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
