Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    Am I the only one who likes Unity (GNOME)?
    You're not, I like it too

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacob View Post
    You're not, I like it too
    What has Unity to do with Gnome btw.?

  3. #23

    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.
    You should try kdebase/kdebase-meta on Gentoo with USE=-semantic-desktop. It is lean and fast.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    157

    Default

    I don't like gnome for various reasons.

    It takes longer to boot, yes, KDE takes even longer but XFCE is almost instant in comparison to gnome.
    Design choices, both usability and configuration, its a nonsensical nightmare.
    Gnome shell needs 3d accel, gnome "classic" is constrained to the extreme and highly deprecated.
    To make gnome3 usable, it would take considerable time tweaking, extending, etc. Defeating the purpose of a ready made DE.

    Freebsd is not missing anything without gnome3, people used to gnome2 can switch to Xfce without any fuzz, and will even find it easier to do things, since there is no stupid gconf or alike and instead you have a proper gui with options.

    Cinnamon or Unity as shell replacement might solve the usability issues somewhat, but its still gnome3 behind, lots of harm there in the memory/gpu usage department.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Yesterday I tried the latest gnome-shell for the first time. Without exaggeration, it is the worst DE I have used. It is far behind all other DE's.

    In case you're wondering, I use xfce myself... (In the past used KDE mostly, and I also like the latest Unity, but it needs to be polished even more).

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56

    Default

    GNOME3 restored my faith in Linux desktop. It's slick, fast, well designed, modern, functioal, has good defaults, and compared to KDE mightily is stable despite being so young project. The features and settings are not all there yet, but I like how GNOME team really thinks what they are doing unlike KDE team, which just throws random shit on it and hope it works. For example changing application icon size or removing window title when maximized takes only one line change in gnome-shell.css. One extension took care of that transition animation after pressing meta. Functionality is there, but devs haven't apparently just decided how to put it into GUI in a sane way. I like that way of doing things.

    I was on brink of buying a Mac or two, but GNOME 3.2 gave second thoughts. Right now I think GNOME3 > OS X > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > GNOME2 > XFCE > LXDE > KDE.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daedaluz View Post
    GNOME3 restored my faith in Linux desktop. It's slick, fast, well designed, modern, functioal, has good defaults, and compared to KDE mightily is stable despite being so young project. The features and settings are not all there yet, but I like how GNOME team really thinks what they are doing unlike KDE team, which just throws random shit on it and hope it works. For example changing application icon size or removing window title when maximized takes only one line change in gnome-shell.css. One extension took care of that transition animation after pressing meta. Functionality is there, but devs haven't apparently just decided how to put it into GUI in a sane way. I like that way of doing things.

    I was on brink of buying a Mac or two, but GNOME 3.2 gave second thoughts. Right now I think GNOME3 > OS X > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > GNOME2 > XFCE > LXDE > KDE.
    I like the shell's design, smoothness and performance, but I've noticed MANY bugs with certain parts of gnome 3. mainly empathy, gnome-contacts, and gnome-online accounts are a buggy mess for me, feels like beta software.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daedaluz View Post
    GNOME3 restored my faith in Linux desktop. It's slick, fast, well designed, modern, functioal, has good defaults, and compared to KDE mightily is stable despite being so young project. The features and settings are not all there yet, but I like how GNOME team really thinks what they are doing unlike KDE team, which just throws random shit on it and hope it works. For example changing application icon size or removing window title when maximized takes only one line change in gnome-shell.css. One extension took care of that transition animation after pressing meta. Functionality is there, but devs haven't apparently just decided how to put it into GUI in a sane way. I like that way of doing things.

    I was on brink of buying a Mac or two, but GNOME 3.2 gave second thoughts. Right now I think GNOME3 > OS X > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > GNOME2 > XFCE > LXDE > KDE.
    Isn't Windows 8 designed for mobile phones with touch screens? I cannot imagine myself sitting in the office and grabble around on my monitor (would get stiff arms)

Posting Permissions

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