Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: The GNOME 3.0 Shell Is Advancing Too

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Hence, a matter of opinion.

    My opinion, as a user of all major DEs is that KDE 4.5 is buggier and slower than Gnome 2.30 (haven't moved to 2.32 yet). This is not a shabby system either, 8GB RAM, Nvidia graphics (with the blob), 3.2GHz Core 2, Intel SSD, running Ubuntu 10.10 (Gnome), Arch (KDE), Win7 and Mac OS X 10.6.5 (yes, I'm crazy).

    The performance difference between Gnome and KDE is visible to the naked eye: scroll Chrome, Opera or Firefox and KDE (kwin) renders at half framerate, while Gnome (Compiz) renders perfectly smooth. I've covered my pet bugs in the KDE 4.5.2 thread, so I won't go there again, but Gnome is more stable on the whole (I've never had invisible background applications crash randomly on Gnome, as I do on KDE).

    Gnome does have a couple of usability issues in folder navigation (misiu_mp nailed them!) but on the whole it feels faster and more stable than KDE.
    Have you tried using a raster backend:

    http://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=90821

    For me, using native backend, makes KDE (and KWin compositing) way too slow. Raster makes it more or less on par with GNOME and Compiz. The only drawback is that memory consumption is much higher. I agree on stability, though. Dolphin and Amarok crashes on a daily basis.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Hence, a matter of opinion.

    My opinion, as a user of all major DEs is that KDE 4.5 is buggier and slower than Gnome 2.30 (haven't moved to 2.32 yet).

    [...]

    Gnome does have a couple of usability issues in folder navigation (misiu_mp nailed them!) but on the whole it feels faster and more stable than KDE.
    Ok, I was not taking into consideration KDE... Every now and then I try it to see if it has improved but it never lasts for more than few hours on my PC. Then I revert back to Gnome.

    Don't get me wrong. I *do* use Gnome in all my PCs, at home and at work. I do regret that I cannot use it everywhere (e.g. on PIII 500Mhz 256MB RAM machines). I do regret that Gnome developers don't seem to have much interest in fixing bugs.

    That said, I'd like to see a Linux Desktop Manager with the same performance and memory footprint than 2K/XP Explorer. Come on, Microsoft could do it, therefore it can be done. Besides, most hardware does not age, software kills it. There is nothing that my co-worker at a government agency could do better today with present software that he couldn't have done it 15 years ago with the machines and softwares of that time.

    Talking of Microsoft, what I don't like is to see that free software developers take their same attitude. Something that compelled me to abandon Windows for Linux some years ago. What attitude? For instance, adding some eye candy to resell you the same old stuff. If I can understand why a company that exists for making profits does it, I don't, when we talk of free software. Especially when the basics have not been grasped right yet. First the basics, than the eye candy, and only if it is optional (i.e. you can disable it if you don't like). Please - Gnome developers - try to understand that people, *a lot* of people use your software throughout the world and they may even like it as it is. That they may have spent years using that interface paradigm, perhaps after years and years of struggle they have finally learned how to copy a file from one directory to another (don't laugh, the world is not all made by geeks), and you can feel their fear: "please don't change it"!!! What? You say I can keep running v.2 if I don't like v.3? Please be seriuos. You do (or someoneelse on your behalf will do it) force me to adopt it sooner or later. This is another very Microsoftish attitude: forcing somebody to get something he does not want.

    Somebody at the beginning of this thread spoke of innovation. Please, do not confuse innovation that comes from tecnhnological breakthroughs, from eye candy. Innovation on human computer interaction would be the invention of, say, a neural interface. But here we are taking of the same old wheel mouse and bidimentional (not even touch) screen. Where is the technological breakthrough? We are talking of a desktop manager, a means to reach the computer objects, not of the SDI. The basics have already been layed down. The rest is bloat and more bloat.

    Also, don't confuse innovation with imitation. If software X has something you don't have, you don't necessarily want to have it too. If the user likes it, it will use that software instead of yours. If it doesn't it will stay. I'd prefer having choices between real different things that not having any between clones. You like to do something totally different? Join another project, start your own new project. Why impose on others your new wishes.

    But I suspect that fixing bugs or making software robust is a tedious work, while developing new features is fun. And since free software is often done in the spare time, just to have fun, there are too many cases where the hard, non rewarding work is just skipped. Otherwise it is difficult to explain the sheer amount of 0.X apps, all equivalent one to the other, all incomplete, that can be found in the Linux repositories. I don't know if the same thing can be said of Gnome, I hope not, but weighting their announcements against the present status of their software, gives much to think about.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    Quite true - a modern tyre isn't actually round at all, but an approximation,
    What! I hope you are joking!

