Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Ubuntu 10.10 To Not Use GNOME Shell By Default

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdusen View Post
    Some of us would argue it's STILL unusable.
    Yes, if it was as good as some say I personally wouldn't of switched to Ubuntu for the 10.04 version.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdusen View Post
    I 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.
    Up to and including 9.10 I was using two 24" monitors with Kubuntu and found it to work perfectly as far as Kwin was concerned but...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdusen View Post
    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.
    I'm for one glad Mark is no longer CEO and can now invest more time at the engineering level. He seems to be really on the ball as far as making the right strategic choices and I hope this continues. He's a smart man who's surrounding himself with good people and the Linux desktop is the winner in all of that.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    397

    Default

    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    For 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.
    Everybody knows that Kubuntu is the worst KDE distro out there.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Many 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.
    There 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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    Everybody knows that Kubuntu is the worst KDE distro out there.
    And from time to time when I hear people say that I'll actually setup a test machine and take differnt distros for a ride and you know what? I don't believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    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.
    And these distros contained bugs in their roll-outs of KDE as did Kubuntu.


    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    There 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.
    If you regard 4.2 as pure awesome you are easier to please than a lot of people. I can understand it if you had a feeling of relief when you began to use it after suffering through 4.1 because by 4.2 KDE was starting to suggest that it might one day be a robust desktop.

    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,631

    Default

    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Those that praised it were obviously fairly easy to please.
    4.2 was praised by reviewers across the board. People like you who look for something to bitch will find it in every software. That doesn't mean that you represent the majority of users.

    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    4.2 was praised by reviewers across the board.
    I can assure you that those sentiments are not help by all of the technology pundits out there. If you're talking about Linux review sites then you'll generally see a more sympathetic view of the Linux platform than would be displayed by the more mainstream press.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    People like you who look for something to bitch will find it in every software.
    Ah yes, and now the personal insults when you don't like the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    That doesn't mean that you represent the majority of users.
    I only represent me, but I also know what others are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    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.
    If that's your main criteria for what a successful desktop environment should handle well then well there you go.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethana2 View Post
    I hate how ubuntu wikis are https, I can never see them from this HTC Incredible or my dad's Droid.
    That is very strange. It's not HTTPS in and of itself; I have a server running Apache on Debian, and I can access that just fine via HTTPS on my Droid. The Ubuntu Wiki, on the other hand, just gives me a message about the server "failing to communicate". I don't know who to blame.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    4.2 was praised by reviewers across the board. People like you who look for something to bitch will find it in every software. That doesn't mean that you represent the majority of users.
    Really? No negative reviews at all anywhere? That's quite amazing.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    As I KDE user I think Gnome is a piece of garbage and then I am even being generous to the project...

    But I tend to see the Gnome shell not as the new UI of Gnome, but as a semantics experiment. It is such a fresh wind after the stale desktop concept we had since Windows 95.

    In the end it will ofcourse only require two weeks of making something like this for KDE4 as the base technology already has been layed out for it. With Nepomuk and Plasma this implementation is extremely trivial.

    Will the shell come as sorta usable with Fedora 13 as an additional package? I realy like to try it out for a few days.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •