34 points mtbkvc 15 hours ago 19 comments
ChrisArchitect 15 hours ago | parent
ainar-g 14 hours ago | parent
NekkoDroid 14 hours ago | parent
Also a minor nitpick: I wouldn't call Flatpak a/their "dependency manager". It is more like an application manager, closer to winget than a traditional package manager.
RetroTechie 13 hours ago | parent
Neywiny 10 hours ago | parent
SilentM68 12 hours ago | parent
Got the following message on KVM:
GNOME 3.14 on QEMU/KVM 2 File Virtual Machine View Send Key
50 »mo . E
SeaBIOS (version 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2) Machine UUID 616b29f9-c84f-4e48-97224-9f df 00225378
iPXE (https://ipxe.org) 01:00.0 CAGE PCIZ.10 PnP PMM+7EFCASEO+7EFOASEO CAOO
Booting from DUD/CD...
Boot failed: Could not read from CDROM (code 0009) Booting from Hard Disk...
Boot failed: not a bootable disk
No bootable device.
--------------------------------------
Is the ISO bootable via a VM?
Home page should probably add VM install instructions :)
russellbeattie 11 hours ago | parent
Here's my thinking: Gnome is notoriously 80% everything you ever wanted in a desktop environment and 20% "screw you, implement it yourself if you don't like it." It's been that way for decades and we all love them for it.
But obviously that level of support is not ideal in an underlying OS. However, the OS could have an automated trigger that fired any time a Gnome developer told you to go pound sand (a common enough occurrence). It would automatically ask your computer's integrated Codex or Claude equivalent coding agent to fix whatever issue you're having and to close the bug report after. Think about it! That might be an actual viable new way of running an OS distribution!
Bug fixes will just be prompts you can copy/paste! "Make this idiot's printer work. Decompile the driver and reflash the firmware if needed. Then mark the issue as resolved."
"Works on my machine" becomes a whole new thing as everyone ends up running their own bespoke AI augmented version of the base OS.
The future is now.
Neywiny 10 hours ago | parent
russellbeattie 10 hours ago | parent
The threads about it are awesome.
rf15 10 hours ago | parent
their pivot from highly customisable kde-like experience to look more mac-like actually dropped that 80% towards 0 for me.
Also, fundamentally: for a Desktop ui to ask by default for more than one bar to stick into your desktop space is just greedy.
soganess 6 hours ago | parent
GNOME is opinionated as heck (often to its detriment), but it does not look/feel like macOS. GNOME looks orders of magnitude nicer than modern macOS. Rounded corners and an appreciation for some (poorly defined) ethos of "simplicity" is not the core of macOS. Implying GNOME is appreciably like macOS is as embarrassing as calling KDE a Windows knockoff. There are genuinely many many reasons to hate GNOME, but being closer to macOS than Windows on some wildly truncated spectrum of UI/UX is not one of them.
When the Alto was the only thing with windows, everything that followed looked like a Xerox Exec clone. Fifty years later, that argument rings as hallow as saying every novel is just a retelling of $LOCALITY_BASED_FIRST_NARRATIVE_FICTION.
lotharcable 9 hours ago | parent
Desktops work best as appliances.
If you want to do development work or want "Unix workstation" experiences and other things on a desktop then containerization can provide levels of flexibility and power that is unattainable on a traditional Linux distribution.
This sort of Gnome OS and KDE Linux OS approach is one of the better ideas to come along in a long time.
pjmlp 5 hours ago | parent
As someone that tried to contribute to Gtkmm, and has a published article on the oldie The C/C++ Users Journal, there is hardly anything great to talk about GNOME since version 3.
vor_ 4 hours ago | parent
russellbeattie 56 minutes ago | parent
throwa356262 5 hours ago | parent
Because stable distros like Ubuntu and Debian can be 2-4 releases behind mainline. GnomeOS would put some pressure on them to include more recent versions.
cromka 4 hours ago | parent
its-summertime 2 hours ago | parent
Its a lot harder for Fedora since they need to support 43 upgrading to 44, but also 42 to 43 to 44, 41 to 42 to 43 to 44, etc. And in some cases there is enough of a difference in those upgrade paths to cause issues, even with the immutable Silverblue (I know since I got bit by an issue that began ~2+ versions before the issue ended up being triggered!).
"You may have to re-install in the future" gives GNOME OS a massive amount of flexibility right now, when GNOME OS has fully stabilized, plus 10 or 15 years, Fedora Silverblue and GNOME OS will probably be in the same place, but until then, GNOME OS just benefits from starting later.
(Not saying either is better than the other)
cromka 1 hour ago | parent
But that means it's unusable as a daily driver? They will have to give up this approach at some point when they stabilize, so again I don't see any advantage over Fedora. If anything, what you quote is a disadvantage to me.
> I know since I got bit by an issue that began ~2+ versions before the issue ended up being triggered!
Indeed, these things happen, e.g. this discussion literally from today: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/1x7zgol/fedora_45_h...
This is still something that is avoidable, it's just down to their choices where they do not remove obsolete software. I believe this should be openly communicated at upgrade time, but the previously-mandated leftovers should be removed.