On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:

I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 & KDE 4.

Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing.

1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. It's not. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with "fallback mode" wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore....

[flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team...

Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects.

[/flaming]

Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ...

You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless. -- Jelle van der Waa

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Dennis Beekman wrote:

We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead.

Perhaps being 'forced' to those DEs is a good thing? Linux has lots of choices. Those who don't want choice can use some other OS just fine, all power to them.

Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this.... i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that.

But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest "old" version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ?

No, because that's not how Arch works. Gnome3 is not broken, nor will it break anyone's computer. Arch is bleeding-edge, it said so on the sticker when you installed it =)

According to Baho Utot: # Hey wait I didn't get any sticker when I installed it. # # I want my money back! I don't need my money back. It hasn't broken my system or mamed any puppies yet, so a refund is not necessary. Just give me the sticker and we'll call it even. :) ~Kyle

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 22:07 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:

On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

...

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:

...

I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3& KDE 4.

Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing.

1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. It's not. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with "fallback mode" wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore.... [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team...

Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects.

[/flaming]

Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ...

You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless.

Well it might be my imagination but it seems Desktop Enviroments on linux are more bloated and buggy now then Windows is.

We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead.

Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this.... i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that.

But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest "old" version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ? No, we can't maintain gnome2 + gnome3 at the same time, create your own 3rd party repo for it

-- Jelle van der Waa

On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

...

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:

...

I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3& KDE 4.

Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing.

1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems.

It's not.

...

3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with "fallback mode" wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore.... [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team...

Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects.

[/flaming]

Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ...

You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just

On Sunday, April 10, 2011 15:07:27 Dennis Beekman wrote: package

...

vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless.

Well it might be my imagination but it seems Desktop Enviroments on linux are more bloated and buggy now then Windows is.

We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead.

Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this.... i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that.

But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest "old" version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ?

GNOME 2's probably not even going to LAST that long. Once some libraries staart getting new releases and feature changes to them, GNOME 2's going to find itself simply *not* working due to a library not being what it needs. And, as you said, it's not Arch's fault, so stop wasting inbox space with useless flamebait, please.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

Or you could just save yourself the hassle and just switch over to XFCE, awesomewm, the possibilities are endless. More productive than pining over a DE that's now officially dead (dying).

xfce depends on gtk2. when gnome3 hits the repo, i assume gtk3 will deprecate gtk2, which will in turn deprecate xfce. it is possible to maintain gtk2 and gtk3 at the same time, but using a desktop environment depending on a deprecated library seems not so good. anyway, we are still using tons of applications depending on the deprecated python2. :p

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 04/10/2011 07:04 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:

...

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Oon-Ee Ng  wrote:

...

Or you could just save yourself the hassle and just switch over to XFCE, awesomewm, the possibilities are endless. More productive than pining over a DE that's now officially dead (dying).

xfce depends on gtk2. when gnome3 hits the repo, i assume gtk3 will deprecate gtk2, which will in turn deprecate xfce. it is possible to maintain gtk2 and gtk3 at the same time, but using a desktop environment depending on a deprecated library seems not so good. anyway, we are still using tons of applications depending on the deprecated python2. :p

gtk2 is not deprecated. it won't get any features but is still maintained

-- Ionuț

thank you for the information. i found a blog by matthias saying he would maintain gtk2 for a long long time. that's quite reassuring. :-)

s/failback/fallback/g sorry for the typo.. --- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:39, Alper Kanat wrote:

Hello Fellow Archers,

Most people say that Arch is cutting edge and saving GNOME2 as gnome2 is not the the Arch way. I know that packaging and maintaining GNOME2 is a hard task that no devs would want to take care of and that we'll most likely be seeing unofficial repositories but what about python? Despite the upstream python is 3.x, we still have python2 for failback? So is that the Arch way?

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

While with GNOME it's the case that GNOME2 is dead , SO LONG LIVE GNOME3!!

*jelly drinks beer with his gnome friends

Seriously, if someone does fork gnome2, they should so call it troll. Pete.

It is against the Arch way when it's not even going to be actively maintained upstream for much longer. GNOME 2's got maybe 6-8 months at most before it's support is gone upstream, and Arch isn't there to act as a "historical archive" of old desktop environments. Especially in the likely event GNOME 2 will stop working right when the inevitable library bumps occur after its support drop. Instead of complaining at the Arch developers for doing their job, you could just switch to Xfce or LXDE if you want a GTK+ 2 based desktop environment. Though I personally think GTK+ 2 is visibly showing its age. I wish there were more Qt-based DE's out there, though I do think KDE is pretty good.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:

2. Next time, please create a new mail, instead of replying to an existing thread and changing the topic

What's wrong with that?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM, SanskritFritz wrote:

...

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:

...

