Originally posted by ethana2
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu 10.10 To Not Use GNOME Shell By Default
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post4.2 was praised by reviewers across the board.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostPeople like you who look for something to bitch will find it in every software.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostThat doesn't mean that you represent the majority of users.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostBut back to the actual topic: IMO Gnome 2.x never was useful. Its inconsistent placement and scaling of icons on the desktop -- esp. with enabled file previews -- drives me crazy.
Maybe Gnome Shell will make this better.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostThose that praised it were obviously fairly easy to please.
But back to the actual topic: IMO Gnome 2.x never was useful. Its inconsistent placement and scaling of icons on the desktop -- esp. with enabled file previews -- drives me crazy.
Maybe Gnome Shell will make this better.
Leave a comment:
-
It depends what you want from a DE, when you want immediate response then KDE 3.5 beats KDE 4.x with ease. Those extra animations, compiz like features and the menu (which can be switched to classic mode at least) just slows down every step. The longer you use KDE 4 you maybe get used to slowness but when you compare both then you see the differences. These effects also need extra ram/cpu/gpu and when you use desktop search - which is enabled by default in some distros then it will be definitely too slow for old systems. Awesome is really something else.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostEverybody knows that Kubuntu is the worst KDE distro out there.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostOpenSUSE officially offered side-by-side installation of KDE 3.5 and SC 4 up to openSUSE 11.1 with KDE SC 4.1.
Debian didn't officially adopt SC 4.x before 4.2. Same with Pardus. Don't know about Mandriva.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostThere was a reason why the KDE project released 3.5.10 after 4.1.
4.2 was pure awesome. It was praised across the board by reviewers.
Those that praised it were obviously fairly easy to please. People want to bitch and moan about Windows Vista but aside from Vista's ridiculously hight memory footprint it was vastly more reliable than even KDE 4.3 and really also 4.4. What functionality Windows has at least works for the most part. If it doesn't they have millions upon millions of people bitching so I guess that's a great motivator to get things fixed not to mention the billions they rake in.
KDE 4.4 is probably satisfactory enough for some proportion of people but it still has usability issues (or at least did in 4.4.2) 4.4 had chucks of goodness in it but depending on how sophisticated your use case was you could uncover situations that would leave you faced with breakage. There are by now a range of situations I'd be prepared to deploy it in, but not if the user was a highly demanding one.
I see the direction of KDE 4 series and largely like their vision but it has had implementation weaknesses that, if present in Windows would have had the haters out in droves.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostFor Kubutnu 8.10 there was KDE 4.1.2 which was better the the .0 version, but was still far from usable in many peoples opinion.
openSUSE officially offered side-by-side installation of KDE 3.5 and SC 4 up to openSUSE 11.1 with KDE SC 4.1.
Debian didn't officially adopt SC 4.x before 4.2. Same with Pardus. Don't know about Mandriva.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostMany who are prepared to put up with breakage will defend 4.1 and 4.2 but for those who use there computers to get some work done instead of experiment with OS's, they were still unimpressed.
4.2 was pure awesome. It was praised across the board by reviewers.
Leave a comment:
-
I personally don't like Gnome Shell. I feel like they are trying to shove it down our throats. The perhaps I will just switch to KDE instead. I just want my plain old desktop.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pdusen View PostSome of us would argue it's STILL unusable.
Originally posted by pdusen View PostI know that I personally can't get the plasma desktop to work correctly in my monitor setup (dual-monitor, different sizes). It might switch resolution correctly, but it's glitches galore once it does.
I was using two screens of the same size which is different to what you're using and,
I was using an nVidia card with the blob. I believe people are still having crashes with 4.4.3 and fglrx 10.4.
Originally posted by pdusen View PostAnyway, on the subject of Gnome Shell, I think it's fantastic and can't wait to see it used as the default.
That said, I think Mark is making the right choice here. I know from personal experience that Gnome Shell currently only works in very narrow circumstances; it seems to only work when video settings out-of-the-box are already perfect, and in my experience it won't run properly at all with fglrx.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostIf you're going to try to argue that the KDE 4 series was viable before 4.3 (some will even argue not until 4.4) then you probably have fairly flexible usage requirements I'd say.
Anyway, on the subject of Gnome Shell, I think it's fantastic and can't wait to see it used as the default.
That said, I think Mark is making the right choice here. I know from personal experience that Gnome Shell currently only works in very narrow circumstances; it seems to only work when video settings out-of-the-box are already perfect, and in my experience it won't run properly at all with fglrx.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostI don't know what you're talking about KDE 4.0.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostAll major Linux distributions except Fedora kept KDE 3.5 and did not ship 4.0 by default. Kubuntu had an unsupported Technology Preview with 4.0, but it was clearly marked as such. Similar for openSUSE and Debian.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostIf you chose to use a technology preview and override the defaults, it's your fault. Don't whine about it then.
Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View PostAs for Gnome 3.0: The base infrastructure is still basically the same as Gnome 2.x.
Gnome 3.0 is not a massive rewrite.
It's still the same old stuff, just will a new desktop panel.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: