I don’t like the gnome shell systray at all. For one it’s kinda two systrays. The always visible items on the right top and the faded out by default systray on the left bottom. So sdwdate-gui is hardly noticed (one can see that bottom left tray just for a second or so before it automatically fades out).
Wondering if Non-Qubes-Whonix should be ported to XFCE / lightdm as desktop environment with gnomeish applications instead?
Perhaps it’s to early to give up on gnome shell yet and see if there are settings to always make the systray (and move it up to the upper right)?
gnome-shell (with extensions installed) feels substantially heavier than kde4 - laggy but usable? Some tweaking might help (like gnome-tweak-tool > appearance > enable animations=off)
gnome-tweak-tool > windows > titlebar buttons
gnome-tweak-tool > extensions > window list
With Top Bar, requires 3 panels to do the job of 1. You can keep the tray always visible by expanding the arrow.
Sounds good to me. Reading the Github Issue, it sounds like Qubes will be in this spot for a while. I understand the motivation to go gnome, but still…
Still confused. Sounds like gnome-shell-extensions are more about look and feel and not performance-related. Anybody know how to get non-accelerated, zippy gnome?
Looking at GitHub - timretout/apt-transport-tor: Tor support for apt, very few changes may be required since it uses socksAuth. The proxy settings can be customized but with socksAuth enabled, it’s fine to let it go through default 9050. The only thing required is that apt-transport-tor not launch tor. Can’t tell if it does automatically or not. It doesn’t appear to. Getting error: Cannot initiate the connection to localhost:9050 (127.0.0.1). - connect (1: Operation not permitted)
Does socat have it locked up somehow?
To fix access to onion apt-repositories the following solution works. (apt-transport-tor fortunately not required.)
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/30user
Acquire::BlockDotOnion "false";
I am wondering in which package to ship such as config file. anon-ws-disable-stacked-tor is not perfect, since this needs to be applied on gateway and workstation.
(Probably uwt got into the way. For your curiosity perhaps try apt-get.anondist-orig. )
Can you shed light on gnome shell vs performance? //cc @HulaHoop
xfce+lightdm, gnome+gdm test whonix-13-stretch-workstations ready to go!
Went with install gnome-core to get the full experience. Looks like there are 2 types of sessions: gnome-classic and gnome-wayland. Classic has the traditional desktop feel and less of the special effects than Wayland. There’s also X11 default & gnome - not obvious what those are. I could live with gnome-classic - it’s not as snappy as xfce but I think that’s partly by design.
Yes. I am no longer sure that is going to happen in Qubes anytime soon. I am not sure I understand the motivation. So probably not reason to rush porting to GNOMEish applications rather than KDEish applications in Whonix too soon.
konsole > gnome-terminal
Yes.
system-settings > control-center
No. (Such stuff such as changing keyboard configuration or kde font sizes is awfully complicated. But never mind, if we move away from KDE, that will be solved by gnome or xfce system setttings.)
dolphin > nautilus
kate > gedit
Yes.
okular > evince
Need to compare again.
kgpg > passwords
Yes.
Do you have more such examples?
We could always just make the UI look like GTK!
I think the reason for Qubes wanting to change to GNOME and GNOMEish applications originally was usability, not looks. So I am trying to discuss usability with Qubes.
We also have to check these new default applications for privacy issues. So it would be good to have a final list.
I can understand why @bnvk made the argument that KDE settings complexity provides worse usability than GNOME and therefore suggested to port Qubes to gnome. (#1806)
However, has the argument been made, that GNOMEish applications generally have better usability than KDEish applications?
The argument was made, that all templates should use the same default applications to simplify.
(With the exception for Whonix VMs, where some exceptions such as Icedove and Tor Browser are justified for stronger, for privacy reasons.)
konsole is better than gnome-terminal (where one needs a keyboard combination for something as simple as opening another tab).
kgpg has actual encryption/decryption/signature/verification functionality over gnome-keyring, so we’d like to at least keep some KDEish application for Whonix.
I prefer dolphin over nautilus because it is simpler by using drag and drop to add a new favorite folder to the left bar.
I don’t see much point in standardizing applications across the distros - if you do that what’s the point in having different offerings at all?