2. Next time, please create a new mail, instead of replying to an existing thread and changing the topic

What's wrong with that?

Changing the topic has no effect on the threading in 'real' and 'proper' mail clients, which track threads based on message headers. Of course, those who use gmail don't notice it because google in their infinite wisdom decided to ignore those message headers and thread based on topic =)

by gmail, do you mean the gmail web interface or the gmail mail service? i am using the web interface, and has the behavior you depicted for gmail. if i use a "real" and "proper" mail client, would it be better?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:57:02PM +0800, Auguste Pop wrote:

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

by gmail, do you mean the gmail web interface or the gmail mail service?

The threading is done by the mail client and has nothing to do with the mail protocol SMTP/IMAP etc.

i am using the web interface, and has the behavior you depicted for gmail. if i use a "real" and "proper" mail client, would it be better?

So in this case the mistake is that of gmail webclient. Because: Have a discussion with someone on say "Bugs in the code". Now if your mailer justs looks at subjects to thread then two different mails with subjects "Bugs in the code" (and their subsequent replies) will be clubbed which is clearly undesirable. A real mailer a la mutt for example will thread mails based of message id's and this will solve this otherwise problem of mind reading. What is assumed is a bit of consideration from the replier. A new message should be started as a new message not as a reply to an old message with a changed subject. Regards ppk

On 04/10/2011 10:50 PM, Dennis Beekman wrote:

Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ...

i give it you the option to create a custom repo with gnome 2.32 but doing in the way that doesn't conflict with the current packages and install all modules+dependencies in /opt if you don't know how to do this then this here is list with new distributions that ship gnome 2.32: * opensuse * ubuntu * debian -- Ionuț

On Sunday, April 10, 2011 14:50:41 Dennis Beekman wrote:

I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 & KDE 4.

This is all a matter of opinion. I like KDE 4 a lot. It's big, but I doubt there isn't a hard disk made within the last 15 years that can't fit it. It's definitely not bloated nearly as much as Windows is. KDE 4.6 is still downright lightweight compared to Windows 7. My chief complaint against GNOME 3 is that it requires Pulse Audio. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing.

Look, if you like a simple desktop with fewer features and a more straightforware approach and less eye candy, all the power to you. Just don't assume that's what EVERYONE wants in a desktop. I like the eye candy and almost ridiculous amount of options and settings KDE SC 4 gives me. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3.

You could alter the themes, get more themes. I don't know how close to Plasma the new GNOME desktop is, but even KDE SC 4 offered ways to configure its panel look and feel. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems.

Just sounds like you haven't figured out how to change the themes yet. GNOME 3 *is* a major change over GNOME 2, after all. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ?

I don't understand this complaint. Didn't GNOME 2 also offer settings all in one or two menus before? This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with "fallback mode" wich is even more stupid and backward ?

I'm fairly certain that GNOME 3 doesn't force you to use visual effects. If you turn that off it'd likely speed right up. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore....

Aforementioned GNOME developers stripping away nice features because they erroneously think they confuse users. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

[flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong.

KDE SC 4 is only really bloated when you install all its packages. And it's bloat is still nowehre near comparable to Windows Vista or 7. If you can't fit KDE SC 4 on a hard disk even an old SMALL one, you need a new hard disk, because its a wonder you can fit anything on there. Also, KDE SC 4 hasn't been nearly that bad since 4.3 came out, and it's pretty solid as of 4.6. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team...

This is a matter of opinion and experience. As I said. Post-KDE SC 2.3 is pretty stable, and bloat is overstated when it's not even clearing a GiB of hard disk space. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects.

I personally believe Ubuntu moving over to Unity was a mistake. And I fear th whining that will come when the planned move to Wayland happens due to it not having nearly as good support as Xorg. My opinion is that a lot of people overestimate KMS support in Linux. I would have waited a couple more years for KMS to mature before planning my desktop around it. Also, we're Arch, not Ubuntu. We're not forcing you to use GNOME 3 or Unity. Not forcing you to use KDE SC 4, either. Instead of bitching on Arch general and wasting space on our inboxes, you could have just switched to Xfce or LXDE if you wanted a lightweight desktop environment. Or you could have switched to the dozens of window managers out there. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it.

[/flaming]

Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ...

GNOME 2 isn't even going to be maintained upstream once GNOME 3 goes gold. Arch is not in the business of maintaining unmaintained packages when newer options are available. GTK+ 2 is still being maintained upstream just as GTK+ 1 is largely because of the wide range of non-GNOME software that depends on them being available. Same goes for Qt3. It's still kept up to date in terms of bug reports and new libraries, so that Qt3 holdouts aren't left high and dry. We SHOULD be using Qt4 now for any new projects we start, largely because Qt4 is where all the new development goes on (Plus Qt4 is definitely a worthy follower to Qt3.). GNOME 2 not being carried in [extra] any further IS something the Arch developers have power over, but keeping GNOME 2 around when it's inevitably going to break within a few months due to it no longer keeping up with its dependencies is just stupid. Now stop flaming our mailing list. GNOME 2's getting mothballed upstream. The only chance it has is getting forked.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:50:41 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:

[flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team...

