Yes, English is a very confusing language. Besides swapping our verbs and subjects in a sentence it contains many nuances that aren’t obvious to non-native English speakers. Plus we can create words just by using them often enough. Most of the other responders (being native English speakers) read between the lines, understood my confusion and answered appropriately. You, BTW, do very good at expressing yourself in English.
Your explanation goes miles in proving my point. Because the open source programming world can, it does. Think of the OS “you” could have if all that effort in diversity was channeled into creating a few less forks, flavors, splinters and branches. Windows would shrink into the background, which is where I would love to see it go.
This has me confused. I thought the chain was:
Debian -> Canonical -> Ubuntu -> 16.04 MATE or 16.04 Unity
Last as an explanation, “you” does not mean you personally, rather an entire group of people set about trying to accomplish a similar goal.
As I grow more comfortable I will also adopt that attitude. Right now I am searching for packages that will help me wean myself from Windows. Realizing they will not be stoke for stoke compatible. Tis a challange, but I feel I am up to it.
Yes, but Canonical is not part of Debian “group” and MATE (as a DE) is an “alone group” not being part of any group but MATE itself (fork of Gnome). That way, anyone can take different parts and ensemble a new OS or piece of software. So, in the end, Linux distributions are heterogeneous Software while Windows is an homogeneous software (this is false in software engineering but is a nice way to explain it).
So the software may be part of another software but a group doesn’t mean it is part of it. This way it lets users and developers customize and change what they want. Look at this thread.
I just trying to saying that while the pieces of software are used to complete a bigger piece of software, the groups that make them are separated team that are independent from each other.
I understood, was just trying to draw it out for the other person. the “->” and “>” should not imply any sort of membership/ownership relation between Debian/Canonical or Gnome2/Mate. more of a inheritance.
Totally understood. That was also my inference in post 21. It is a chain of each building upon what the previous had done.
This whole topic keeps proving my point and also that of @Bill_MI
Linux is its own worst enemy in that it has to many forks, splinters, fractures, flavors or whatever. It is great that I can have any flavor DE I want, but sharing a common knowledge base of learning is well nigh impossible, especially since the Linux folk seem to want to keep hidden everything they know.
When my friends call me with an (ugh) Widows problem, I can off the top of my head tell them which icon to press what menu will popup, which line to click and if it is a left click or a right click. With all “your” wonderful diversity – fat chance.
It all started in a place far, far away and long, long ago. Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were forced to write a sort of instruction manual after a few years. “The job is not done til the paper work is finished.”, has more than one meaning.
I read this post several times looking at the frustration you are having and thinking about the same frustrations I’ve had myself. The biggest being ‘where do I find answers and how to instructions’ . You mentioned about trying to find a manual, and really, it hasn’t been written yet. These alternative OS communities are a lot like research and development. There aren’t instructions because nobody’s done it yet. There are plenty of people who tell you it can be done, and some that have, but didn’t keep track of all the steps to make a list of instructions. I can’t tell you how many posts I’ve read saying that 'yes you can do that’s but nobody actually tells you how.
Using Ubuntu MATE will take a lot of time searching forums and videos, finding instructions to accomplish what you want. There are fewer things that work right the first time, and honestly a lot of times, I can’t tell you which step it was that made things work. There is a lot of trial and error, but if you have the time and patience you can learn a whole lot. Sorry about the frustration, but it does get better.
[quote=“fey42, post:27, topic:9310, full:true”]
Linux is its own worst enemy in that it has to many forks, splinters, fractures, flavors or whatever. It is great that I can have any flavor DE I want, but sharing a common knowledge base of learning is well nigh impossible, especially since the Linux folk seem to want to keep hidden everything they know.[/quote]
@Bill_MI quote goes a little deeper than that. Choice is Linux strength, not its enemy. It’s in fact its greatest strength. Linux enemy is instead us, its users.
This is so because Choice contributes to Linux scope by widening it and permitting the operating system to reach more users and fit in all sorts of hardware and task requirements. However, on the user side, Choice complicates the user decision process.
But you must be aware that it can be also argued that Choice only complicates users if they fall in too easily to optimization. What this means is that one of the fundamental problems of “too much to choose from” is that our brains are wired to try and make the best choice, and deal poorly with two or more competing options. And “too much too choose from” always carries the load of two or more competing options that reveal advantages over one another. What we must do in these situations is to learn to identify when we cannot optimize our choice further and accept that as a natural end to the decision process. Then just pick one of the competing options at random and ignore the rest, training ourselves to accept that as the best option.
What this means is that, when forced to make an uninformed decision between A and B, train yourself to the following fundamental truth: Whatever you choose will be the best choice. This is similar to the eternal false conundrum of betting on a dice. Many people always take a long time to decide on which to bet from 1 to 6, as if thinking about it would somehow increase their odds of getting the right number. It won’t. So it really should only take a split second to decide on a number.
Windows does not share Linux design. You can look at Windows as if it was just another DE like Gnome 2 or Unity. And yet, within the Windows ecosystem you’ll find that it has its own share of “choices”, since Windows 7 will have a different path to a problem solution than Windows 10, Windows XP, or Windows Server. So in fact, when comparing Windows to Linux, you have to either reduce Linux to a single system or augment Windows to include all its design-changing versions. Then you can make the comparison.
And what you’ll find is something completely different altogether.
You’ll find that the word “consistency” automatically implies a path through time. And Linux excels, much more than windows, at providing users with that consistency. For years and years and years, a DE like Gnome 2 and any of its derivatives will present users with a consistent workflow that they can master, whereas the type of consistency that you are identifying on Windows is comparatively short-lived.
So, you may know where that button is off the top of your head on Windows. But that knowledge will only serve you for a limited amount of time. Whereas on Gnome 2 it will serve you for decades.
Sorry, but that is not a fundamental truth, that is your personal philosophy. It can only be a choice.
Below are comments from just two different websites that seem to disagree with your conclusion. They are not my thoughts or opinions.
MATE is a fork of the Gnome 2 desktop and was launched when the Gnome team abandoned Gnome 2 development to focus on Gnome 3.
This page will have meaning to Linux users who have used the Gnome 2 ‘desktop’ (typically before 2010) and who then observed the release of Gnome 3 in 2011 and found that many of the nice productivity and efficiency features of Gnome 2 were abandoned in Gnome 3.
I am so, so, so new at Linux and MATE that I seek guidance in being able to use it efficiently. What I don’t want to do is stumble around reading 15 different ways to do things that don’t quite work. I want to harness the power and run with it, not continually fight/fiddle with it. That is why I desire documentation and knowledge, not guess work.
I don’t think you understood my post. Or the part you quoted from it. It stands that as far as Gnome 2 is concerned, what was true for Gnome 2 still stays true for Gnome 2 and for MATE today. If you insist comparing Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 or Unity, I ask you do not use Windows as a basis because then you will have to compare Windows XP to Windows Vista or 7 and Windows 7 to Windows 10. And you will find the exact same problem; you would have to learn many different ways to do the same thing on Windows.
You also seem to think I’m being philosophical. Not sure why you think that. I thought I was giving sound advice, instead of feeling I now have to defend myself. But here it goes again, in different words. It’s called Decision Process and is part of the study of Decision Trees, Path Optimizations and whatnot. It’s not philosophy, it’s science. Although I suppose you can and should question its validity… but on its own terms, not in a dismissive way as if it was hocus pocus. So, here it goes again:
After optimizing your choices the best you can and removing any unacceptable options you find along the way, you will be left only with the best options. Pick one, because that’s always going to be, by definition, the best option. I’ll tell what won’t be the best option; to spend any more time thinking what you should choose. Indecision is not how you choose. And it’s only through the act of choosing that you finish the Decision Process and consequently the problem. And once you pick, ignore the rest of the options. They are no longer your concern. Many MATE users are perfectly happy and productive using, learning and understanding the MATE environment without thinking about Unity, Gnome 3, KDE, i3, and whatever else. And the same can be said to any users of these other DEs.
The Ford, Chevy analogy mentioned earlier is probably going to be the easiest to understand. Windows is Chevy and Mac is Ford. Linux distros would be all those mechanics across the country that build their own cars in the garage.
All these Indy mechanics build using the same free parts they can find, but then modify them to fit whatever crazy Frankenstein car they are building. Lots of these don’t keep track of what they did to get it working, just kept trying until it worked.
Getting all these people running exactly the same again(running a unified OS) would remove the experimentation and originality of all those cars.
Linux gets used to try out any new ideas,and also just to see if things can be done.
Hopefully this helps you understand the Linux fragmentation and distros.
I like the analogy with the cars as such. And I like UM. I like the caring community and I am amazed by the enthusiasm with which people work for this project.
But: All this does not change the over all assessment. If we would really want to change the software world then we would get rid of the fragmentation and build together a car that people without their own garage can buy for the one thing they really need it for. Drive from a to b without stopping in between at a friend’s garage and ask him and his friends to fix a problem so that the car makes it to B.
I am happy with UM and I am committed to make it the os for my daily needs. But I enjoy tinkering with software to a certain degree. All my wife does is using her w10 and shaking her head about me struggling with UM. And from a user’s perspective - sorry to say - she is right.
That’s why Windows exists. Macs for only specific hardware. Windows for every hardware. Linux for the ones who want to do something else. If there were not a way you could do that with Linux, then Linux would not be necessary for people.
The last point I would like to make about Linux is that part of the mission is to teach everyday people how to program. In the technology world that is equivalent to true freedom. Windows and Mac would prefer users only to know how to use the product and not how it works. Or to put it another way, they want the product to do what they want, not what you want.
If you learn to program your own, then you get only what you want.
Trying to make a platform that it easy enough to use for beginners to get started, but leaves enough not done to motivate people to learn how to do for themselves is difficult. Everyone needs different levels of motivation. Therefore, different versions of Linux have certain things already in place, and some versions have nothing, leaving it to you to do everything on your own.
From this point, you have to have multiple versions depending on how advanced each person is, coupled with how much motivation each person needs in order to get them learning new skills.
For me just having the freedom to pick what I want is enough, that’s why I left Mac, and now why I’ve left Windows. But what I’ve found out is that I’ve learned a lot more about how things work by using Linux.
As for the frustration of getting things working on Linux, you learn to fix things. You learn nothing when things go smoothly, you learn a lot when you fix things, and even more when you begin building your own. Sorry to say, those folks that only use Windows ‘because it works’, will not learn what their computer is actually doing. Soon enough, they’ll be asking you for help when they have problems, because, while you don’t know Windows, you do know how things work.
