Cinnamon default DE of F19

[BBQdave]

Eric Smith's proposal:

The Gnome 3 interface is substantially different that the traditional desktop interfaces on both Linux and Windows. While it is good that there is research into new user interface concepts, many users prefer to have a traditional interface that they are accustomed to. Unfortunately it is difficult or impossible to assess what fraction of the user base prefers Gnome Shell vs. a more traditional interface. I'm not trying to start (or continue) a flame war here, so I won't state any of my own criticisms of Gnome Shell here, but I will observe that a number of very high profile people in the Linux community, such as Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox, have publicly announce that due to problems with Gnome Shell they are switching to a different desktop and/or Linux distribution.
I submit the proposition that it is easier for a user doing a new Fedora install to start with a traditional desktop, and switch to the Gnome Shell if they prefer that, than to start with Gnome Shell and switch to a traditional desktop.
The Cinnamon desktop provides a traditional desktop while being based on the latest Gnome and GTK components, so it seems like a better candidate for a default desktop than MATE, which is based on older components.

[gadgetwiz]

I actually agree with much of that thesis. I think Cinnamon needs a little more polish and few more bug fixes before putting it out front as the default DE.

[DBelton]

I say the odds of getting Fedora to change their default desktop are practically nil.

Redhat and Gnome are too closely integrated for them to dump Gnome as the default.

I agree that it would be much better for Redhat and Fedora to replace Gnome as the default, but I don't believe it will ever happen.

[ptuk]

I suppose it all depends on what the aim is. If the aim is to put people off trying Fedora then Gnome 3 is clearly the way to go.

[joncr]

Exactly what does it mean for a desktop to be the "default" in Fedora?

Is it only that the default desktop is used on the LiveCD and that it is selected by default in DVD and net installs?

Or, does anointing something as the default desktop mean it gets different treatment than the others in Fedora's stable? Ignoring the RedHat-Gnome links, does Gnome get more/different attention because it's the default?

If it's the former, why bother making a change?

I have no interest in what is tagged as the default, as long as it doesn't lead to decreased resources for Gnome. Like it or not, it's an important player and, absent Gnome Shell, is the core of just about every effort to replace the shell, including Cinnamon. (And I like that Gnome is trying and stumbling at being innovative, rather than being transfixed by the surprising retrograde conservatism we see elsewhere.)

I've tried Cinnamon on the current Mint release, 14. It's quite good there. Put a single panel along the top, shrink it down a bit, add a dock, and it's more like OS X than Gnome Shell.

[ptuk]

Is it only that the default desktop is used on the LiveCD

I can't see how it can be because we have a number of live CDs each with a different desktop.

What I'd like to see is the notion of a default desktop ditched altogether. Just call it the Gnome 3 spin.

[nonamedotc]

I really do not see Cinnamon as the "default" desktop in Fedora. To me it looks like a large number of GNOME developers are also employed/involved with Red Hat. This being the case, why would Fedora ditch gnome shell as the distro?

I think cinnamon spin would be what might actually happen.

[joncr]

What I'd like to see is the notion of a default desktop ditched altogether. Just call it the Gnome 3 spin.

Makes sense to me.

Red Hat, though, will want to focus on a default desktop. They aren't going to provide support for half a dozen of them in RHEL 7, I'd think.

[MALsPa]

What I'd like to see is the notion of a default desktop ditched altogether.

I wouldn't mind that at all.

[bob]

Just because it's Friday, I'm moving this to Fedora Focus. Next week, I may move it to Rawhide...why?....because I can! MUHAHAHAHA!!!!

[kpedersen]

I say the odds of getting Fedora to change their default desktop are practically nil.

Lol, and yet that is exactly what they did from Gnome 2 -> Gnome 3

Or perhaps they refuse to change the name of their DE

[DBelton]

Exactly what does it mean for a desktop to be the "default" in Fedora?

Is it only that the default desktop is used on the LiveCD and that it is selected by default in DVD and net installs?

Or, does anointing something as the default desktop mean it gets different treatment than the others in Fedora's stable? Ignoring the RedHat-Gnome links, does Gnome get more/different attention because it's the default?

