Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The final Catalyst 10.7 is stable now *Trumps Up*

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I don't hate GNOME, and I can't hold all the GNOME programmers for Miguel's escapades. Many of them are just regular hackers who want to write good programs, just like the rest of the community. They have produced (and supported) some important technologies that have improved the Linux and GNU ecosystems.

    But this trolling is too much. GNOME's only purpose was to kill KDE. This has obviously failed miserably, so it's time to talk about actual software, actual technology and actual performance. KDE is currently more free than GNOME, it is currently more advanced, and GNOME is full of KDE technology, starting with dbus and webkit.

    I would like arguments other than "KDE is evil" and "KDE is Windows", because I could take such arguments seriously.
    Yes, GNOME was created to be more free... LOL. Anyway, my problem is that GNOME is giving no consideration to users. I don't have 3D acceleration on all the boxes I run GNOME on, and there is no hardware upgrading for them. EVEN WINDOWS DOESN'T REQUIRE 3D ACCELERATION!!! Honestly, they are two different desktop visions and they deserve to be forked.

    Comment


    • #92
      Is GNOME really going to require 3d acceleration?

      If this is true, then it means that it will demand that their users use non-free software and potentially violate the GPL on some hardware.

      This is too outrageous to be true. GNOME is close to the FSF and I can't imagine them pushing something like this.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
        If only there were Facebook style likes on this forum, I would like this post. You also forgot that they can run 3D on Linux AND outperform Nvidia at every pricepoint.
        ATI cards have wonderful throughput while they're not glitching in one way or another.

        With 10.7 some things are better than 10.6 and maybe Flash playback on 10.7 is better than on nVidia's blob but there are still problems with their drivers that I didn't have to put up with when using an nVidia card.

        It's a bit early yet to be calling ATI superior than nVidia for a Linux machine, at least when it comes to providing the most robust platform possible. If you want to run more than two screens then it's an easy choice, ATI rules there but if you're only using one or two you can save yourself some grief by using nVidia at the moment.

        The sooner this isn't the case the better as my main card is now a HD 5870 but just because I own and use an ATI card doesn't mean I need attempt to validate my choice of card by trashing the opposition and I wish others wouldn't as well.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          Is GNOME really going to require 3d acceleration?

          If this is true, then it means that it will demand that their users use non-free software and potentially violate the GPL on some hardware.

          This is too outrageous to be true. GNOME is close to the FSF and I can't imagine them pushing something like this.
          Yes, it is on the GNOME website. Really, we DON'T need GNOME 3. What we need is changes from downstream pushed up (yes I am looking at you Ubuntu.) Seriously though, downstream changes are significant and they work well. There is no reason why we should switch to GNOME 3. Or better yet, why not just make them separate but keep them on the same version of GTK? Keep GNOME, GNOME, and keep gnome-shell, gnome-shell.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            Lol, good job digging out 10-year old "arguments".

            KDE looks nothing like Windows.
            Really? That's strange, because I can remember very well KDE folk complaining that Windows 7 stole/copied from the KDE UI.

            e.g. http://www.internetling.com/2008/12/...e-3-5-wannabe/

            Personally I think it's probably the other way around.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by monraaf View Post
              Really? That's strange, because I can remember very well KDE folk complaining that Windows 7 stole/copied from the KDE UI.

              e.g. http://www.internetling.com/2008/12/...e-3-5-wannabe/

              Personally I think it's probably the other way around.
              It can't be the other way around simply because KDE had "that look" even back when MS's "current" version was XP.... unless the KDE devs have a time machine and copied the look from the future.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                I don't hate GNOME, and I can't hold all the GNOME programmers for Miguel's escapades. Many of them are just regular hackers who want to write good programs, just like the rest of the community. They have produced (and supported) some important technologies that have improved the Linux and GNU ecosystems.

                But this trolling is too much. GNOME's only purpose was to kill KDE. This has obviously failed miserably,
                Well, I think it's fair to say that GNOME powers the most popular desktop distros (Ubuntu, Fedora). And really nobody is out to kill KDE.

                so it's time to talk about actual software, actual technology and actual performance. KDE is currently more free than GNOME, it is currently more advanced, and GNOME is full of KDE technology, starting with dbus and webkit.
                LOL. KDE is just bling-bling, the core is still relying on obsolete technologies such as HAL.

                https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229643

                And dbus is not KDE tech, GNOME had it before KDE and AFAIK Red Hat had a big hand in it. You sound like an Apple fanboy, who thinks every smartphone copies from the iPhone, because Steve Jobs is feeding them some BS how every feature Apple adds to their products is something they invented.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post

                  But this trolling is too much. GNOME's only purpose was to kill KDE.
                  source it please. This i have got to see.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                    source it please. This i have got to see.
                    http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story...01-21-OP-LF-KE

                    GNOME was one of GNUs responses to KDE using QT. So, in a way, it only exists today because KDE "posed a growing risk to the progress of free software"

                    So, maybe saying "GNOME's only purpose was to kill KDE." is a bit strong, but that was the basic idea back in 1997.

                    Adam

                    Comment


                    • i think it makes more sense to say that they wanted to protect the free software desktop by releasing something that was actually free software.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X