Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop
On 08/13/2014 06:08 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > 2014-08-13 22:59 GMT+02:00 Theodore Ts'o : >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18:49PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >>> Well, Linus' extensions won't break because GNOME updates them with >>> every release and ships them with the official GNOME release. >> >> From the README found in "gnome-shell-extensions" sources: >> >> GNOME Shell Extensions is a collection of extensions providing additional >> and optional functionality to GNOME Shell. >> Since GNOME Shell is not API stable, extensions work only against a very >> specific version of the shell, usually the same as this package (see >> "configure --version"). Also, since extensions are built from many >> individual contributors, we cannot guarantee stability or quality for any >> specific extension. >> For these reasons, distributions are advised to avoid installing or >> packaging >> this module by default. > That's odd - I remember someone from the GNOME folks saying that they > develop these extensions together with the Shell and as part of > official GNOME so they do not break and users can rely on them. > Also, they provide the stuff needed for GNOME Classic, which is the > default desktop on RHEL (so I kind of expect that stuff to work and to > be developed in future). > But that README file is indeed very clear about the extensions repo... > The following "first party" extensions are developed along with gnome-shell and are updated for each gnome-shell release. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell-extensions/tree/extensions Extensions on https://extensions.gnome.org/ are the ones that are often late with updating based on new releases. (My perspective as a Debian user: I cannot bring myself to recommend Debian to GNU/Linux newcomers, and those not interested in tinkering with packages and DEs, if the default DE isn't comparable (in terms of usability, features, design) to GNOME. If this is the case, I will sadly recommend Mint, Fedora, or some Ubuntu flavor instead, which all have demonstrated more of a focus to those not in the ivory tower). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ebe806.6040...@gmail.com
Re: Debian default desktop environment
On 04/04/2014 10:36 AM, Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> Le vendredi 04 avril 2014 à 15:25 +0200, Stephan Seitz a écrit : >>> and modern hardware. >> This is no longer a requirement in jessie, at least on x86 where >> llvmpipe is now accepted as a GL engine. > > Ah, thank you. > >>> The default desktop should be moderate. If you want more eye >>> candy and bells and whistles you can install bigger desktop >>> environments. >> The default desktop should be functional and easy to use. I don’t call > > Yes, and what means „functional”? XFCE is of course functional, heck, > even fvwm is functional, and I know people who still use it because they > only have one config file to copy to a new machine and their desktop is > ready. XFCE (at least the version in Debian 8) doesn't automatically handle external monitors, which is a pretty significant use-case for all kinds of users. I do not think it's fair to expect a new user to be configure xrandr or find & install a 3rd party xrandr GUI. On the other hand, experienced users are familiar enough to install whichever environment they wish. Perhaps a compromise is to have GNOME the default and then XFCE as a bare-bones GUI or something. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/533ecc8d.7050...@gmail.com
Re: GNOME upstream portability [was: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 GNOME can run on BSD. This page documents the procedure done by one user. https://wiki.gnome.org/TingweiLan/FreeBSD On 10/24/2013 01:16 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > [Another new topic, sorry -develites] > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility? >>> >>> That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've >>> heard rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell >>> has some unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem >>> since GNOME classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8. >> >> An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic >> mode disappears. > > What's the status of GNOME on BSDs? How do they get around this > sytemd stuff, if it's not ported? Do they just use chunks of > systemd like Ubuntu? > > I know GNOME is fairly sane, I can't imagine they'd break *BSD > like that. > > Cheers, T > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSaVSCAAoJECqPt0hwyHtvAxsQAK2AS1FCyHAARaavY0M6uWXO u2vwLQaYsIoN2idyWlufE52wQyuyrSoXQJylkambhgqUsqJVnp07SZzAnp+Q2tH0 yVE4G3nxPdonrn+WE38xSg0W/2vHA84h3uF8R5Ow0KJ/f9HGr6v7pQeIWjmuD5FY g8bMJ9JTcGUIcXf8/CyEY6zcS+fxU/1ZN8PKK/K0p+c8V/CU3uJL5fQl2Ko1mnE5 W5mCXnNXPNPQ3/rI78XKCUF4OokQdZioOp8dcJiC9A3ZCN7LdXAbDGajisIhDx1y L/yQ2mTXaidFbaTf5vifA3WL1u/qygBKYfbcAmUL+pu6D3Piq9j3WfKdYbEq+gLi y1hwYT9HOzJLNBrD4crge0lA8S+gL4h8ceE2lMzqBdn5Rwm7I+A6vYtRxkpbAPXa TEQOoBBUN0+S/Vc1vY84RvHsvaTBFh/wrW23YCIGIzGOAS5Lpn/XtCPY47fY4ibZ LMJYagybkW+w42ijzJ9iHPErt1tfpgMO2IfZNw+99OZEmETJ/uDlEY2pX2Lu907X EmD8ZZarMvMNMnSh7oiOfE7CTsGfp7EYu86KM67FnqXa8paDmyIn3CZFjUVfVNsu GLbJZajWgnD98eHw/Dm+3VNCwJ1VJHKRktZ1Qlezkgl46AOebBJHvxqu7klR4JL6 d8d9GpM0oFtL001RJjIC =mi06 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695482.4020...@riseup.net
Re: Feedback on Debian 7.0
On 06/01/2013 01:06 AM, Nikolas Kallis wrote: > > Another thing I am pissed off about is the lack of a graphical > text-editor being included in Debian 7.0. The last time I checked, my > calendar said 2013, and as so, would not expect a text-editor not > being included in a desktop-environment based operating system. > > I know there is the 'nano' command line based text-editor included in > Debian 7.0, but I, along with 99.999% of the world uses their computer > in a desktop environment, so a text-editor should be included. > gedit (though it's poorly named) is included -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51a98c1e.2040...@gmail.com