If it's the former, why bother making a change?

I have no interest in what is tagged as the default, as long as it doesn't lead to decreased resources for Gnome. Like it or not, it's an important player and, absent Gnome Shell, is the core of just about every effort to replace the shell, including Cinnamon. (And I like that Gnome is trying and stumbling at being innovative, rather than being transfixed by the surprising retrograde conservatism we see elsewhere.)

I've tried Cinnamon on the current Mint release, 14. It's quite good there. Put a single panel along the top, shrink it down a bit, add a dock, and it's more like OS X than Gnome Shell.

Gnome currently is the "default" desktop in Fedora. It is the one that gets pushed the most. You go to the "Get Fedora" page and click the download button, it's the one that you get. Yes, there are other spins, and the full DVD allows you install other desktops, but you have to go to a different page to get the links to download those. Most people end up just clicking the big download button and get Gnome.

Also, Gnome does tend to get more testing during the pre-release cycle as well. And it tends to be that if Gnome requires a change to some system files, then they do it, and make all of the other desktops have to follow the changes if they get broken because of them.

There are numerous changes I would like to see in Fedora, but I do believe they need the default desktop (whichever desktop i happens to be) and stick with it. I don't care much for Gnome 3, but it would be confusing to new users if they are bombarded by 10 different desktop choices when they go to download Fedora. More experienced users will know where to go and look for the other desktops.

Lol, and yet that is exactly what they did from Gnome 2 -> Gnome 3

Or perhaps they refuse to change the name of their DE

No, Fedora stayed with Gnome as their default desktop. Gnome just released a new version.

[jpollard]

And that version had nothing to do with the previous version other than the name.

[DBelton]

And that version had nothing to do with the previous version other than the name.

Yes, I totally agree with that.

But then again, there have been numerous new packages lately that are totally different than what they replace. Not many of them have been for the good, either.

[Dan]

At the risk of shocking people, I really don't think fedora should abandon Gnome as a default desktop. There are some substantial changes, however, that I suspect would greatly help the stabilizing and enhancement of the Gnome Desktop Environment.

That being said, before I go on, let me issue this ...

[Warning:] These are just one man's guesses and random opinions. I'm not looking for any fights here, just tossing out some ideas.

• First, The Gnome project/team needs to undergo a pretty significant paradigm shift. The headache here is, the current powers that be in the project are both entrenched and have displayed little or no cooperative desire to either respond to the user/support community base needs and wants, nor accept any input which deviates from their planned agenda. Sadly, early reactions by the Gnome team to input and criticism was not good. It's marginally better now, but still sullen and reluctant. No two ways around that. It speaks directly to leadership. And that means, for all intents and purposes, that the required paradigm shift is also very likely to include/entail a personnel change as well. Honestly, given the way the situation has developed, and the community reaction to it, if I was both circumspect, and a leading member of the Gnome team at this point, I'd have my resume updated, polished and ready to go back out on the street.
  
• Second, Gnome itself needs to return not to it's roots, but to the rest -- currently being ignored -- of the growth cycle. Innovation is all well and good, but it's only a part of the growth process. Consolidation, adjustment, refinement and polish are the other parts of the development process being critically short changed.
  
• Third, Gnome 3 needs to be pursued with renewed vigor, insight and wisdom -- but with an eye toward capitalizing on existing assets, and minimizing flawed over-reach and fatally flawed design concepts. (Such as Adwaita <....> application mono-themeing, the enforced global menu, wholesale neutering of Nautilus, single hot corner for overlay display, obvious begrudging inclusion of Advanced Settings, forcing of full screen windows and apps, functionality reduction for the sake of style, and an overall "screw you" attitude toward negative feedback. And last but not least, reliance on extensions for customization functionality that should be included by default.)

I think the initial magical potential in Gnome 3 is still there, but its glow is getting a lot harder to see now, as errors in implementation compound upon errors in judgement, and further bad ideas get scabbed on the framework, rather than realistically evaluated, and either eliminated or properly integrated as such critical evaluation indicates.

[/Warning:]