FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:01 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Gnome 3

On 2 December 2011 14:32, Jeffrey Gray <chevy4x4burb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I am not using 2D or 3D Unity. *My beef with Unity was the
> stupid bar on the left that would not move.

The Launcher is on the left for an assortment of good reasons.

[1] The design goal of Unity was to efficiently use widescreens. On
widescreens, there is much less vertical space available relative to
horizontal space. Horizontal pixels are "cheap", vertical ones are
valuable. GNOME 2 panels did not work when rearranged vertically -
believe me, I spent a lot of time and effort trying. This means it
could not go on the bottom of the screen like Mac OS X's Dock does by
default. That "real estate" is too precious.

[2] This means it has to go along one vertical edge. Which one, left or right?

Well, by default, it autohides. When you move to the right of the
screen, it appears and may overlay your window. *But* scrollbars are
on the right, so put the Launcher on the right and whenever you go for
a scrollbar, the Launcher will cover it.

I have tried this arrangement on Mac OS X, trying to make it look more
like NeXTstep, the OS that Mac OS X is based on. (I preferred the
NeXTStep look, myself.) It worked on NeXTStep because NeXTStep
scrollbars were on the *left*. Mac OS X and Ubuntu ones are on the
right, mainly because MS Windows ones are on the right and everyone's
used to it now. Thus putting the Launcher on the right does not work.

[3] So, it has to go on the left.

This means special importance was attached to the top left corner -
it's where (on 11.04) you went to open the Dash. The Launcher and the
Dash are integral partners so they anchored the Launcher where the
Dash button would be - on the left.

It *is* the best place for it, for good solid reasons, and so, I
presume, to encourage people to get used to it, they fixed it there
and stopped you moving it.

Note that the GNOME 3 "dash" bar is on the left as well, and if you
can move that, I've not yet found a way.


> What I did was install the xubuntu-desktop package so it is kinda like
> Xubuntu. *I am contimplating wiping and reloading this weekend with
> the actual xubuntu distro iso.

That's fine. I am happy to hear that you like it.

But the things that you are complaining about are the way they are for
good solid reasons, so there is no point in complaining about them.

--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:09 PM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default Gnome 3

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Jeffrey Gray <chevy4x4burb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will say that I held on for dear life to Gnome 2. *I updated my
> netbook to Ubuntu 11.10 at which point I found the classic gnome to be
> of no more. *Gnome 3 chocked it. *1.6ghz atom with 2GB of DDR3 were no
> match for it. *Anyway, I replaced my wifes windows with Ubuntu 11.10
> and started playing with the Gnome. *Then my work laptop updated
> pachages and hosed so I had to let it upgrade to 11.10 and am using
> Gnome 3. *I HATE that damn bar in Unity.
>
> I am looking at the new netbooks coming out with "Duo" CPUs from
> Intel. *I have not read on them but assume that they are probably like
> a dual core atom. *Anyone have any experience with running Gnome 3 on
> one of these animals?


Regarding Ubuntu 11.10, if Unity is too slow for you, you can use the
already installed Unity 2D, which is light. You may select it at the
login screen, by clicking the icon on the right of your name.



--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:11 PM
Jeffrey Gray
 
Default Gnome 3

Very interesting. I knew that Mac OS X was derived from BSD but did
not know that it was components of FreeBSD AND NetBSD that fed to an
interim OS that OS X was derived from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 December 2011 14:32, Jeffrey Gray <chevy4x4burb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, I am not using 2D or 3D Unity. *My beef with Unity was the
>> stupid bar on the left that would not move.
>
> The Launcher is on the left for an assortment of good reasons.
>
> [1] The design goal of Unity was to efficiently use widescreens. On
> widescreens, there is much less vertical space available relative to
> horizontal space. Horizontal pixels are "cheap", vertical ones are
> valuable. GNOME 2 panels did not work when rearranged vertically -
> believe me, I spent a lot of time and effort trying. This means it
> could not go on the bottom of the screen like Mac OS X's Dock does by
> default. That "real estate" is too precious.
>
> [2] This means it has to go along one vertical edge. Which one, left or right?
>
> Well, by default, it autohides. When you move to the right of the
> screen, it appears and may overlay your window. *But* scrollbars are
> on the right, so put the Launcher on the right and whenever you go for
> a scrollbar, the Launcher will cover it.
>
> I have tried this arrangement on Mac OS X, trying to make it look more
> like NeXTstep, the OS that Mac OS X is based on. (I preferred the
> NeXTStep look, myself.) It worked on NeXTStep because NeXTStep
> scrollbars were on the *left*. Mac OS X and Ubuntu ones are on the
> right, mainly because MS Windows ones are on the right and everyone's
> used to it now. Thus putting the Launcher on the right does not work.
>
> [3] So, it has to go on the left.
>
> This means special importance was attached to the top left corner -
> it's where (on 11.04) you went to open the Dash. The Launcher and the
> Dash are integral partners so they anchored the Launcher where the
> Dash button would be - on the left.
>
> It *is* the best place for it, for good solid reasons, and so, I
> presume, to encourage people to get used to it, they fixed it there
> and stopped you moving it.
>
> Note that the GNOME 3 "dash" bar is on the left as well, and if you
> can move that, I've not yet found a way.
>
>
>> What I did was install the xubuntu-desktop package so it is kinda like
>> Xubuntu. *I am contimplating wiping and reloading this weekend with
>> the actual xubuntu distro iso.
>
> That's fine. I am happy to hear that you like it.
>
> But the things that you are complaining about are the way they are for
> good solid reasons, so there is no point in complaining about them.
>
> --
> Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
> Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven@gmail.com
> Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
> AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:13 PM
Jeffrey Gray
 
