Tweet
Originally posted by Prince781
View Post
-
That actually sounds pretty good if you ask me, though in my opinion I think gnome 2 and KDE also pretty much achieved this already, despite a few flaws.. but if they're trying to make it even more complete, then by all means, great idea in my opinion. -
Next time, just attend the actual talk ...
When you start your opinion article with something like:
When the Conference is actually happening in A Coru?a, not Madrid, and the session was on Thursday, not on Friday, you already give the level of accuracy of the rest of the information.GUADEC, the annual GNOME European Conference, is happening from 26 July to 1 August in Madrid. On Friday there was a session about the "A bright future for GNOME" where a ton of information was laid out.
Next time, either attend the actuall talk or just watch the recording rather than giving your opinion of the free interpretation of its supporting material (the slides).
No further comment is needed. The rest of your article is just misleading.Comment
-
Misleading how? And I should point out that without Phoronix covering this article, I would never have heard about this talk on the future of Gnome. I don't subscribe to Planet Gnome (http://planet.gnome.org/), but even on visiting the page, GUADEC was mentioned plenty of times, but nothing (obvious) on the future of Gnome. I did find this : http://blogs.gnome.org/otte/2012/07/...nto-the-abyss/ which makes for some depressing reading (particularly the points on Gnome Goals), but probably helps validate some of the comments made here and in the original Phoronix article.Originally posted by tanty View PostComment
-
If you would have attended the actual talk you would understand why it is misleading.Originally posted by scaine View Post
The original article addresses what it was introduced in that talk just based on the slides totally misinterpreting what it was said because the slides are just that: slides, supporting material. Not the actual talk.
So, yes, the article is totally misleading written in a way that you would understand that what Phoronix (or rather Michael?) states was what it was said in that talk, as if he had attended it and it is not. A pity something with so much misinformation can be published by Phoronix. It doesn't make a favor to the credibility of this site.
The session was actually quite self criticizing, spotting some of the things said in these comments and in that blog post you are linking, and hence the irony in the slides. But also positive and trying to draw a future for GNOME. Obviously someone not attending couldn't get that just by reading them.
Once again, watch the actual talk and not read some random comments from someone that only read the slides.Comment
-
Where can I watch the talk? Or perhaps there is some transcript available anywhere? I cannot find anything on the webs.Originally posted by tanty View Post
Personally I really like the idea of running gnome on a tablet. But I don't think it will get huge adoption. It will be a niche product, for people like me. That's okay. Just don't focus too much on getting market share. Just make a good product and provide some way to run Android applications in gnome. Then who cares if it doesn't get a big market share.Comment
-
Cool Shell
I still cannot see the trouble over gnome shell. I've been using it for a half year and love it. I run Mint 12 with gnome shell at home and windows at work. It takes forever for me to do anything at work. At home, however, I zip through all tasks. It is easier to use -- I am coming from Mint 9 and Ubuntu -- and very slick looking. I have even been editing the theme files, changing how it looks. Tweaking this, tweaking that. I am digging more into the system trying to understand what things do, how and why. I love the shell and don't think I could go for any other DE.
The plans they have might be ambitious but that's cool with me. I always say, "Shoot for the stars, and you're bound to reach the clouds."
Love it, dudes. Keep shooting high.Comment
-
Will that GNOME OS be a new spinoff from Ubuntu as there is now unity? Basically it is simple enough to create spinoffs, so why not. I thought Fedora used it by default as well. I usually prefer KDE - especially mc works in the default terminal without any gconf settings. Try the f keys like f10 with GNOME and you will see it...Comment
-
Replace Gnome with XFCE: Faster, Reliable, and Classic Desktop Environment.
Gnome3 is bloated and slow compared to, say, XFCE which does the same, does more, is more reliable, fast and consumes much less resources. However the problem with gnome development can be traced back to gnome2, with the countless bugs they simply ignored.
It is no issue for me because i don't use gnome anymore, but it is irritating to see people blame it on the OS because gnome is used behind slowing and restricting things.
The gnome shell experience is too alienating to users of other desktops, in addition to that slow monster going behind, it should be no surprise people are abandoning when there are much better alternatives.
Gnome distros should really rethink their default desktop choice, if they all moved to xfce when gnome3 was announced, the user impact would have been minimal. Xfce provides a classic desktop and uses gtk, it is much faster and reliable than gnome2 ever was.Comment
-
Personally I like gnome-shell. From 3.2 and onward it has really been useful, and I feel nowdays hindered every time I have to deal with fallback/gnome2/another cup of tea.Originally posted by curaga View Post
The only place where gnome3 is lacking is in multi-screen, but only a little. Most apparent it is if you have dual head and press "Ctrl-Alt-L".
I must say I use my mouse less with Gnome3 then with Gnome2, and I find myself really liking it.
The only ones having problem with Gnome3 I know of is my girlfriend and mother, who both have problems with hot-corners.Comment
-
I've compared vanilla Gnome side by side with XFCE many times and I have to say that it's mostly a myth that XFCE is 'lite'.Gnome3 is bloated and slow compared to, say, XFCE which does the same, does more, is more reliable, fast and consumes much less resources
XFCE may use slightly less resources then Gnome right off the bat, but since Gnome makes more advantage of shared libraries and you need more 3rd party applications to reach feature parity with XFCE then the difference is mostly a wash. The rest can be easily contributed to the placebo effect.
The real source of the perception of Gnome being 'heavy' is because that the desktop configurations that systems like Ubuntu and Fedora choose to use tend to use more resources. Which is not Gnome's fault it is just how distributions choose to ship it.
If you want something that is actually 'lite' and based on GTK then the only real choice is LXDE and by using that you are giving up a LOT in functionality. If the functionality doesn't matter to you then it doesn't matter and it's a actually nice desktop.
I really doubt most people in this thread ever actually used Gnome 3 in a meaningful way. The only distribution shipping a decent configuration out of the box right now is Fedora and unless you have tried using Fedora 16 or 17 for more then a week or spent time conjoling a decent configuration out of Debian or Ubuntu then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
This is why I am excited about 'Gnome OS'. For Linux to really shine as a desktop OS it needs to abandon the 'do everything' nature of traditional Linux distributions and just concentrate exclusively on being a desktop. Effective virtualization has killed the need for a 'be everything, do everything' OS and desktop virtualization support is going to be built into Gnome.Comment
Comment