Will MATE become more and more popular?

Thoughts & Feedback
#21

I was surprised to see MATE described as a memory hog. On bootup, less than 500MB are used, which puts it in the same class as other, less featureful desktops like LXQT and XCFE.

I consider MATE, which is the much improved desktop which I fell in love with when I booted up Ubuntu 8.04 for my first Linux experience, the easiest desktop to learn (GNOME 23 took me all of 10 minutes to figure out) and by far the best desktop for new users.

And Ubuntu MATE is, hands down, IMHO, the best distro I have ever installed.

7 Likes
#22

It seems bizarre to measure performance by memory consumption these days. The average current system has 16GB, others are higher. Yes there are lower-end machines that run on 2 and 4GB, and even these perform admirably. Perhaps we need to look at another factor to judge against. I don’t think it’s memory any more, it’s no longer a barrier to surmount.

#23

You gotta be kidding, in example at the end of last year I browsed for laptops and there was no convertible laptop for sale in Portugal with more than 8 gb of ram. Talking about a developed country at the end of 2017… so worldwide the average scenario is to be worse and not better.
Of course it’s a specific product (convertible laptops) but that’s an indicator.

Ram is still an issue and talking about MATE, known for low resources consumption, usually the idea is that mainly it will be installed in machines with fewer ram memory.

#24

Well said Wolfman! In my PC service/repair experiences I have built and given away several Linux machines to my repeat customers, attempting to expose them to Ubuntu. They all returned the machines saying they liked some things but did not want to take the time to learn the OS. I can relate to your statement that some responses sound like scientific equations and serve to turn off a would be convert...like me. I mean no disrespect to anyone and appreciate this forum and the many learned folks that post their comments and experiences. I think UM is awesome and I am determined to learn it so I can dump Windows and make UM my main driver. Thank you!

1 Like
#25

Mate is an Ubuntu flavour and cinnamon does not have it's own home. I went back to Mate from Elementary because I wanted something more and more stable, "That just works," which is Ubuntu-Mate's fortè. Did you notice the bold VLC inclusion which helps Ubuntu "Just work"?
Mate is also quite lean and I have a weak laptop. It runs fine on my machine and I think it does fairly well compared to Lubuntu as well.
As for Mate as a desktop for other distros, I don't know. It is usually best to go with the distro the DM comes with. The future is to keep the Ubuntu in Ubuntu-Mate.

#26

Cinnamon is a very good DE, but it has more serious issues than Mate : memory leaks, higher CPU consumption, memory usage and a few display glitches.

That why I am using Mate now, even though my hardware is quite powerfull and Cinnamon feels more modern.

Moreover, on Ubuntu, Cinnamon is a second class citizen, so Mint would be really recommanded to have the best experience.
Yet, I prefer Ubuntu for the LTS and other stuff, so this is also an advantage of Mate.

#27

I've just loged in to say I LOVE YOU....

Well, didn't been in here for the long time but still remember the user password :slight_smile:
Very old computer was not able to handle modern systems and "light distros" are unstable for usual work and lacking of a many features.

At the moment I am using android tablet and cell phone with same Google Linux.
But anyway, I hardly wait to collect the money for the brand new computer to install again Ubuntu Mate.

Big hug from me!
Cheers!

#28

I do not understand this push to make interfaces feel more modern. The only thing I enjoy about these newfangled interfaces is the accessibility possibilities of providing big targets and big fonts to help our aging computing populace. I sort of wrote an op-ed about MATE v. Win10 before, so I a not going to re-write that essay as a response but I also see no reason to "Modernize" something that works already.

It's the reason MATE exists today. A Spaniard looked at GNOME Shell as a problem, and solved it by forking GNOME 2. Five years later, we have this thanks to @Wimpy.

1 Like
#29

I tried many times to introduce MATE to many of my friends and colleagues, but the first reaction I always get is "it's an old designed desktop with a lot of green color", even after I set Redmond layout they seem little happy because even if it's fast and functional, the esthetic is always the first visual factor that plays big role into attracting people to it.
Someone who is a software engineer has replied to me while laughing "Sure, it can be used by my grandma but not for me", it was shock for me, because those people who are used to Windows will never choose something other than it except if it's more beautiful and has more features and faster than Windows.
Not all people are experts that decide and choose speed and functionality over design because many are average users who love to have beautiful desktop that works and doesn't care for performance especially those who have powerful machines.

