To be fair, Xubuntu is also not very good in terms of consuming RAM by
default. The live CD has lots of GNOME dependencies and applications, meaning
it is just a bit bloated. If you want to see Xfce really shine (if memory is
an issue as your post seems to suggest), try the Debian Xfce Live
It was badly written by me but the Caja look is bad.
It's hard for me what it is people see in Ubuntu MATE 16.04 that is so much
matter then Xubuntu 16.04. It also use 100MB more ram in clean install. But I
understand that MATE is in general a better alternative. It's a good
compromise
> with the simple and clean look of Ubuntu XFCE
That is a good idea. But it begs the question, why not just use Xfce and have
the Trisquel icon theme?
> File Manager in MATE is a joke
I would say it is not a "joke", just poorly designed in some respects. Thunar
from Xfce is pretty much the
Trisquel 8 MATE with the simple and clean look of Ubuntu XFCE edition
including Whisker Menu = EXTREME LOVE
File Manager in MATE is a joke. All the buttons at the top and no address bar
by default. Confusing clutter of crap.
XFCE has this 5 year old bug with screen goes black when watching
Well, beauty is in the eye of the (free) beer holder.
Which is what I said (though to be fair it's not EXACTLY GNOME 2 - more like
≈GNOME 2)
Really, MATE is GNOME 2. It's just under a different name because different
people are maintaining it now.
Guys I don't think anybody says MATe is superior compared to GNOME 2.
It's just that one is available for post-Natty Ubuntu and the other isn't.
(oh, and cursor-driven window tiling on MATE, I guess).
Yes... what does that have to do with a comparison between MATE and GNOME 2?
Compare the desktop look (and customization) between Trisquel 4.x and
Trisquel 6/7 and it is night and day on how much better Trisquel 4.x looked
with the default theme.
I thought gnome-flashback ran on gnome 3? its just made to look like gnome
2. I could be wrong.
gnome-fallback is one of the things I like about trisquel. extremely
lightweight and quiet, but still looks nice and doesn't feel like a lite
desktop at all. I love how its the only desktop I've used that grsec
doesn't automatically break. Even lxde does weird things but this gnome
Quite naturally, Mate is better than Gnome 2, being maintained and having new
functionality added. It would be inane to suggest it never evolves or stays
frozen in time, although that seems to have been the goal right from the
start. How's Mate superior to all other modern desktop
How is MATE superior to GNOME 2? Well for one thing it supports GTK+ 3 now.
They have been working on a lot of other things too.
"Linux Mint uses it so it must be the best" seems to be the lime of argument
on places like Reddit.
I just hope Ruben doesn't go for the Gnome Fallback session as it never
worked well and was a pain to customize. If you want to go for the
"traditional" desktop, MATE is a great choice and the level of polish that
went into the MATE packages and Ubuntu MATE 16.04 is nothing short of
Ah I see. To be honest I'd prefer Cinnamon as I was very fond of it on my
Thinkpad X201, but since I've switched to a X200 it doesn't run quite as
smoothly so I went back to XFCE.
Gnome 2's code is abandoned while Mate is being maintained. Moreover, Mate
has a collection of new or renamed programs. Visually, I see no difference.
Somebody in the know should explain why and how Mate is technically superior.
So what's the difference between mate and gnome 2 again?
Indeed, and I probably jumped the gun on saying that given that there seems
to have been much obsession over that topic since then, and just in case it
doesn't work out. Even though it came after my forum post may I please point
to
It is preference. Mate and XFCE are not really functionally different.
However, I would argue XFCE is more lightweight and customisable. Mate also
has its own strangely-named applications not really functionally different
from the GNOME equivalents, and its own terminal, so although you can
Hmm I might have to try MATE again. I installed in a few months ago and
really could not stand it so I replaced it with XFCE which is what I normally
use. Are there any real advantages to using MATE over XFCE or is it mostly
just personal preference?
Yeah, the original comment was from jxself.
It seems to have originated from a passing comment on a forum topic a few
months ago.
Everyone is talking about MATE in Trisquel 8, but no one came up with a
source for that :P
I am trying out Ubuntu MATE, it is really awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJyBoqvQg54=1h18m34s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DszoVta0hY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ-ynwMZQY0
Oh and there's this guy who really doesn't like Unity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZKj3nAWVkc
27 matches
Mail list logo