Default Gnome 3

Again, it was not the load of running Unity that turned me off. It
was the look. It was the load of Gnome 3 on an Atom 1.6ghz CPU wuth
2GB of DDR3 that was a slowness issue.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Ioannis Vranos <ioannis.vranos@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Jeffrey Gray <chevy4x4burb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I will say that I held on for dear life to Gnome 2. *I updated my
>> netbook to Ubuntu 11.10 at which point I found the classic gnome to be
>> of no more. *Gnome 3 chocked it. *1.6ghz atom with 2GB of DDR3 were no
>> match for it. *Anyway, I replaced my wifes windows with Ubuntu 11.10
>> and started playing with the Gnome. *Then my work laptop updated
>> pachages and hosed so I had to let it upgrade to 11.10 and am using
>> Gnome 3. *I HATE that damn bar in Unity.
>>
>> I am looking at the new netbooks coming out with "Duo" CPUs from
>> Intel. *I have not read on them but assume that they are probably like
>> a dual core atom. *Anyone have any experience with running Gnome 3 on
>> one of these animals?
>
>
> Regarding Ubuntu 11.10, if Unity is too slow for you, you can use the
> already installed Unity 2D, which is light. You may select it at the
> login screen, by clicking the icon on the right of your name.
>
>
>
> --
> Ioannis Vranos
>
> http://www.cpp-software.net
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:16 PM
"W. Scott Lockwood III"
 
Default Gnome 3

Wow, you know it's bad when Liam and I are in 100% agreement on something:

> -----Original Message-----
> Ioannis, you are giving some confusing and incorrect information in your
> posts about the new GUIs and I would respectfully suggest that you need to
> do some more background reading and research.
...
> Please stop spreading this disinformation.

QFT

Far more importantly (imnsho), get your basic information straight, not just
history. CentOS is NOT a hobby distro. It's RHEL minus Red $hat's IP and
icons. I'm honestly not sure if you're just a troll or not...

--
W. Scott Lockwood III




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:30 PM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default Gnome 3

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ioannis, you are giving some confusing and incorrect information in
> your posts about the new GUIs and I would respectfully suggest that
> you need to do some more background reading and research.
>
> Unity is *not* touch-centric.
>
> Unity is inspired by the Mac OS X desktop, with its Dock, its single
> central Applications folder and its single global menu bar across the
> top of the screen.
>
> Note that Apple *does not sell* any touchscreen devices running Mac OS
> X. Mac OS X is a /desktop/ and /laptop/ interface and has been since
> its appearance 11y ago.
>
> The touchscreen devices, the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch run a totally
> different interface on top of a totally different OS: iOS, which is
> based on the same Unix kernel as Mac OS X but is not the same OS.
>
> Please stop spreading this disinformation.


http://unity.ubuntu.com/projects/unity :

"Unity provides a complete, simple, ==> touch-ready environment that
integrates your applications and your workflow".


http://unity.ubuntu.com/about:

"Founded in 2010, the Unity project started by Mark Shuttleworth and
Canonical has gone on to deliver a consistent user experience for
desktop and netbook users alike. Putting great design at the heart of
the project, Unity and its technologies such as Application
indicators, System indicators, and Notify OSD, have strived to solve
common problems in the Free Software desktop while optimizing the
experience for ==> touch, consistency and collaboration".


