Ubuntu Mate

http://ubuntu-mate.org/

by jtnl • 12 years ago

100 91 12 years ago

ubuntu-mate.org

facorreia2• 12 years ago

I looked at the site but I couldn't find any explanation of why this exists when there is Linux Mint Mate.[1]

[1] http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=160

smoyer• 12 years ago

+1 - I switched to Mint when the Unity interface became to onerous (though I decided to use XFCE).

roryhughes• 12 years ago

Ubuntu != Linux Mint

StavrosK• 12 years ago

So I can do aptitude install mate-desktop on my Ubuntu.

sspiff• 12 years ago

At first I thought the same, but then I remembered the problems I had with Linux Mint. Most specifically, the inability to upgrade across releases.

steanne3• 12 years ago

Linux Mint has a Debian edition that is semi-rolling. I chose LMDE Mate, though I recently installed xfce and am thinking about keeping it.

crdoconnor2• 12 years ago

I used linux mint mate for a while - while it's a generally serviceable fork of ubuntu, there are a number of problematic issues which crop up due to it being a fork - especially when doing routine upgrades.

I'm somewhat wary of forks now. Deviating from the standard configs is asking for trouble when it comes to upgrading.

If I preferred MATE, I'd probably use this over mint for this reason.

JasonFruit2• 12 years ago

Looking at the recommended hardware specs, I see that it absolutely requires 512MB RAM and recommends at least 2GB, yet it says it has modest hardware requirements. Ubuntu Server has a minimum RAM requirement of 64MB and recommends 256MB; I know an X server takes some memory, but does a reasonable desktop environment have to require 448MB to 1.75GB to run?

Probably memory use is not a high priority, but it still seems like there's a lot of waste.

leorocky2• 12 years ago

You cannot require the memory requirements of Ubuntu server with a desktop version of Ubuntu. Desktop Ubuntu's minimum is also 512MB:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequire...

JasonFruit2• 12 years ago

Right, but I don't think that addresses my point at all. I'm not saying there should be no difference, but should there really be that much?

Touche2• 12 years ago

I don't think 512 is asking much in 2014.

bryanlarsen• 12 years ago

I'm sure that are DE's that work well with less than 512MB of RAM, but there aren't any modern web browsers that do. They're going to put 512MB as a requirement no matter what the DE itself requires.

tomrod• 12 years ago

Elinks or links2 is quite servicable.

slacka• 12 years ago

there aren't any modern web browsers that do.

My parents old Athlon laptop with 512MB runs Linux Mint Mate and is fine for their needs. When they started to complain about the browser slowing down, I downgraded them to Firefox 13, and they were happy again. It's not ideal, but modern enough for reading the news, emailing, and watching videos.

mahouse• 12 years ago

Another distro? Why maintain something like this when you can just install the same packages (including themes) on, for example, Debian?

leorocky2• 12 years ago

I don't think this qualifies as a separate distro unless you also think Kubuntu and Xubuntu are separate distros. They are just Ubuntu with different packages for the UI preinstalled. You can probably install them side by side and switch to one or the other.

Pacabel2• 12 years ago

I think it's fair to consider them as different distros, at least in practice, given how much the choice of a desktop environment can affect the user experience. A lot of the software available by default will differ, obviously. Instructions about how to use the system differ, as well. The default capabilities and functionality will differ. The bugs affecting them will differ. All of those differences add up.

someperson• 12 years ago

Really exciting that people still yearn for classic GNOME2 desktop environments! I know quite a few people who jumped ship from Ubuntu when Unity starting being forced on everybody by default.

Lubuntu (LXDE) has always been a bit buggy for me, but still makes for great systems (especially on older laptops).

Though I for one think the "halcyon" days of Ubuntu didn't just include a snappy/stable user interface, it also included as default the warmest colour themes ever, which somehow made even the dreariest night fun: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ubuntu&biw=1527&bih=779&s...

Not all software has to be cold and icy!

scrollaway3• 12 years ago

LXDE has been doing some fantastic efforts in polishing with LXQt. They recently finished porting everything to Qt 5. You might want to check them out - though most distros don't have packages from git.

higherpurpose3• 12 years ago

Unfortunately, they haven't changed the design much.

higherpurpose3• 12 years ago

I've just put Linux Lite (XFCE) on an old netbook, and it works great, better than Windows 7 did, with 1/3 RAM usage. Make sure you upgrade after you install or Chrome won't work. I think the upgrade even installs Chrome itself.

https://www.linuxliteos.com/

I also liked Zorin Lite, which is LXDE based, but 7.1 was very buggy for me. Maybe 8.0 will be better, and should come out this fall. But I'm happy with Linux Lite for now.