But the only reason that isolate Linux (including MATE) from getting popular is the support that professional softwares get from Microsoft behind the scene, like Adobe softwares, AutoCad, Microsoft Office, Catia...
Even Apple gives money to those companies to create and optimize versions of those popular softwares for MacOS.

And now Microsoft is running Linux kernel inside Windows and is more involved in its development process; I think their kernel design with the new Windows 10 has met a big obstacle because with each upgrade the OS gets more bugs and become slow and some upgrades even destroy files on users machines. And Microsoft in near future will certainly replace their kernel with Linux kernel because Linux is more faster and more secure and has great upgrading model, and what is it doing now is developing a layer to map Windows API with Linux kernel.

#30

That's disappointing. But I think the problem is that the Linux desktop is billed as "Beautiful" by a lot of people who use it. We really need to stop doing that.

I don't think of Windows 10 by default as beautiful, the old Win7 interface was more desirable by many people but Microsoft ditched it. WinXP simply looked like a Fisher-Price toy, and Win9x was very business like.

Default UI's just that; default. But I do agree on one aspect; theming needs to be improved. It just has to be. On Linux it's tough to get everything just the way you want it. Like with the recent MATE Menu change @vkareh and flex did, I didn't understand that; being able to tweak and mod and change easily through the user interface was what made these apps nice and I felt it's a backward change.

#31

I can only agree. The default layout looks dated by now. No offence to anyone of the devs. I like UM and it will continue to power my laptop. But that doesn’t change my view above.

#32

maybe that's what i found so attractive? Ubuntu Mate reminds me of Hardy Heron that was my first Ubuntu. keep on being the community you are, we are! i think that will be one of the things that will attract people to Ubuntu Mate.

1 Like
#33

I'm just not seeing that myself... I mean if you're showing people something like this I could understand it, but why are you showing them that?

Granted I'm hardly using the defaults, I've got an emerald theme (black fruit) and have a Mate desktop theme installed with different colors than the green (ambiantux) and have themed my panels to be transparent using panel wallpapers but that's basic stuff. I'm sure that I'll get some flack for the use of OSX style buttons too but I like it. To me it's beautiful.

I really don't understand some of the complaints about the desktop feeling old or antiquated. I don't think some of the people complaining understand their complaints either because their complaints always feel vague and oddly nonspecific. What exactly are you looking for that isn't possible with the desktop?

Do you dislike the application menus? They are part of why I like the desktop so much--everything is sorted by task type and I can find what I need quickly. I don't need to search my desktop to find what I need, I can just go to the type of application I am looking for. If you prefer a different application menu, they do exist. Just use BriskMenu or try something else...

What are you missing that makes other desktops feel more modern to you? If it's just about the default theme what do you think needs to be changed?

#34

I think the issue at hand for "Dated interfaces" is they do not look like smartphone displays. ergo anyone who has used nothing but a mobile phone, and getting onto a desktop for the first time is an unfamiliar and non-intuitive experience.

But I suppose that's the difference between a system designed for consumption, and a system designed for creating. Let's run down the core differences;

Consumption

The device is locked down, so you cannot modify system software too much.
The device has intermediary layers between the end-user and user's device.
Interfaces and apps can be vaguely customized, but application options can be limited.

Creation

The device can accept any operating system a user pleases to install.
The device can have intermediary layers, per-app, but are optional.
Interfaces and FOSS apps can be customized to a user's will, with expertise and knowledge.

Passively sitting in front of a display and just pushing buttons are key signs of a device or interface made for consumption. A conventional desktop, or at least, a traditional desktop requires more engagement by the end-user. They need to take an active role in how the desktop functions to aid in creation of new media and material.

On a touch-based interface, options for engagement are limited. Sure, you can still create with it, and you can create on an interface originally designed for consumption. But there is no doubt a traditional desktop, once learned by the end-user can allow them to perform the same exact tasks which aid in creation better and faster, with richer tools which possess more information density.

