Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

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

    While the GNOME 3.x Shell is working its way around to most major Linux distributions, within the BSD world, it's still mostly a GNOME 2.30 world...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEzODk

  • #2
    Frankly I don't think GNOMES Hell is primed for Linux either.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by sirdilznik View Post
      Frankly I don't think GNOMES Hell is primed for Linux either.
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Unity anyone?

        Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          Gnome is surprisingly fast and efficient despite the javascript/css engine. I also like how well mutter works these days.

          I fully agree with you and it's the best I've tried to date too.
          Although one should note that I've only really given GNOME, KDE and XFCE a full thorough try.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
            Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?
            A lot of people do, but it's definitely not my cup of tea, and I'm sure it's not for many others too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
              Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?
              I like unity, I think it makes an excellent interface for a laptop.

              Comment


              • #8
                Gnome 3 -out of the box- is stupid beyond repair.

                Who on earth had the fuckin idea to make it require more clicks and navigation for a task than previous versions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  (\me joins the troll war )

                  I also like Gnome 3 more than any other desktop environments I used in the recent years.

                  IMHO navigating through a KDE or xfce menu to find and open a application takes longer than pressing the super key, entering the first few letters of application name and return. And alternatively it's also very easy to click on a application in the favorite bar to open it.

                  KDE and it's default applications are also pretty ugly compared to gnome 3. Compare this to this. What looks uglier?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Fenrin View Post
                    IMHO navigating through a KDE or xfce menu to find and open a application takes longer than pressing the super key, entering the first few letters of application name and return. And alternatively it's also very easy to click on a application in the favorite bar to open it.
                    In KDE this can be accomplished either through alt+f2 (which is much better than gnome's alt+f2 launcher) or through either the default or lancalot launchers.

                    [QUOTE=Fenrin;274702]
                    KDE and it's default applications are also pretty ugly compared to gnome 3. Compare this to this. What looks uglier?

                    IMHO the second looks much worse. I generally change the color theme in KDE though, they make this very easy to do, so it is no big deal. (I can't say the same for Gnome 3.)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X