I've never liked the default Lubuntu UI and set-up. It looks too much like it was designed in the early 2000.

thejdude5• 12 years ago

I agree, LXDE has never looked very sophisticated. I'm curious what the merger brings (LXDE+RazorQt -> LXQt).

If you're not too starved on memory, I found MATE a better alternative compared to XFCE, almost the same performance, but worked a bit better. But YMMV. MATE doesn't seem to have a working window-snap (Winkey+left/right), but XFCE doesn't really work with hot-plugging external monitors.

crdoconnor2• 12 years ago

XFCE/Xubuntu has been the solution (for me) to pining for 10.04 days.

I tried Lubuntu first on the presupposition that lighter was better, but it really was too buggy and lacked some necessary features.

marktangotango• 12 years ago

XUbuntu on a 2008 Dell laptop with ssd here, boots in 10 seconds, login in 15. UI is fast, no stupid eye candy animations (gimmicks imo). Couldn't be happier.

thejdude5• 12 years ago

Hell, I even switched to Windows 7 for a while, back when Fedora came only with Gnome3. It didn't help, that at the time the Linux kernel also had some general problems with power consumption.

By now, Gnome 3 is actually quite good, but still uses more power than MATE.

Cinnamon is slow and buggy as hell. Unity is just slow.

XFCE has become quite good, but still can't handle docking (or un/plugging an external monitor) correctly. KDE neither (plus I don't like the IMHO horrible interface).

So even after many years and years, Gnome2/MATE is still - IMHO - the best desktop in Linuxland (and I also like it more than Windows 7, and a lot more than Mac OS; back in the day I switched from Mac OS 10.4 to Ubuntu). It's not about classic - it's about functionality, stability, performance, configurability. But mostly that it just works and does everything the way you expect.

Interesting that you liked the old Ubuntu colors. I liked them much better than the current ones, but still considered them quite ugly compared to the typical blue desktops of Windows, Mac OS or Fedora.

keithpeter4• 12 years ago

For those that really prefer Gnome 2 there is always CentOS/Springdale Linux/Scientific Linux/Oracle Linux version 6.x. Most projects providing support until 2020.

Be prepared for the usual Enterprise Linux repository waggle dance (multiple repositories required for a reasonable range of software and media codecs). But it works rather well.

Retr0spectrum• 12 years ago

By some coincidence, my laptop exactly meets the minimum requirements!

kriro• 12 years ago

Mate is pretty cool and a lot of people I know jumped ship to it from Unity. Good luck with the project.

I personally use Xubuntu on my netbook, desktop and installed it on my parent's computers as well. Arch+Mate or back to Debian+Mate has been on my radar for a bit though.

higherpurpose3• 12 years ago

Since the Ubuntu transition to Mir is imminent, will they wait until Ubuntu comes out with Mir? (probably next version). I think the performance would be even better with Mir on older hardware.

sampo3• 12 years ago

Personally, I think Xubuntu desktop is better that Gnome2-based Ubuntu ever was.

It's just that the default settings – only one panel (at the top), ugly blue theme & background image – are not very appealing and feel dated.

But after adding a second panel, reorganizing panel contents, changing icons & windows themes and background image, Xubuntu desktop is very nice.

Touche2• 12 years ago

How does XFDE how HiDPI? I'm using Gnome 3 now primarily because its the only DE that handles HiDPI well by default.

sampo3• 12 years ago

There is Settings / Appearance / Fonts / Custom DPI setting, which takes care of most of things. Panel width is also set in pixels, so you also need to widen the panels.

Firefox does not obey the above DPI setting, so also set about:config / layout.css.devPixelsPerPx separately. Yet this doesn't seem to affect video controls in YouTube, so they are kind of tiny.

Finally, nothing above scales the window title bars. I kind of like the title bars thinner, because they are wasted space anyway. But if you wanted to increase their height, apparently you'd need to edit the png files in the window theme files, because Xfce does not attempt to scale them, but uses them as pixel graphics.

