On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Brian Cameron <brian.came...@oracle.com>wrote:
> > Allan: > > > On 03/18/11 04:28 AM, Allan Day wrote: > >> The message, as Olav has already pointed out, is >> that it is 'fallback', not 'classic' GNOME. It's what you get if you are >> unlucky enough not to be able to run the full GNOME 3 desktop. It isn't >> intended as something that users choose to use. >> >> (There is a switch in the control center that lets you force the >> fallback mode, however.) >> > > I can imagine some situations where a user would want to choose > 'fallback' mode. For example, when accessing a remote machine via > XDMCP or Xvnc, users would likely find that 'fallback' GNOME performs > better - especially if latency is high. If my home directory is shared > between the remote and local machine, I might want to use GNOME 3 on my > local machine, but use "fallback" GNOME when I log into remote machines. > > I get your point that for the "average" or "typical" user, it probably > does not make sense to expose the fallback/classic mode. However, there > will likely always be particular configurations or setups where it makes > sense for people to use it. Unless GNOME is evolving to simply just not > support these sorts of use cases anymore. > > My employer does not have Linux desktops.. they instead provide VNC with fvwm2 or some other light weight window manager in order to work in their linux environment. Likely they might start moving to virtual machines as well. In fact, my work model is to use a virtual machines for Window on a Linux host but for most other people it'll likely be the other way around. I can't help but think that we are missing out on a large number of corporate users, amazon ec2 users, etc when we do not have a strategy to address remote computing; popular among business IT due to cost saving benefits. sri
-- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