As for Debian vs Fedora, indeed. The improved usability choice would be if by default Fedora would be exposed nowhere to the user, i.e. have dom0 Debian based (#1919) and also use Debian for sys-net / sys-firewall. Then one would not have to learn two base distributions, debian based vs fedora based.
Those are all the standard distribution examples I have an opinion about.
gwenview <> eog
In general, gnome apps do not expose many customizations. This makes them friendlier and more usable for people who don’t customize their applications and want sensible defaults. For people who like to tweak / customize, gnome is less usable because you are required to research how to change settings or install add-ons to get additional functionality. Really comes down to who the target user is. It’s always safer to cater to novice users since advanced users can figure things out themselves. Also, less options mean less chance to shoot yourself in terms of privacy / security.
Worth considering also is consistency with popular application software, much of which is gtk-based:
mozilla stuff?
libreoffice > calligra
gimp > krita
gnucash > kmymoney
(most IDEs use their own frameworks)
Despite my personal preference, gnomish apps are probably the way forward. In terms of window managers, it seems like gnome uses (not sure the right word - something like image stabilization) to provide a smoother feel. But this doesn’t work well in non-accelerated vm’s. Perhaps it can be disabled. xfce is performant but is more complicated to use (like kde).
XFCE is based on GNOME libraries too. Its supposedly light resource use comes at expense of terrible usability where simple things like creating desktop icons are a pain.
on gnome-shell I concur with Patrick. Not to demean anyone’s work but it looks like it was designed by mentally challenged primates.
lightdm
The lightdm login manager is a deprecated desktop login manager that was written by Ubuntu and is now on life support with a planned transition to either gdm3 for gnome or sddm for kde.
Yes. I am no longer sure that is going to happen in Qubes anytime soon. I am not sure I understand the motivation. So probably not reason to rush porting to GNOMEish applications rather than KDEish applications in Whonix too soon.
The motivation was to get us in sync with subgraphos to use them as a base. This idea is no good for many reasons we’ve seen before.
Still confused. Sounds like gnome-shell-extensions are more about look and feel and not performance-related. Anybody know how to get non-accelerated, zippy gnome?
@entr0py you’re right they could very well have dumped the fallback mode since the source I linked to was written.
KDE is also switching to llvmpipe which renders with more CPU use in absence of 3D acceleration - but they will disable many resource intensive effects if it detects this use case. The switch was done because the underlying QtQuick libs are already making use of llvmpipe anyway.
@Lana Appreciate your enthusiasm Unfortunately, it’s not purely a question of speed. If it was, there would be no need for discussion. There are several criteria that need to be met:
DE needs to provide some consistency with Qubes’ overall direction - which we can influence but can’t decide completely. I think there is some flexibility here. As long as we stay with GTK and include some common core apps, I think this criteria can be considered met.
(@Ego) DE should be contained in official Debian repos.
DE needs to be “usable”. That is open to interpretation but IMO that means DE needs to allow for people to work without investing inordinate time learning all the ins and outs. (Think: Linus Torvalds). Meaning don’t bewilder uninterested people / novices with tons of options or provide functionality that is unintuitive: “simple things like creating desktop icons are a pain.” -@HulaHoop. Less (or hidden) options also help from a security / privacy standpoint.
DE needs to be lightweight enough to use in non-graphics-accelerated VMs.
DE should be aesthetically pleasing enough to not turn off newcomers. (ie not look like it’s still in the 90’s).
Open question: How big of a user-base does a DE need to have to be worth considering for Whonix? Obviously, we’re committed to Debian stable. What other GTK-based DE’s are out there?
Where does this leave us presently?
KDE5: Qubes Core Team is vehemently, rabidly opposed to KDE5. Non-starter.
Gnome3: It feels heavy and laggy but not sure if that’s because it really is resource-hungry or if it just needs some tweaks to visual settings. (@HulaHoop please try signing in with Gnome Classic and see if your primate opinion changes.) The second tray panel makes no sense but I would have to guess that those could be merged with the upper-right panel. Not quite sure why there is both a top and bottom bar.
XFCE is light and fast. But I agree with @HulaHoop that usability suffers. Plus it just feels like dialogs, text, icons are misaligned enough to look homegrown. Like they just couldn’t find someone with artistic sense.
Looks like another job for 
Unfortunately, it’s not purely a question of speed. If it was, there would be no need for discussion. There are several criteria that need to be met: