Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 3.x Shell Isn't Yet Primed For FreeBSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
    Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?
    You're not, I like it too

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by jacob View Post
      You're not, I like it too
      What has Unity to do with Gnome btw.?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by halo9en View Post
        I disagree. After trying countless desktop environment alternatives (even the most exotic ones), from lightweight to tiling and beyond, with an eye to usability and the other to performance, memory & power usage, I decided to give another try to the "big and bloated" ones. KDE is worse than I remembered - cute but horribly slow and memory hungry. Gnome 2 was a bit better (performance wise) but I still liked Xfce and Openbox more. I always stayed away from Gnome 3 because I didn't like the idea of having a javascript/css engine behind its shell, plus it was GNOME... but I decided to try it and, honestly, it's the best and most functional DE I have tried to date.
        You should try kdebase/kdebase-meta on Gentoo with USE=-semantic-desktop. It is lean and fast.

        Comment


        • #24
          I don't like gnome for various reasons.

          It takes longer to boot, yes, KDE takes even longer but XFCE is almost instant in comparison to gnome.
          Design choices, both usability and configuration, its a nonsensical nightmare.
          Gnome shell needs 3d accel, gnome "classic" is constrained to the extreme and highly deprecated.
          To make gnome3 usable, it would take considerable time tweaking, extending, etc. Defeating the purpose of a ready made DE.

          Freebsd is not missing anything without gnome3, people used to gnome2 can switch to Xfce without any fuzz, and will even find it easier to do things, since there is no stupid gconf or alike and instead you have a proper gui with options.

          Cinnamon or Unity as shell replacement might solve the usability issues somewhat, but its still gnome3 behind, lots of harm there in the memory/gpu usage department.

          Comment


          • #25
            Yesterday I tried the latest gnome-shell for the first time. Without exaggeration, it is the worst DE I have used. It is far behind all other DE's.

            In case you're wondering, I use xfce myself... (In the past used KDE mostly, and I also like the latest Unity, but it needs to be polished even more).

            Comment


            • #26
              GNOME3 restored my faith in Linux desktop. It's slick, fast, well designed, modern, functioal, has good defaults, and compared to KDE mightily is stable despite being so young project. The features and settings are not all there yet, but I like how GNOME team really thinks what they are doing unlike KDE team, which just throws random shit on it and hope it works. For example changing application icon size or removing window title when maximized takes only one line change in gnome-shell.css. One extension took care of that transition animation after pressing meta. Functionality is there, but devs haven't apparently just decided how to put it into GUI in a sane way. I like that way of doing things.

              I was on brink of buying a Mac or two, but GNOME 3.2 gave second thoughts. Right now I think GNOME3 > OS X > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > GNOME2 > XFCE > LXDE > KDE.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by daedaluz View Post
                GNOME3 restored my faith in Linux desktop. It's slick, fast, well designed, modern, functioal, has good defaults, and compared to KDE mightily is stable despite being so young project. The features and settings are not all there yet, but I like how GNOME team really thinks what they are doing unlike KDE team, which just throws random shit on it and hope it works. For example changing application icon size or removing window title when maximized takes only one line change in gnome-shell.css. One extension took care of that transition animation after pressing meta. Functionality is there, but devs haven't apparently just decided how to put it into GUI in a sane way. I like that way of doing things.

                I was on brink of buying a Mac or two, but GNOME 3.2 gave second thoughts. Right now I think GNOME3 > OS X > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > GNOME2 > XFCE > LXDE > KDE.
                I like the shell's design, smoothness and performance, but I've noticed MANY bugs with certain parts of gnome 3. mainly empathy, gnome-contacts, and gnome-online accounts are a buggy mess for me, feels like beta software.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by daedaluz View Post
                  GNOME3 restored my faith in Linux desktop. It's slick, fast, well designed, modern, functioal, has good defaults, and compared to KDE mightily is stable despite being so young project. The features and settings are not all there yet, but I like how GNOME team really thinks what they are doing unlike KDE team, which just throws random shit on it and hope it works. For example changing application icon size or removing window title when maximized takes only one line change in gnome-shell.css. One extension took care of that transition animation after pressing meta. Functionality is there, but devs haven't apparently just decided how to put it into GUI in a sane way. I like that way of doing things.

                  I was on brink of buying a Mac or two, but GNOME 3.2 gave second thoughts. Right now I think GNOME3 > OS X > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > GNOME2 > XFCE > LXDE > KDE.
                  Isn't Windows 8 designed for mobile phones with touch screens? I cannot imagine myself sitting in the office and grabble around on my monitor (would get stiff arms)

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X