>
> Yes, Unity is designed to be a stepping-stone /towards/ an interface
> that will be suitable for touchscreens /as well as/ mouse/keyboard
> users but it is not there yet.
> Reference on this from the SABDFL: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/820


There it is mentioned:

"By 14.04 LTS Ubuntu will power ==> tablets, ==> phones, TVs and ==>
smart screens from the car to the office kitchen, and it will connect
those devices cleanly and seamlessly to the desktop, the server and
the cloud.

Unity, the desktop interface in today’s Ubuntu 11.10, was designed
with this specific vision in mind".


And later:

"We have also invested in the design and engineering of Unity,
motivated by the belief that desktop interfaces would merge with
mobile, ==> touch interfaces into a seamless personal computing
platform in the future".


> Read about Shuttleworth's design plans for Unity here:
> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/383


In the above article of 2010, it is mentioned:

"We also want to embrace touch as a first class input. We want people
to be able to launch and switch between applications using
==> touch, so the ==> launcher must be finger friendly".


> As for why Mint uses GNOME Shell and not "Fallback mode", this too is
> well-documented. Mint's creator says:
>
> «
> @Craig: Gnome 2 + GTK+ is not being developped anymore, so you won’t
> see it get any new features, but it’s amongst the most stable desktop
> environments out there. As such, it’s not going anywhere. GTK3 and
> Gnome 3 are more promising technologies of course, but they’re far
> from reaching the same level of maturity Gnome 2 has. “Gnome 3 without
> Gnome-Shell” is called “Gnome Fallback Mode” and it’s nothing to do
> with Gnome 2.
>
> Gnome 2 is a stable GTK+ desktop which no longer evolves in terms of features.
> Gnome Fallback Mode is basically an adaptation of gnome-panel, which
> looks like Gnome 2 but is based on GTK3 and is incompatible with
> Bonobo and panel applets.
>
> So the first thing to consider is this: Panel applets need a rewrite
> to work in Gnome Fallback Mode. MintMenu for instance works in Gnome
> 2, but it doesn’t work in Gnome Fallback or in Gnome Shell. We can
> make it work in Gnome Fallback and we can make it work in Gnome Shell,
> but we then need a rewrite.
> The second thing to consider is that Gnome Fallback isn’t here to
> stay. The Gnome devs don’t want it there and people who like Gnome 2
> don’t like it anyway. Eventually you’ll see Gnome Shell gain
> compatibility with less powerful graphics card and Shell will be the
> only way to run Gnome 3. It’s not a bad thing, since Gnome Fallback
> Mode, from a usability point of view, really isn’t an interesting
> desktop. So going forward, we’ve got Gnome3/GTK3 being actively
> developed and improved, we’ve got Gnome2/GTK still there for us to use
> but not gaining new features, and we’ve got something called Gnome
> Fallback Mode which is just that, a 2D fallback mode, and which is
> going to disappear.
> »
>
> Souce: Clem Lefevbre himself, here: http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1845



OK, it is their point of view, my point is since GNOME 3.2 Fallback
mode exists, they should use that, if they wanted a GNOME 2.x-style
applications menu.


> You are coming out with completely unsupported speculation about how
> and why Mint are doing what they are doing, as well as about Unity,
> when I am afraid you are *wrong*, the facts are different and they are
> right there for you to read and learn if you just make the small
> effort.

Thank you for your information, I think I supported what I said, in this email.


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:45 PM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default Gnome 3

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, W. Scott Lockwood III
<vladinator@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Far more importantly (imnsho), get your basic information straight, not just
> history. CentOS is NOT a hobby distro. It's RHEL minus Red $hat's IP and
> icons. I'm honestly not sure if you're just a troll or not...


CentOS is not created by some major company or organisation. They are
people recompiling Red Hat EL code, on their free time.


About Scientific Linux (SL):

At first about its name. It is called Scientific because it is
produced and used by CERN and Fermi, which are scientific
organisations, and NOT because SL is only for scientists.


About the reliability of SL and the speed of published updates.

Red Hat thoroughly tests its Red Hat EL releases, and the updates it provides.

CERN and Fermi, have a group of people who are paid (it is their job)
to thoroughly re-test the Red Hat EL code, and its updates, in the
form of SL. So, they test its reliability again, on their own. And
since SL is used in CERN and Fermi, they provide the SL releases and
its updates as soon as possible.

These do not occur in the case of CentOS. Yes, CentOS is probably the
most used Red Hat EL-derived distro, but I consider Scientific Linux
as the best one.