27182818284• 12 years ago

It's just that the default settings – only one panel (at the top), ugly blue theme & background image – are not very appealing and feel dated.

I used to run exclusively Linux distros, but then switched to OS X around 2008. Recently, I installed the Xubuntu Desktop and I felt that dated feeling you write about. My thought was, "Wow this hasn't changed" Even if it has changed, I couldn't tell at a glance. That's good in one way, but bad in a lot of others.

gerbal• 12 years ago

I don't think the default Xubuntu theme has ever changed. Which is kind of a shame, but also kind of good. It's very consistent and makes some users who don't care about eye candy and hate change happy, but it scares off some newer users who have a strong association with old-looking meaning poor-functioning.

Given how many awesome XFCE themes there are out there, I'm surprised Xubuntu hasn't moved to something nicer looking.

rquirk• 12 years ago

Focus follows mouse is buggy in 14.04 Xubuntu. There's no fast user switch (you can lock the screen and switch as a good-enough workaround). Suspend and restart causes the screen to not restore on occasions. Thunar doesn't have split mode (nautilus's F3). As you say the default theme is not great, I didn't like that focused and unfocused windows looked pretty much the same.

I don't know if it is better than gnome2 was but it pisses all over anything gnome3. The xfce panel is better and easier to tweak than the gnome equivalent (e.g adding a new item does not require finding a gap on the panel to right click), the places panel shortcut is really handy, xfce-terminal seems faster and less resource hungry when scrolling text than gnome-terminal, and I like the whisker menu. I just wish they had gone with the solid Xfce 4.10 for the LTS instead of the beta 4.11.

sampo3• 12 years ago

Thunar doesn't have split mode (nautilus's F3).

But there is no need to use Thunar, just install Nautilus and add a launch button for it into the panel.

...unless you're a heavy user of files on the desktop. But I think it's possible to configure an alternative file manager to manage those, too.

fingerprinter3• 12 years ago

Gotta love how people just won't let go and move on. Imagine if all the diehard mac users ported OS9 to OSX because "OSX was forced on them".

It's called progress. Gnome2 was a dying project when Unity was announced. Gnome3 was "coming soon", but flailing around. Unity is different, sure, but so was OSX to a degree when it came out. People need to move on. Unity is the present and future of Ubuntu. We've been talking about it for, what, 3 years now? Move on, one way or another.

jhasse• 12 years ago

What about people with old computers?

fingerprinter3• 12 years ago

They should probably not upgrade from OS9 to OSX or maybe not upgrade from Leopard to Yosemite. Depends on what is supported and how it runs.

the_af• 12 years ago

I absolutely agree with you and, in fact, I'm a user of Unity who doesn't hate it and has moved on from Gnome (which I didn't hate either). Sure there's stuff I don't like about Unity, but no deal breakers.

That said, it's wonderful that Free and Open Source software has a place for conservative diehards, even if I'm not one of them.

PS: disclaimer: I was a user of KDE from the good old days who abandoned ship when KDE 4 got weird :)

jacob0192• 12 years ago

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. At my company we use Mint Mate on all desktops. It's clean, simple, works great, and doesn't require training for employees who have never used Linux.

kudu• 12 years ago

Why Mate instead of a modern, extendable DE such as GNOME 3?

raldi• 12 years ago

Right, it's like when those Unix luddites refused to upgrade to OS/2 or even DOS. Wake up, people! It's called progress!

vezzy-fnord4• 12 years ago

Progress, in general, implies some sort of improvement. Unity is not necessarily an improvement or regression from GNOME 2, it simply is.

Also keep in mind that, architecturally, Unity is a replacement for the GNOME Shell, but is still heavily tied to the rest of the GNOME userland.

keithpeter4• 12 years ago

Actually, I rather like Unity. However in versions later than 12.04 it breaks LibreOffice mnemonics (Alt-F-A for Save File As... and Alt-I-O-F for Insert Formula) which happens to be 80% of my work-flow.

I gather it is something to do with the way the global menu software works.

m_ram• 12 years ago

Mate seems to be under active development. They're currently adding support for Wayland and GTK3 for the next release [1]. It's not like they're just repackaging GNOME 2.32 for the latest distributions.

[1] http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/roadmap

ZeroGravitas• 12 years ago

If you go back and read early Daring Fireball posts you will find him complaining loudly about various parts of OS X not being as good as OS 9, and it very much was forced on them.