Interfaces like GNOME Shell and Canonical's original response to it; Unity were made more for consumption, because they are highly touch-based with a vast majority of interface decisions made for you. MATE doesn't force you into that, which is why I think a lot of newer people have difficulty using it, and a lot of older people love it so.

Hindsight edit: The above may seems like I am decrying interfaces and devices made for consumption first. Trust me when I say I am not. But I do criticize a generation which prefers to consume more than it creates, as consumption, the act of taking in without returning anything of value or finding value only in a single instance of a work is a part of creation, however if there is less creation taking place, then there is little to nothing of value for many.

1 Like
#35

What gets me about "modern" ironically is that they are using flat as a design theme. That's what we had in the earlier days of Os's, early Mac OS was incredibly flat. To me it looks awful and if you take a hard look at what other distros are doing they almost all look just alike. Some arc theming with Papirus icons. Ubuntu themes are far superior. I will admit to never liking ubuntu, since the day it was announced. For me it could only be Mandrake. Now it can only be Ubuntu-Mate. I love what you guys are doing.

1 Like
#36

Not to mention, a decade ago flat icons smacked of laziness. In any kind of art class, especially art classes orientated around software one would fail miserably for lacking distinction and individual style. My, how the tables had turned. And I think flat icons represent a shift toward interfaces for consumption. I should edit my OP to explain this stretch but I will leave this here;

Icons with gradients and 3D design may be more difficult to make, but it permits for lower resolution displays with limited colour information to have some degree of information density in the icon itself. This means, everything on the screen isn't just a gigantic blob without distinguishing characteristics.

Flat icons are hallmarks of industrial design and come from a heritage of brief, but punchy imagery which can scale without issue to fit from anything between small symbols inside of devices, to the largest of flatbed trucks and aid in vapid consumption of information associated with that icon.

While the brain associates information with flat icons better, they are limited in creativity and so aesthetically, some minds — especially creative ones — may prefer more dense icons with extra layers of information that distinguishes it, which can also aid in displaying one's individuality.

Many mainstream operating systems don't even let you touch the icons, or at the very least if there is customization it is severely limited in comparison to open source environments under a user's absolute control. They also seem easier to customize, as everything can just be a PNG image. No layers, no packaging to wrap around, just an image the system can read.

1 Like
#37

Sorry for the late reply.

I am not missing too much in particular. It is simply that the default layout looks dated in Mho. I like Mate and will continue to use it. But the default is certainly not eye candy.

I am a user. Nothing more. As much as I would like to, I don’t have time for tweaking.

What I would like to see? I don’t know. This is the advantage of Apple and alike. They create a design and make the masses like it via marketing expenses.

I do agree with a post saying that desktops are up against smartphones these days. And I don’t have a solution.

I guess what I want to say is not going beyond that I think the default looks dated.

#38

See, to me this is a large part of the problem. People say that they want a more modern or less dated interface but they never seem to be able to articulate what this means to them in words. Fairly or not I always mentally categorize this crowd as intending to mean 'just like Windows or MacOS' without having to actually say so, even to themselves.

The move away from skeuomorphic design to more of a flat interface just exacerbates the problem as far as I'm concerned. I like my desktop to be functional but I also like eye candy. That's why I've got panel wallpaper that is transparent, I think it looks nice. I also think the rounded design of the wallpaper makes the panel more three dimensional, making it easier to see at the top of the screen. A flat panel reduces functionality and causes it to be more difficult to 'hit' the panel when I'm trying to interact with it. Flat icons are not only uglier they are harder to distinguish between.

Like the other poster I find it ironic that flat design has become seen as 'modern' because I too recall when Apple began making OSX available to the public and how much a revelation it was in design. Overnight flat became dated. Now that they've reverted back to flat people who were to young to have remembered the way it was before suddenly find the innovation that was skeuomorphic design to be dated. It's a farce. A joke.

But it's human nature to take comfort in familiarity. Without even realizing it we tend to want things to be the same. So what do we do about this? I don't want to go back to flat like Apple is doing. I also don't want to abandon icons altogether the way Microsoft is trying to do with Metro and their "Modern" tile based text buttons. I don't want my desktop to turn into a giant tablet, the way that Gnome 3.x has gone to either.

