Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: GNOME 3.x Shell Isn't Yet Primed For FreeBSD

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,782

    Default GNOME 3.x Shell Isn't Yet Primed For FreeBSD

    Phoronix: GNOME 3.x Shell Isn't Yet Primed For FreeBSD

    While the GNOME 3.x Shell is working its way around to most major Linux distributions, within the BSD world, it's still mostly a GNOME 2.30 world...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEzODk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Torrington, Ct. USA
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Frankly I don't think GNOMES Hell is primed for Linux either.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdilznik View Post
    Frankly I don't think GNOMES Hell is primed for Linux either.
    I disagree. After trying countless desktop environment alternatives (even the most exotic ones), from lightweight to tiling and beyond, with an eye to usability and the other to performance, memory & power usage, I decided to give another try to the "big and bloated" ones. KDE is worse than I remembered - cute but horribly slow and memory hungry. Gnome 2 was a bit better (performance wise) but I still liked Xfce and Openbox more. I always stayed away from Gnome 3 because I didn't like the idea of having a javascript/css engine behind its shell, plus it was GNOME... but I decided to try it and, honestly, it's the best and most functional DE I have tried to date.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    170

    Question Unity anyone?

    Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halo9en View Post
    I disagree. After trying countless desktop environment alternatives (even the most exotic ones), from lightweight to tiling and beyond, with an eye to usability and the other to performance, memory & power usage, I decided to give another try to the "big and bloated" ones. KDE is worse than I remembered - cute but horribly slow and memory hungry. Gnome 2 was a bit better (performance wise) but I still liked Xfce and Openbox more. I always stayed away from Gnome 3 because I didn't like the idea of having a javascript/css engine behind its shell, plus it was GNOME... but I decided to try it and, honestly, it's the best and most functional DE I have tried to date.
    Gnome is surprisingly fast and efficient despite the javascript/css engine. I also like how well mutter works these days.

    I fully agree with you and it's the best I've tried to date too.
    Although one should note that I've only really given GNOME, KDE and XFCE a full thorough try.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?
    A lot of people do, but it's definitely not my cup of tea, and I'm sure it's not for many others too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?
    I like unity, I think it makes an excellent interface for a laptop.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Gnome 3 -out of the box- is stupid beyond repair.

    Who on earth had the fuckin idea to make it require more clicks and navigation for a task than previous versions.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    270

    Default

    (\me joins the troll war )

    I also like Gnome 3 more than any other desktop environments I used in the recent years.

    IMHO navigating through a KDE or xfce menu to find and open a application takes longer than pressing the super key, entering the first few letters of application name and return. And alternatively it's also very easy to click on a application in the favorite bar to open it.

    KDE and it's default applications are also pretty ugly compared to gnome 3. Compare this to this. What looks uglier?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrin View Post
    IMHO navigating through a KDE or xfce menu to find and open a application takes longer than pressing the super key, entering the first few letters of application name and return. And alternatively it's also very easy to click on a application in the favorite bar to open it.
    In KDE this can be accomplished either through alt+f2 (which is much better than gnome's alt+f2 launcher) or through either the default or lancalot launchers.

    [QUOTE=Fenrin;274702]
    KDE and it's default applications are also pretty ugly compared to gnome 3. Compare this to this. What looks uglier?

    IMHO the second looks much worse. I generally change the color theme in KDE though, they make this very easy to do, so it is no big deal. (I can't say the same for Gnome 3.)

Posting Permissions

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