This is the same writer that makes a point of mocking pundits who assail Apple with poor advice that would be catastrophic if followed.

detrino• 12 years ago

People complain about Unity and Gnome3 because they don't offer workflows that work well for desktops. The Linux community is open to change and new ideas, but when the majority of users are unhappy with something for such a long time then something is clearly wrong.

danford2• 12 years ago

Gnome 3 works pretty well on my desktop. But I use the keyboard for navigation a lot.

nightcracker• 12 years ago

I don't know about the quality of the architecture and code, but from a desktop user's perspective I find Unity worse than Gnome2.

evilduck• 12 years ago

There are tons of people who still bitch and moan about how OSX 10.6 was the pinnacle of OSX, and that's been going on nearly 5 years. I've seen plenty of people try to make Win8 look like XP too. There's a good percentage of people who simply do not like change.

nitrogen2• 12 years ago

There is a difference between disliking change (ludditism) and not wanting to have one's options removed involuntarily. There's no reason at all to enjoy change for the worse -- if a new DE no longer supports one's highly efficient workflow, and doesn't provide an equally efficient alternative, it is a change for the worse.

tux1968• 12 years ago

Then why don't we start architecting computer systems that respect many peoples aversion to large abrupt change, and allow them to gradually adopt new features? Instead we do these sporadic and massive code-drops that are jarring to a large segment of our users. And then we blame our users for being disgruntled.

As developers we would never accept this from the kernel, and we would complain about how it was forcing us to do massive changes to our code. Yet, we think nothing of doing this to those who have come to rely on our code.

We need a better methodology and economic model. This may well be one of the hidden benefits of SAAS where slow incremental changes fit in more easily.

andyl3• 12 years ago

I switched to Xubuntu and have grown to love XFCE more than I loved Gnome2. Best features: ability to script and directly hack configuration settings, basic features for window tiling. With scripts I can fully configure a dev box with a single command.

TimSAstro• 12 years ago

Interesting, I wondered if anyone else was playing with XFCE config this way. I have the important parts of my .config/xfce4 folder under git and replicated across 3 machines, which a branch for dual-screen tweaks on the desktop, etc. etc. I thought it was so cool that you can just figure this stuff out and get on with it!

andyl3• 12 years ago

My old setup had a mix of single-monitor and dual-monitor machines. Now I use single-monitor on all machines and found you can replicate the entire .config/xfce4 directory, even with different screen sizes. Everything syncs perfectly - Hotkeys, Menus, Panels etc. Works with git or rsync - so simple.

luos• 12 years ago

What kind of scripts do you use?

I use xfce but I only use xrandr (not depends on xfce) to switch between monitors and don't really know what other scripts are useful or good to have. (or what can I achieve with scripting)

andyl3• 12 years ago

There are a few options for scripting xfce4. You can use xfconf-query from the command line or a script. You can edit the config files in .config/xfce4. You can sync the whole .config/xfce4 directory from machine to machine - that works especially fine if all the machines run a single monitor. You can make everything repeatable using shell scripts or a configuration system like Ansible.

mandus• 12 years ago

There are still days when I miss fvwm. Not because it was that great, but because I used it for so long that my fingers still remember the keyboard shortcuts I configured. But I moved to OSX and just had to adapt. I guess moving on isn't always the most important thing, but stay productive. If that mean staying with some old software I'm all for it.

pooper4• 12 years ago

I love Gnome 3. I don't like that sometimes virtual machines can't handle Gnome 3 on older machines but it runs pretty well in a virtual machine in my current notebook (y510p).

I don't understand the yearning for Gnome 2. Debian already has a Gnome classic shell for computers that can't handle Gnome 3. It'd be nice if people helped fix whatever they think is wrong with gnome 3 :(

vezzy-fnord4• 12 years ago

It'd be nice if people helped fix whatever they think is wrong with gnome 3 :(

Wouldn't be possible if it involved fundamental design decisions.

steanne3• 12 years ago

that's what cinnamon was supposed to do.

qwerta• 12 years ago

Nice, but they should use different name and logo. I do not think this is real Ubuntu project.

doctorfoo• 12 years ago

The classic Ubuntu look I used to love. Almost tempted to try it, though I'm mostly happy with Linux Mint Cinnamon now.

V-2• 12 years ago

It looks really ugly in my opinion.

Ubuntu Mate

Related Stories