Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

Filed under
Linux

Havoc Pennington has long been one of the pioneers of the Linux desktop movement, and a primary GNOME developer. Once at Red Hat, now at LITL (cool name, by the way), Havoc should be the poster boy for Linux desktop advocacy.

Nope.

In a recent blog post, Havoc rubbished the idea of anyone needing a new (traditional) desktop:

GNOME 2.0 and KDE 4 are bad models for change. They rewrote and broke the code, but from a user-goals perspective, they are the same thing as before. We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same goals. The fact is that people already have a desktop. They don't want a new desktop from GNOME, from Apple, or from Microsoft.

More Here




More in Tux Machines

Security News

  • Reproducible Builds: week 90 in Stretch cycle
    The F-Droid Verification Server has been launched. It rebuilds apps from source that were built by f-droid.org and checks that the results match.
  • 6 Week Progress Update for PGP Clean Room
    One of the PGP Clean Room’s aims is to provide users with the option to easily initialize one or more smartcards with personal info and pins, and subsequently transfer keys to the smartcard(s). The advantage of using smartcards is that users don’t have to expose their keys to their laptop for daily certification, signing, encryption or authentication purposes.
  • New Kali Linux Professional Information Security Certification to debut at Black Hat USA, 2017
    First Official Kali Linux book release will coincide with launch of the new information security training program as the Penetration Testing platform celebrates its 10th anniversary.
  • The flatpak security model – part 1: The basics
    This is the first part of a series talking about the approach flatpak takes to security and sandboxing. First of all, a lot of people think of container technology like docker, rkt or systemd-nspawn when they think of linux sandboxing. However, flatpak is fundamentally different to these in that it is unprivileged.
  • Newly discovered Mac malware found in the wild also works well on Linux [Ed: Only if fools are stupid enough to actually INSTALL malware.]
    The malware, which a recent Mac OS update released by Apple is detecting as Fruitfly, contains code that captures screenshots and webcam images, collects information about each device connected to the same network as the infected Mac, and can then connect to those devices, according to a blog post published by anti-malware provider Malwarebytes. It was discovered only this month, despite being painfully easy to detect and despite indications that it may have been circulating since the release of the Yosemite release of OS X in October 2014. It's still unclear how machines get infected. [...] Another intriguing finding: with the exception of Mac-formatted Mach object file binary, the entire Fruitfly malware library runs just fine on Linux computers.

Solus Goes Flatpak for Better, Reliable Distribution of Third-Party Applications

In an unexpected turn of events, Ikey Doherty, the founder and lead developer of the Solus Project announced a few moments ago that he's adopting the well-known Flatpak application sandboxing and distribution framework for the Solus operating system. Read more

Latest LibreELEC 8.0 Beta Updates Linux Kernel Support Patches for Raspberry Pi

A new development release of the LibreELEC open-source operating system for Raspberry Pi and similar embedded devices has been unveiled recently, versioned 7.95.1 Beta. LibreELEC lets you transform a Raspberry Pi into a HTPC. Read more

Why Linux Installers Need to Add Security Features

Twelve years ago, Linux distributions were struggling to make installation simple. Led by Ubuntu and Fedora, they long ago achieved that goal. Now, with the growing concerns over security, they need to reverse directions slightly, and make basic security options prominently available in their installers rather than options that users can add manually later. At the best of times, of course, convincing users to come anywhere near security features is difficult. Too many users are reluctant even to add features as simple as unprivileged user accounts or passwords, apparently preferring the convenience of the moment to reducing the risk of an intrusion that will require reinstallation, or a consultation with a computer expert at eighty dollars an hour. Read more