Please stop calling KDE bloated. As a former Windows user I find both Gnome and KDE over simplistic and both lack some kind of bonding between various parts like Windows does. In that regard tough, KDE SC is doing much better than Gnome and I guess that's what the SC part means. What you may find bloated is the fact that the two major video card makers do a terrible job in supporting their over-heating-barely-2D-60euro-windows-only-cards and rely on the FOSS devs to build drivers for them. Both NVIDIA and AMD do a semi-lousy job with drivers in the Windows world and I don't expect better anytime soon. Add this to the fact that the kernel isn't exactly desktop optimized (stuff like let me move the mouse while I extract that damn 4G archive) and you'll probably get what feels like a slow system. Now what could a DE could do in this situation? I know that kwin does extensive checks in regards to video driver capabilities and maybe Gnome just isn't that far on this. That said, KDE SC with the free radeon driver in 2.6.38 is outperforming the catalyst driver with 2.6.37 in regards to desktop effects (I can't say anything about nouveau). IMHO! -- Arthur Titeica

On Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:42:57 Arthur Titeica wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:50:41 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:

...

[flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team...

Please stop calling KDE bloated. As a former Windows user I find both Gnome and KDE over simplistic and both lack some kind of bonding between various parts like Windows does. In that regard tough, KDE SC is doing much better than Gnome and I guess that's what the SC part means.

The SC part is the KDE devs realizing that KDE has gone way beyond being a desktop environment and went on to be a full-scale software compendium and community. It's almost become the Microsoft of Linux (But in a good way.) in that it covers almost everything.

What you may find bloated is the fact that the two major video card makers do a terrible job in supporting their over-heating-barely-2D-60euro-windows-only-cards and rely on the FOSS devs to build drivers for them.

I dunno. nVidia seems to do a good job, driver-wise, for their cards on Linux. Keep it up to date, don't leave out new Xorg/OpenGL features. ATI's not too great at Linux support, unfortunately.

Both NVIDIA and AMD do a semi-lousy job with drivers in the Windows world and I don't expect better anytime soon.

Again, I've had no issues with drivers in Windows or Linux nVidia-wise.

Add this to the fact that the kernel isn't exactly desktop optimized (stuff like let me move the mouse while I extract that damn 4G archive) and you'll probably get what feels like a slow system.

This is largely because the kernel devs (accurately) figure that the typical application for Linux is more for servers and high-performance computing. Desktop optimization is pretty low-priority. When kernel 38 comes out (Might be tonight, I think.) we'll have the Wonder Patch which will make a desktop speedy, or so I am told.

Now what could a DE could do in this situation? I know that kwin does extensive checks in regards to video driver capabilities and maybe Gnome just isn't that far on this.

They're generally pretty good functionality checks, though sometimes I don;t like KDE to turn off my eye candy when things get slow.

That said, KDE SC with the free radeon driver in 2.6.38 is outperforming the catalyst driver with 2.6.37 in regards to desktop effects (I can't say anything about nouveau).

I couldn't even get Nouveau's Gallium driver to work with OpenGL. nVidia's proprietary driver is still way ahead of Nouveau on this. Pretty much the chief feature of Nouveau is KMS for nVidia users. Personally, I'd rather have good OpenGL support than KMS.

IMHO!

My humble opinion, too.

On 04/11/2011 01:38 PM, Jan de Groot wrote:

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:

...

1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with "fallback mode" wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore....

1. Try pressing alt. It should be documented somewhere, but it's in the NEWS file for gnome-panel at least 2. The UI was removed, but you can still set things in dconf and gconf. When Adwaita looked like crap in fallback mode, I've used Mist for a long while. 3. Design choice, Mac OS X has this too and in the view of gnome-shell, this is a logic choice. The control-center with grouped applet view already existed for a long time in 2.x versions also, but only SuSE used it I think. 4. Fallback mode is just like classic GNOME in looks, though you have the new theming and new apps. I used fallback mode for a long while and I'm still forced to do so on this desktop, the step from 2.x to 3.x in fallback mode is very small 5. Applets are not nice, but for the icons and things that were ported to the new panel-applet API, you can just press alt while right-clicking your panel to add it like you used to do.

i noticed that "alt" doesn't work after migrating the settings from gnome 2.32 to gnome 3 but it will work fine in a new profile. Sounds like a bug that worth submitting upstream -- Ionuț