I like Mate. It's an operating environment for desktops. I open the application menu and can navigate to the task I want to begin. It's simple. It gets out of the way.

I'm not sure that we can really ask much more from it? What else do we need or want?

2 Likes
#39

At least Ubuntu MATE makes an attempt at easily configuring the panels for people who want a system with a similar workflow. But here's where I contest that statement; You say people want an interface that's just like Mac OS X or Windows 10, I say people want to mimic their workflow.

There's a big difference in perception, between how we think. Where you see a lack of articulation, I see a bigger question; Can I still act on the same workflow? And the answer, usually is yes, after hours of discovery and emulating the interface someone else was on before.

Consider this; With the same tools, down to the same vendor, how much faster can you complete a task on a system you've used for only a few minutes, compared to a system you've used for a few years? Even with keyboard shortcuts, there is a certain flow that people get into, a rhythm with the keys they engage in if they only use the keyboard in applications which don't require a mouse.

Systems like Ubuntu MATE can iterate upon one's existing workflow by providing options where aspects of one or multiple workflows can be emulated, providing the ultimate desktop experience for people who dislike aspects of other existing workflows they cannot quite as easily modify.

#40

I'm afraid that I don't get your point at all. I read what you've written here and without context I even agree with it a hundred percent because workflows are important to me. It's in large part why I am and continue to be a Mate Desktop user.

But your post is off point because we're not speaking of workflows in the context of the conversation or in any way shape or form with what you've quoted me on. We're talking about the appearance of datedness in the interface itself. We're talking about the look and feel of the desktop environment. Workflow doesn't really enter into that discussion.

In specific context in the thread previous posters said that the Mate desktop looks dated to them. This is a complaint that has been made before more than once and just as in previous instances when pressed to get a specific issue that to the complainer makes the desktop look or feel dated to them the poster craps out, unable to articulate what exactly it is that feels dated to them. I'm unwilling to simply dismiss the issue because it's one that comes up over and over again from different people. There is clearly something there that needs to be addressed but since no one can articulate what that something is, the problem remains unfixable.

Some of us speculated that the issue is a generation raised on cellphones and webapps who associate those flat interfaces with modern design and anything else looks dated to them. I was suggesting that the issue could be one of someone out of their comfort zone, used to the look of Windows or OSX and using 'dated' as a poorly chosen word to describe their unease with the differences between those and Linux or Mate. None of that has to do with workflow.

Cinnamon exists. That has the desktop metaphor like Windows. There is also the Redmond theme for Mate-tweak. Those give theming options and provide a different workflow option. Neither of which address the datedness issue. Ditto for the Munity and Cupertino layouts in Mate-tweak for those whose workflows are more OSX-like.

Changing to any of those would certainly change the workflow style but I contest the idea that this would make Mate more or less dated in look if one of those were enabled.

Furthermore I personally contest the accepted wisdom that aping some other desktop would make it easier for someone seeking to make the transition from some other desktop environment to a Linux desktop. I find it ultimately self-defeating and a creator of cognitive dissonance over the long run to do these total theme conversions that routinely become popular. It's certainly possible to make an incredible reproduction of Windows or OSX out of most Linux desktops. Sooner or later though the user will encounter something that doesn't make the transition properly and the illusion will be broken and along with the shattered illusion will come the cognitive dissonance of the desktop environment being broken or inferior. Usually this is when the user goes back to their previous desktop because they consider Linux to be an inferior "copycat" and they've got to have the "real thing" and we hear talk about how Linux is not quite ready for the desktop just yet.

Frustrating. And yet someone is always certain that their themed conversion will fix whatever issue caused the upset and this time the copy will be perfect, the illusion unshattered. But somehow it always is.

Much better to keep the ability for a user to alter their workflows however they wish but to promote the Mate Desktop and Linux way of doing things. Start right out the door with the understanding that this is a different desktop interface which must be learned in order to get the best use of it. Emphasize that Mate is similar but not the same as Windows or OSX. I think by doing this the cognitive dissonance can be directed in our favor. Instead of 'This is broken and bad!' we can alter the thinking to 'Oh yeah! This is not Windows\OSX, what is the way to do that thing I wanted to do on Ubuntu-Mate?'

Everything else is theming at least as far as I'm concerned.

2 Likes