[arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.

[Yaro Kasear]

On Sunday, April 10, 2011 15:07:27 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 ?

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.