

No, I'm saying they want interfaces that they think will work nicely on tablets without relying heavily on hardware pointers.

One of my long-standing gripes about Gnome is (what I consider) the inadequacy of the Gnome Control Center, which I think tracks right along with what you said. When you compare it with the KDE settings manager and Kinfocenter, you realize there's a substantial amount of system information that isn't easily available through the Gnome GUI.

Unity sure looks like a mobile telephone screen to me.

As for th original question; the only crisis is potentially down the road for Gnome and Kde. With so many people abandoning those DEs and switching to XFCE, LXDE, Openbox, Fluxbox and others, it will be interesting to see: 1) how long before the offending developers realise the folly of their ways; and 2) will the result be Gnome and Kde eventually returning to simpler designs or, in their desperation, becoming even more radical?

Do you have any screen shots ? I know I will never use any OS that looks like a iphone on a desktop computer or a laptop !!!


I hate touch screens they look so dirty . I have seen so many people iPhone and iPad and well looks dirty the screen and well iOS works fantastic for the iPhone and iPad but would look horrible for a desktop or laptop cpmputer.

Gnome 2 at work and Ratpoison on the laptop. Previously openbox and fluxbox. Nothing fancy or unexpected for me, please!