Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More GNOME Performance Optimizations Being Tackled Thanks To Canonical

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

  • More GNOME Performance Optimizations Being Tackled Thanks To Canonical

    Phoronix: More GNOME Performance Optimizations Being Tackled Thanks To Canonical

    While there has already been a lot of exciting GNOME performance improvements so far during the GNOME 3.32 cycle, even more could be on the way with there still being a number of open merge requests for enhancing the performance of the GNOME desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rmance-January

  • #2
    Its almost like Canonical working with Gnome to make a better product from the beginning could have turned out better than the 6 year detour with Unity. Its not like the core of the Unity UX was impossible to make work in Gnome Shell and they could have gotten it working quicker without the NIH behaviour

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SpyroRyder View Post
      Its almost like Canonical working with Gnome to make a better product from the beginning could have turned out better than the 6 year detour with Unity. Its not like the core of the Unity UX was impossible to make work in Gnome Shell and they could have gotten it working quicker without the NIH behaviour
      I was going to say something very similar. A lot of these GNOME optimizations are actually pretty nice. Canonical has a lot of good developers but they keep getting sidetracked with stupid side-projects nobody asked for (that eventually always seem to get abandoned). If Canonical supported Wayland from the very beginning instead of Mir, I wouldn't be surprised if their influence would've got Firefox or Chrome proper Wayland support by now.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is what happens when we all work together

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
          Canonical has a lot of good developers but they keep getting sidetracked with stupid side-projects nobody asked for (that eventually always seem to get abandoned).
          That's statement also describes Google.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SpyroRyder View Post
            Its almost like Canonical working with Gnome to make a better product from the beginning could have turned out better than the 6 year detour with Unity. Its not like the core of the Unity UX was impossible to make work in Gnome Shell and they could have gotten it working quicker without the NIH behaviour
            Unity could have been standard desktop. It was so advanced and ahead of its time it is unbelievable. Whole Gnome design philosophy is flawed. CSD is really bad compared to canonical's (Unity's) solution where top bar shows window title and when hovered displays window menu, That approach is saving space even more than CSD, displaying window title and apps can actually store all their functionality in menus. Hamburger menu can't work in apps that have a lot of functionality such as libreoffice. Also I believe that it would take a lot of work to make something like HUD on applications that adopt CSD.
            The problems isn't with Gnome but with their philosophy. If both MacOS and Windows have menus why is Gnome forcing CSD that forces apps to drop functionality. Can you imagine Blender, Gimp, Photoshop all using hamburger menu?
            Last edited by paupav; 14 January 2019, 10:42 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by paupav View Post

              Unity could have been standard desktop. It was so advanced and ahead of its time it is unbelievable. Whole Gnome design philosophy is flawed. CSD is really bad compared to canonical's (Unity's) solution where top bar shows window title and when hovered displays window menu, That approach is saving space even more than CSD and displaying window title. Also all functionality is available in one place. Hamburger menu can't work in apps that have a lot of functionality such as libreoffice. Also I believe that it would take a lot of work to make something like HUD on applications that addopt CSD.
              The problems isn't with Gnome but with their philosophy. If both MacOS and Windows have menus why is Gnome forcing CSD.
              Not to mention that CSD just looks like crap if you use other desktops. GTK3-Mushrooms helps with that a lot.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                That's statement also describes Google.
                True, but, Google's side-projects don't typically come at the price of under-developing something else (key word is "typically", not always).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                  True, but, Google's side-projects don't typically come at the price of under-developing something else (key word is "typically", not always).
                  Remind me again how much Google has contributed to Gnome?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SpyroRyder View Post
                    Its almost like Canonical working with Gnome to make a better product from the beginning...
                    Canonical needed something to replace Gnome 2, rather quickly. At the time, Unity had its warts and bumps but was arguably a better choice than the initial release of Gnome 3.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X