On 9/2/05, Bozhidar Batsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > With the upcoming release of the new GNOME 2.12, I want to say a couple > of things... > 1. Arch is said to do not have a default desktop environment - even so, > I was left under the impression that a lot more work goes into building > quality KDE packages than GNOME's, which is somewhat acceptable as I'm > aware of the fact that most people use KDE anyway. But you could at > least personalize GNOME with Arch splashsreens and default wallpaper the > way you do it with KDE. You could include be bug reporting tool in > GNOME's menu and so on. I noticed that even Xfce was more personalized > than GNOME by default... Than spend some time verifying that all is > working at least half as good as it should, for KDE runs perfectly in > Arch in most ways, but GNOME has many issues...
Hey! JGC does a kickass job of with his Gnome packages, and they are just as high quality as KDE's. As for more people using kde than gnome, it isnt a huge number more. If you go by distrowatch, which is a great inaccurate measure, Gnome is miles ahead. Ubuntu and Fedora, which are primarily gnome are at the top. Arch tries to leave it's packages as uncustomised as possible. I think it's fine leaving it without the Arch logo etc - imho - it's better that way. If you like the distro customised, do it yourself. :) Testing repo exists for a reason. Testing. I hope you're testing the 2.11 packages in there, else, dont complain when something doesnt work. The packagers cannot fix packages unless issues with them are reported. > 2. Why is the KDE package installing all sorts of useless apps and GNOME > without the gnome-extras package is barely useful... I for example know > how to take care of things, but many user might not know... Because thats how the GNOME people designed it. KDE was designed to have massive packages of lots of things, and its the simplest way to package it. Same for GNOME, it's very minimal by default. Arch is simply installing it the way the developers designed it, and circumventing or doing it differently, may well introduce more problems than the non existant one it may be trying to fix. All the same, if someone cant recognise that they need the GNOME Extras package for something, or cannot ask on IRC or the forums for help with that, I dont really think that Arch is quite the distro for them. > 3.If the maintainers are too busy with other stuff to produce quality > builds of GNOME maybe we should start a small project - something like > FreeRock and DropLine to provide the de facto standard GNOME for Arch > Linux... They are quality builds...I dont have any issues with them. Bugs are best reported at the bug tracker, or at least until I complete my telepathy technologies. > That's all from me folks. I'd like to congratulate all the Arch core > developers and maintainers which with they work have proven that they > may be outnumbered but they are never outgunned ;) Here here!!! I'll agree with you there :) > Best Regards, > Bozhidar Cheers, iphitus > P.S. I still hope that someone can give me some advise as to what is the > problem with my current 2.10.2 installation of GNOME, if it isn't bad > packaging... Hi I am having problems opening websites can you help? We need details :) > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > -- iphitus - www.iphitus.tk _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
