Printable View
I have no particular problem with Gnome Shell, except that like Unity it is unusable when you have lots of windows open. I always have many terminals, editors, browsers etc open (across two large screens) and a taskbar like interface has been by far the least worst way of dealing with those. Gnome 3 has sporadically had a taskbar as an extension but by design they break on every Gnome update, or they are missing functionality (eg drag and drop reordering of icons).
I don't know about Unity which I consider it a mess source code wise but Gnome Shell is extensible.
I frankly do not understand the hate of Gnome Shell given the fact users can customize it to look like Gnome 2 or Cinnamon.
About the breaking of extension ABI, how about following Mozilla example by tracking the change through git?
Concerning Ubuntu, that considering Ridding GNOME Fallback Code only highlighted Canonical struggle to keep their
own consistency.
I did try out KDE after admittedly avoiding it for a long time, and was not all that impressed. I am personally not all that fond of it's visual style, a subjective complaint I know, but I was also not that impressed with it's lauded customization. The panel config was bizarre, I have never personally been big on the idea of plasma applets, and the system settings reminded me very much of the ones I already have on Xfce. In fact, I found the customization controls much better handled on Xfce, and the fact I do not need to go about killing settings all over the place is still a big plus in it's favour.Quote:
Originally Posted by lgstoian
And while the DE itself does seem to be more stable, the same thing can not be said of it's apps, which is a shame since that is one of KDE's strengths.
KDE may be nice for people who groove with what they are trying to achieve, but it can really easily rub other people the wrong way.
OK.... where are these potheads that assured me that if you don't like that g-shell, you could use the failback mode? That its not going to be removed?
As a small aside, that is also very true for Gnome Shell as well. Maybe that is true for all "mature DE"s?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson
Anything in particular that you didn't like about it's visual style? It's rather flexible in being able to change it from it's default looks, particularly when using Qt-Curve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson
I just do not really like the QT look - do not really know why, and I agree that it is a very superficial complaint. For the record, I am not that fond of how Windows 7 looks either, and they look kind of similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf
I could probably change it to suit my liking, but with Xfce I do not have to as much.
I was planning to deploy gnome-fallback for my clients but I found that it's unusable for non-xinerama dual-head (Zaphod) mode. There's also some bugs with detecting when an application has loaded (hour-glass cursor even when the application window opens) and various compatibility problems with add-ons and the notification area. I'm planning to use XFCE with the Linux Mint menus. It's not perfect but has better long-term prospects. The problems that prevented me from using it before, the disappearing desktop panels and lack of integrated smb network browsing in Thunar, have been fixed.
This!Quote:
Originally Posted by jhansonxi
Please elaborate on the integrated smb network browsing, as I have not seen it? Is it something they added in 4.10 or am I just being ignorant?Quote:
Originally Posted by jhansonxi
Basically the same as Nautilus. Ctrl-L to get the address/location field then enter smb://<servername>/<sharename>Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson