Reply With QuoteSince it's a project related to the same kind of issues with the desktop, I feel mentioning this might be prudent. http://www.trinitydesktop.org/. It's a fork of KDE3 to keep it working and up to date.
Phoronix News Bot
A Fork Of GNOME 2: The Mate Desktop
Phoronix: A Fork Of GNOME 2: The Mate Desktop
A lot of people hate Canonical's Unity desktop, but a lot of people also hate the current state of the GNOME 3.0 Shell too. For those that are still fond of the GNOME 2.x environment, there is a fork of GNOME2 that's been little talked about up to this point. This fork is called the Mate Desktop Environment...
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTgxMA
Junior Member
Fork for kde3 also
Since it's a project related to the same kind of issues with the desktop, I feel mentioning this might be prudent. http://www.trinitydesktop.org/. It's a fork of KDE3 to keep it working and up to date.
Junior Member
I'm not one to tell somebody what to spend their time on, but it would be great if they put that effort into working on the missing parts of the gnome 3's control panel and used the already-existing gtk3 port of gnome-panel ("fallback" mode) to provide the classic-style interface.Originally Posted by phoronix
Senior Member
I definitely agree on the latter... no point in trying to preserve the gtk2 code when the gtk3 port exists. The control panel is trickier though, as there *are* strong opinions on the Gnome dev mailing lists over what goes into the control panel - they don't want it to become a dumping ground for random stuff that doesn't fit their strategy.
Senior Member
^Yeah, that seems like a better idea to me as well. Either that, or working on xfce as a traditional desktop because they need devs too.
Senior Member
That would be really Windows-like, sort of like having a registry with a bunch of hidden set... oh wait :\
Senior Member
Happened to KDE 3 (http://www.trinitydesktop.org) after KDE 4 came out. Forking Gnome 2 was just a matter of time, IMO. Many people want to keep using their computer the same way they did for years.
Senior Member
Are you referring to the way GConf stores settings in human-readable (albeit XML) text files? And the way it's successor dconf stores settings in standard properties files? You're right, that's a *lot* like the way Windows puts everything in a binary blob...
Senior Member
Yes, I was somewhat referring to gconf, but more to the maddening practice of not having options configurable via a GUI for GUI programs.
Senior Member
Titanic
It'd be a good way to offload the current load of arrogance attatched to gnome. It's apparent none of the developers are listening to the community. Next, whole distributions can be forked because it's widely known their developers ignore their community participants.
On a side note I really wish these jokers would polish their products before they released them to the public. Recently we hear Cox, Alan relased an Intel Graphics Driver which had no hardware acceleration. So now distributions are going to incorporate it therefore giving a false sense of support to the community once again.
But that is the sort of thing you sign up for in the Linux community. Half-assed because the alternative is full support but with the benefits of accepting a Washington USA company's agreement stipulations. Comparisions abound, but right off the top I'd say would you rather have cake with icecream or just a cake and no icying.
Sex buddy with benefits or an arranged marriage, dowry, and no clue to the brides' asthetics?
Posting Permissions