Have a look at both, and decide for yourself. :-)


Since Red Hat EL, CentOS, and SL are off topic here, if you want more
discussion on them, feel free to email me off the list.



Regards,

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 03:01 PM
Jeffrey Gray
 
Default Gnome 3

I'll have to take a look at SL. I have two verari 1u servers that are
running CentOS from a few years ago when I loaded them. All they do
is a software JBOD with 3 1.5TB HDDs for DVD storage. as well as the
4th 1.5TB HDD is partitioned out and shared as well for user's
personal shares. All of which shared via Samba and automatically
mapped on all workstation on the MS domains via net use script
specified in the AD logon. One of the two 1u's is also providing DHCP
but that was kind of an after thought.

I have been thinking of switching it over to Ubuntu Server Edition as
I have switched our mail, web, and public DNS servers over already.



On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ioannis Vranos <ioannis.vranos@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, W. Scott Lockwood III
> <vladinator@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Far more importantly (imnsho), get your basic information straight, not just
>> history. CentOS is NOT a hobby distro. It's RHEL minus Red $hat's IP and
>> icons. I'm honestly not sure if you're just a troll or not...
>
>
> CentOS is not created by some major company or organisation. They are
> people recompiling Red Hat EL code, on their free time.
>
>
> About Scientific Linux (SL):
>
> At first about its name. It is called Scientific because it is
> produced and used by CERN and Fermi, which are scientific
> organisations, and NOT because SL is only for scientists.
>
>
> About the reliability of SL and the speed of published updates.
>
> Red Hat thoroughly tests its Red Hat EL releases, and the updates it provides.
>
> CERN and Fermi, have a group of people who are paid (it is their job)
> to thoroughly re-test the Red Hat EL code, and its updates, in the
> form of SL. So, they test its reliability again, on their own. And
> since SL is used in CERN and Fermi, they provide the SL releases and
> its updates as soon as possible.
>
> These do not occur in the case of CentOS. Yes, CentOS is probably the
> most used Red Hat EL-derived distro, but I consider Scientific Linux
> as the best one.
>
>
> Have a look at both, and decide for yourself. :-)
>
>
> Since Red Hat EL, CentOS, and SL are off topic here, if you want more
> discussion on them, feel free to email me off the list.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Ioannis Vranos
>
> http://www.cpp-software.net
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 03:08 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Gnome 3