    [QUOTE=Delgarde;158995]Thus, a structure that deforms under weight to increase contact surface[QUOTE=Delgarde;158995]

    Any structure deforms under weight, even the stone age wheels...

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    Hey, looks like this "reinventing the wheel" stuff is more complex than it sounds...
    You are right, more complex for us . Will it be also more usefull?

    But really, the original example is very pertinent. We are not taking here of the materials present in the wheel, if it is steel or rubber. We are taking of the interaction that a person has with the weel, or, better, the lack of it. I mean, the wheel is a means to accomplish something. you are happy when it does the job well and does not get in the way. Unless you are, say, a tyre repairer, the wheel is not the object of your work. I consider the wheel when I buy it. I may want to look for certain characteristics, but after that I forget about it until it gives me a problem. And I hope that would not happen too frequently or too soon. So is a desktop. It is not the object of your work, its a simple means to accomplish something else. I am happy when I don't realize that it exists. But how could I when:
    1) it keeps informing you that that the recycle bin is full when, openening it, it appears empty
    2) does not allow you to launch an application few seconds after you have close it saying that it is already running
    3) it keeps showing a CD-ROM icon when have already ejected a long time ago
    4) it shows the icon of the flash memory you have just inserted only when it feels like to do it
    5) after 20 years of Unix + Windows, you continue to double-click the system icon to close the window and it keeps to ignore your efforts
    6) you keep unchecking the 'keep align' desktop icons and it keeps rechecking it
    7) you right click on a file icon > Properties > Open with... and the same application appears 20 times in the list, which, BTW, is not sorted
    8) you F2 on a directory in the tree panel of Nautilus and nothing happens (but it does in the Shortcut view)
    9) you abort burning your CD and more often that not you cannot extract the CD until you reboot
    10) the desktop becomes all empty because somebody has disconnected a network share taht you had mounted

    ... other dozens of annoying bugs

    nnn) just freezes

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fermo111 View Post
    Gnome 2 is horribly bugged and slow.
    No it isn't. It depend on what distro you're using.

    Quote Originally Posted by fermo111 View Post
    Do they think that Gnome 2 is a solid and reliable product?
    If they don't care about current bug and invest time on new features, then, you can say 'yes' to it /sarcasm..

    Quote Originally Posted by fermo111 View Post
    ...Explorer-as-in-Windows-XP and do not know what to do with Explorer-as-in-Vista/7 or Plasma or some other eye candy desktop?
    No Explorer. File Manager please..
    Nautilus, PCManFM Dolphin, Thunar, Explorer == File Manager.

    Quote Originally Posted by fermo111 View Post
    What good can came for a change just for the sake of it, or, as they put it, because it looks 'old'?
    'Cause, .. ... ... ....... well, you should ask them directly

    Oh, and my debian squeeze KDE 4.4.5 sit quite happily on my netbook with ~150MB RAM when cold booting. Think that GNOME's around that too, if not lower.

    BTW (OT): KDE is very ugly when used without compositing. Argh..

    my 2 rupiahs, hehe..

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragoran View Post
    I got my quote from the mailing list, your came from the gnome-shell design git. Guess which one will change first

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fermo111 View Post
    Gnome 2 is horribly bugged and slow. So, what do the Gnome developers do about it? Instead of fixing the bugs, they write new code
    Sometimes code becomes unfixable and a total rewrite is the only feasible solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    The performance difference between Gnome and KDE is visible to the naked eye: scroll Chrome, Opera or Firefox and KDE (kwin) renders at half framerate, while Gnome (Compiz) renders perfectly smooth.
    1.) Compiz is not a GNOME project. If you want to play that childish "GNOME vs. KDE" game, at least actually play it. That means compare KWin against Metacity and Mutter. Compiz also has a KDE module. If KWin doesn't work well for anyone, KWin users can switch to Compiz any time. That said, I have no problems with KWin and my hardware is approaching ancient age. Core2 Duo 2GHz, GeForce 9200M. Scrolling is silky smooth.
    2.) Neither Firefox, Chrome, nor Opera are GNOME or KDE applications.

  7. #27

    Default Most of the planned GNOME Shell changes did *NOT* already happen


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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