Any intrest in a GNOME 3 fork?

[ownedbywuigi]

Now that GNOME 50 fully drops X11 support, I'm done with modern GNOME and forking the peak of GNOME.

Wondering if there was any community interest in such?

[athenian200]

Now that GNOME 50 fully drops X11 support, I'm done with modern GNOME and forking the peak of GNOME.

Wondering if there was any community interest in such?

Isn't Cinnamon already a fork of GNOME 3? It's also worth noting MATE exists as a fork of GNOME 2 that now uses GTK3.

So... I guess what I'm wondering is what a new fork would bring to the table here that Cinnamon and MATE don't already. Have you tried them already? If I'm not mistaken, I think most of our Linux users are on Cinnamon or MATE...

Forking off GNOME has kind of been a favorite pastime of the Linux community for a while. I actually won't be surprised if someone forks GNOME 49 solely for X11 support to start adding it all back in... granted, it likely won't be as big as Cinnamon or MATE, but I'm sure there's a person out there somewhere who would want that.

[Moonchild]

I'm really wondering why you're spreading so thin over multiple ideas. Maybe you should focus on working on fewer things and making sure they are the best they can be?

[jarsealer]

Now that GNOME 50 fully drops X11 support, I'm done with modern GNOME

As MC said, there's already GNOME forks that exist and people already use, so I'd suggest maybe contributing to those projects and making them better instead of having to maintain a fork. But if you see something that can be done better then I guess go for it.

Also, not sure why Wayland keeps getting avoided.

[ownedbywuigi]

Now that GNOME 50 fully drops X11 support, I'm done with modern GNOME and forking the peak of GNOME.

Wondering if there was any community interest in such?

Isn't Cinnamon already a fork of GNOME 3? It's also worth noting MATE exists as a fork of GNOME 2 that now uses GTK3.

So... I guess what I'm wondering is what a new fork would bring to the table here that Cinnamon and MATE don't already. Have you tried them already? If I'm not mistaken, I think most of our Linux users are on Cinnamon or MATE...

Forking off GNOME has kind of been a favorite pastime of the Linux community for a while. I actually won't be surprised if someone forks GNOME 49 solely for X11 support to start adding it all back in... granted, it likely won't be as big as Cinnamon or MATE, but I'm sure there's a person out there somewhere who would want that.

Cinnamon doesn't have the GNOME 3 shell however if it is a fork of GNOME 3.

[ownedbywuigi]

I'm really wondering why you're spreading so thin over multiple ideas. Maybe you should focus on working on fewer things and making sure they are the best they can be?

True but my mind goes to like 7 million things at once lol

[andyprough]

If I'm not mistaken, I think most of our Linux users are on Cinnamon or MATE...

In my experience, XFCE tends to be the most common DE for GNU/Linux users. And a quick review of Pale Moon forum search results supports XFCE being more common among Pale Moon users:
XFCE - 1,571 forum search hits
Mate - 614
KDE - 582
Cinnamon - 537
Gnome - 511

XFCE is now using GTK3, and is in the process of transitioning to GTK4.

[ownedbywuigi]

Just noticed that GNOME 3 has MozJS as a dependency.

Days without stupid ideas from wuggy: 0

Hypothetically speaking, would there be any sense to using UXP's mozjs instead of Mozilla's? (3.38 needs mozjs 68 (FX68)

[andyprough]

Now that GNOME 50 fully drops X11 support, I'm done with modern GNOME and forking the peak of GNOME.

Wondering if there was any community interest in such?

The problem, whether you are using Gnome 3 or Gnome 50, is that the users mostly complain about the UI, and all the widgets and icons and interactive bits that were removed from the typical desktop experience starting with Gnome 3. If you did fork Gnome 3, I can't think of a single person who would want to use it.

So a better question would be do YOU want to use a fork of Gnome 3, and do you want to use it enough to go to the trouble of developing it?

[ownedbywuigi]

Now that GNOME 50 fully drops X11 support, I'm done with modern GNOME and forking the peak of GNOME.

Wondering if there was any community interest in such?

The problem, whether you are using Gnome 3 or Gnome 50, is that the users mostly complain about the UI, and all the widgets and icons and interactive bits that were removed from the typical desktop experience starting with Gnome 3. If you did fork Gnome 3, I can't think of a single person who would want to use it.

So a better question would be do YOU want to use a fork of Gnome 3, and do you want to use it enough to go to the trouble of developing it?

GNOME 3 for me is the last good version of GNOME after using it for my UXP VM (Oracle Linux 8), and comparing it to GNOME 49 on my laptop, it's just sad how much utility was lost.

[andyprough]

GNOME 3 for me is the last good version of GNOME after using it for my UXP VM (Oracle Linux 8), and comparing it to GNOME 49 on my laptop, it's just sad how much utility was lost.

Well then you may want to do a web search for "why do people hate gnome 3?" The results may surprise you, as many many many people do not feel the same way as you. To call it the most despised change of a GNU/Linux desktop environment of all time may be a bit of an understatement.

Myself, I don't care. I use the world's simplest window manager, DWM. For me, all desktop environments are bloated messes.

[athenian200]

GNOME 3 for me is the last good version of GNOME after using it for my UXP VM (Oracle Linux 8), and comparing it to GNOME 49 on my laptop, it's just sad how much utility was lost.