On 2 December 2011 15:30, Ioannis Vranos <ioannis.vranos@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ioannis, you are giving some confusing and incorrect information in
>> your posts about the new GUIs and I would respectfully suggest that
>> you need to do some more background reading and research.
>>
>> Unity is *not* touch-centric.
>>
>> Unity is inspired by the Mac OS X desktop, with its Dock, its single
>> central Applications folder and its single global menu bar across the
>> top of the screen.
>>
>> Note that Apple *does not sell* any touchscreen devices running Mac OS
>> X. Mac OS X is a /desktop/ and /laptop/ interface and has been since
>> its appearance 11y ago.
>>
>> The touchscreen devices, the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch run a totally
>> different interface on top of a totally different OS: iOS, which is
>> based on the same Unix kernel as Mac OS X but is not the same OS.
>>
>> Please stop spreading this disinformation.
>
>
> http://unity.ubuntu.com/projects/unity :
>
> "Unity provides a complete, simple, ==> touch-ready environment that
> integrates your applications and your workflow".
>
>
> http://unity.ubuntu.com/about:
>
> "Founded in 2010, the Unity project started by Mark Shuttleworth and
> Canonical has gone on to deliver a consistent user experience for
> desktop and netbook users alike. Putting great design at the heart of
> the project, Unity and its technologies such as Application
> indicators, System indicators, and Notify OSD, have strived to solve
> common problems in the Free Software desktop while optimizing the
> experience for ==> touch, consistency and collaboration".
>
>
>>
>> Yes, Unity is designed to be a stepping-stone /towards/ an interface
>> that will be suitable for touchscreens /as well as/ mouse/keyboard
>> users but it is not there yet.
>> Reference on this from the SABDFL: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/820
>
>
> There it is mentioned:
>
> "By 14.04 LTS Ubuntu will power ==> tablets, ==> phones, TVs and ==>
> smart screens from the car to the office kitchen, and it will connect
> those devices cleanly and seamlessly to the desktop, the server and
> the cloud.
>
> Unity, the desktop interface in today’s Ubuntu 11.10, was designed
> with this specific vision in mind".
>
>
> And later:
>
> "We have also invested in the design and engineering of Unity,
> motivated by the belief that desktop interfaces would merge with
> mobile, ==> touch interfaces into a seamless personal computing
> platform in the future".
>
>
>> Read about Shuttleworth's design plans for Unity here:
>> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/383
>
>
> In the above article of 2010, it is mentioned:
>
> "We also want to embrace touch as a first class input. We want people
> to be able to launch and switch between applications using
> ==> touch, so the ==> launcher must be finger friendly".
>
>
>> As for why Mint uses GNOME Shell and not "Fallback mode", this too is
>> well-documented. Mint's creator says:
>>
>> «
>> @Craig: Gnome 2 + GTK+ is not being developped anymore, so you won’t
>> see it get any new features, but it’s amongst the most stable desktop
>> environments out there. As such, it’s not going anywhere. GTK3 and
>> Gnome 3 are more promising technologies of course, but they’re far
>> from reaching the same level of maturity Gnome 2 has. “Gnome 3 without
>> Gnome-Shell” is called “Gnome Fallback Mode” and it’s nothing to do
>> with Gnome 2.
>>
>> Gnome 2 is a stable GTK+ desktop which no longer evolves in terms of features.
>> Gnome Fallback Mode is basically an adaptation of gnome-panel, which
>> looks like Gnome 2 but is based on GTK3 and is incompatible with
>> Bonobo and panel applets.
>>
>> So the first thing to consider is this: Panel applets need a rewrite
>> to work in Gnome Fallback Mode. MintMenu for instance works in Gnome
>> 2, but it doesn’t work in Gnome Fallback or in Gnome Shell. We can
>> make it work in Gnome Fallback and we can make it work in Gnome Shell,
>> but we then need a rewrite.
>> The second thing to consider is that Gnome Fallback isn’t here to
>> stay. The Gnome devs don’t want it there and people who like Gnome 2
>> don’t like it anyway. Eventually you’ll see Gnome Shell gain
>> compatibility with less powerful graphics card and Shell will be the
>> only way to run Gnome 3. It’s not a bad thing, since Gnome Fallback
>> Mode, from a usability point of view, really isn’t an interesting
>> desktop. So going forward, we’ve got Gnome3/GTK3 being actively
>> developed and improved, we’ve got Gnome2/GTK still there for us to use
>> but not gaining new features, and we’ve got something called Gnome
>> Fallback Mode which is just that, a 2D fallback mode, and which is
>> going to disappear.
>> »
>>
>> Souce: Clem Lefevbre himself, here: http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1845
>
>
>
> OK, it is their point of view, my point is since GNOME 3.2 Fallback
> mode exists, they should use that, if they wanted a GNOME 2.x-style
> applications menu.
>
>
>> You are coming out with completely unsupported speculation about how
>> and why Mint are doing what they are doing, as well as about Unity,
>> when I am afraid you are *wrong*, the facts are different and they are
>> right there for you to read and learn if you just make the small
>> effort.
>
> Thank you for your information, I think I supported what I said, in this email.

This is all stuff that is planned for the future. It does not
particularly refer to the current product, which is 100% suitable for
and very good as a desktop OS on a desktop computer, which is where I
am using it right now to type this message.

It is of course entirely fine if *you* don't like it. In that case,
don't use it.

But telling others "it is a touch interface and is no good for a
desktop" is *not helpful*. It is disinformation; spreading things that
are not true. Please stop it.

--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-02-2011, 03:22 PM
"W. Scott Lockwood III"
 
Default Gnome 3

> -----Original Message-----
> CentOS is not created by some major company or organisation. They are
> people recompiling Red Hat EL code, on their free time.

[W. Scott Lockwood III]
Wrong. CentOS is in fact "created" by Red $hat, and everyone else who
contributes code to various open source projects. It's just had their
branding and other IP removed.

>
> About Scientific Linux (SL):

[W. Scott Lockwood III]
I don't care. I didn't have anything to add about your mentioning of SL.

[W. Scott Lockwood III]
That's wrong. It's the exact same code that RHEL uses. The _exact_ _same_
_code_. As such, it's already been tested.

> Have a look at both, and decide for yourself. :-)

[W. Scott Lockwood III]
I have a better idea. Actually get a job working with it for years, like I
have, and then come back, because then you'll actually know something about
it.

> Since Red Hat EL, CentOS, and SL are off topic here, if you want more
> discussion on them, feel free to email me off the list.

[W. Scott Lockwood III]

Guess what? You don't get to tell me what to post about.

--
W. Scott Lockwood III





--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:38 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org