On Sunday, April 10, 2011 15:07:27 Dennis Beekman wrote: > On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: > >> I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be > >> considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction > >> when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3& KDE 4. > >> > >> Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off > >> good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far > >> as i can tell from whats in testing. > >> > >> 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by > >> gnome 3. > >> 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. > > > > It's not. > > > >> 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one > >> menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose > >> wich icons or options we want ? > >> 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're > >> video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with > >> "fallback mode" wich is even more stupid and backward ? > >> 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my > >> taskbar anymore.... > >> [flaming] > >> I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... > >> it seems i was wrong. > >> Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 > >> wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... > >> > >> Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're > >> netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it > >> better then Gnome 3 in all respects. > >> > >> [/flaming] > >> > >> Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version > >> of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide > >> to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... > > > > You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with > > GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package > > vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless. > > Well it might be my imagination but it seems Desktop Enviroments on > linux are more bloated and buggy now then Windows is. > > We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary > reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to > another OS. > It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and > they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead. > > Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a > while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this.... i > tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve > if not drop any further then that. > > But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we > not keeps the latest "old" version from before the release in the nomal > repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ? GNOME 2's probably not even going to LAST that long. Once some libraries staart getting new releases and feature changes to them, GNOME 2's going to find itself simply *not* working due to a library not being what it needs. And, as you said, it's not Arch's fault, so stop wasting inbox space with useless flamebait, please.