I really think that just proves it's a matter of taste and habit. A lot of people here seem to be of an age where they think GNOME 2 is the best because it's what they grew up with, and I've met others like you, who think GNOME 3 is the best and GNOME 4x is when things started going off the rails.

Me personally? I don't have a favorite version of GNOME, I just kind of use GNOME on Linux because I don't want to deal with having to setup a custom environment and fight against GNOME-centric assumptions, especially since I'm usually just in and out of fresh Fedora, RHEL, or RHEL-fork installations in a VM or a remote server or something, rather than dealing with a local Linux installation I riced to make myself comfortable like many of our users do. I have the mentality that I'll learn what I have to learn and suck it up, because the defaults don't care about my preferences, and if I set up something nice for myself locally, I'll just lose my muscle memory for how newer GNOME works and be relegated to working with the old stuff. To the extent that I prefer MATE when given a choice on install, it's mostly because it seems to work a bit better with Pale Moon and other applications that were ported from GTK2 to GTK3 than most other environments.

I will say, though, that GNOME 3 wasn't that hard for me to learn, but only because I was a heavy Windows 8 user and had to learn how that works (I'm the go-to Windows 8 person in my area whenever someone encounters a user stuck on it because everyone else stayed on 7 until 10 came out), and GNOME 3 feels very much like it. Whereas newer GNOME has yet another learning curve, feels less like Windows 8 in some ways, but without going back to a more traditional or familiar design. If that makes sense? I was still able to figure it out, but it seemed like you have to get used to a completely different workflow and the interface got reshuffled yet again. So I definitely kinda get where you're coming from on GNOME 3 being more intuitive than modern GNOME for a larger variety of workflows.

[frostknight]

I know I am in the minority, here, but I wish someone would fork gnome 2 or kde 2, as they both looked good to me, albeit before my time. (with linux!)

[athenian200]

I know I am in the minority, here, but I wish someone would fork gnome 2 or kde 2, as they both looked good to me, albeit before my time. (with linux!)

Well, like I've said, actually MATE is already a fork of GNOME 2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATE_(des ... vironment)

There's a fork of KDE 1 called MiDesktop with its own toolkit, called Osris:

https://libranext.com/midesktop/

And of course, there's a fork of KDE 3 called Trinity with its own toolkit called TQt:

https://www.trinitydesktop.org/

No KDE 2 fork, but from what I gathered, KDE 2 looked and worked very similarly to KDE 3 anyway, meaning most users who were fans would be happy with Trinity.

The problem, as always, is no major Linux distro adopts these, and its relegated to niches that no one has heard of, or it involves compromises no one wants to deal with in a modern environment, etc.

Oh, and as an interesting bonus I discovered because I got way too deep into the weeds at one point:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/GNOME/Flashback

There was apparently a session type for GNOME 3 called GNOME Flashback, which was apparently semi-officially supported by the GNOME team at one point, and a lot of the work seems to have been done by the guy who maintained the original Metacity window manager and ported it to GTK3...

And even today, I believe I've seen a GNOME Classic session type for GNOME 4x that attempts to look a little more like GNOME 2, though it doesn't try as hard as GNOME Flashback.

[Mæstro]

I'm really wondering why you're spreading so thin over multiple ideas. Maybe you should focus on working on fewer things and making sure they are the best they can be?

Owned’s profile notes that he is aged seventeen. He is a teenager who is interested in exploring UXP and various other technologies from before his time. I welcome his interest, however he chooses to dabble, for if UXP is to survive in the very long term, it shall be necessary for some of those who have never grown up with it to find it interesting on its own merits.

[frostknight]

Well, like I've said, actually MATE is already a fork of GNOME 2:

my bad, I meant GNOME 1.

[ownedbywuigi]

I'm really wondering why you're spreading so thin over multiple ideas. Maybe you should focus on working on fewer things and making sure they are the best they can be?

Owned’s profile notes that he is aged seventeen. He is a teenager who is interested in exploring UXP and various other technologies from before his time. I welcome his interest, however he chooses to dabble, for if UXP is to survive in the very long term, it shall be necessary for some of those who have never grown up with it to find it interesting on its own merits.

Yeah unfortunately I’m too young for a lot of shit, kind of a bummer. Never really was a fan of the stuff I actually grew up with, and instead opting for something a couple years older lol

[Moonchild]

Hey don't get me wrong I appreciate your enthusiasm, and energy! It's just easy to get so bogged down in 7 million things at once (I know how that goes) that you end up with nothing at all. Seems for me the magic number is 15-20
My remark was primarily just a bit of a caution that you may end up with nothing good by spreading too thin which doesn't really help anyone.

[Night Wing]

The modifications I do in Xfce which I will not go into, I cannot do in Gnome and this is the reason I have no interest in Gnome no matter what version it is.

[Lucio Chiappetti]

Myself, I don't care. I use the world's simplest window manager, DWM. For me, all desktop environments are bloated messes.

I don't care too and share your opinion on DEs. Perhaps the window manager I use, FWVM, can contend with your for simplicity ... surely it is highly customizable via a single config file.
It is a pity that Linux flavours tend to be identified with their DE, when one can use whatever one likes. As I said, I install Xubuntu, but then use FVWM(3). And this does no forbid me to use for instance a comparator like kdiff3 (which should be part of KDE) and a PDF viewer like atril (which should be part of mate). Thye might load extra libraries but they will last just for the sessi9n.