Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:50:00AM +0300, Serge wrote: > PS: I wish Debian had a similar stats page. > It's now possible with http.debian.org. popcon reports its version number when it sends in statistics, from which it's easy to derive the distribution in use. There's some stats about that on the popcon website, http://popcon.debian.org/ -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- 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/20121009093954.ga10...@grep.be
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
2012/9/18 Jon Dowland wrote: >> There's no need to walk through the minefield, it's already done. >> Fedora lost more than half of the user base with the Fedora 15 >> release (GNOME3 and systemd). > > [citation-needed] Good point. Initially it was a personal feeling. Many fedora users I know have switched to CentOS/ScientificLinux/Ubuntu/Mint/etc after Fedora15 release. A few others just use old Fedora14 manually updating it when needed. Among those still using Fedora15+ most GNOME users switched to XFCE/LXDE. But those "users I know" are still not too much to talk about all users. So I did some research. Fedora provides a nice stats page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics The best part of it is IP stats per release. After some manual digging through the history of that page I was able to build a chart (attached) comparing some sort of popularity among releases. I understand that it's not perfect. But I don't know any better. For a good chart I need raw stats data which Fedora doesn't provide (yet?) Fedora lost about 40% in popularity comparing just F14 and F15. But acceptance of F15 release was ~3 times worse than F14. ~80% of users stayed on F14, after F15 release. On the other hand only ~30% were loyal to F15. The other 70% dropped F15 as soon as F16 was out. Now, 2 years after release, F14 is still on top by the number of IPs, after F8. Looks like the case of F8 vs F9 is going to repeat again (F9 was a KDE4+upstart release, F15 was GNOME3+systemd). PS: I wish Debian had a similar stats page. It's now possible with http.debian.org. -- Serge <>
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Le mardi 18 septembre 2012 à 21:08 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > I don't consider MATE to be future-proof. > > And that's your good right, but that really doesn't mean anything. It means that MATE developers do not have the knowledge to maintain several of the components they ship. The very fact that they forked GConf (MateConf) while GConf 3.x is still binary-compatible should be enough to understand that. > Fact is, gnome2 is now abandoned by the gnome developers, and there are > many people who consider that a bad idea. These people have decided to > continue the development of gnome2. AIUI, one of their stated goals is > to port gnome2 (the interface) onto gnome3 (the APIs), so that the two > can live side-by-side. This should not bring harm to gnome3 -- on the > contrary. This is completely silly. “Porting GNOME 2 to GNOME 3 APIs” has already been done, and it is called gnome-panel 3. > Now, if you don't like that, nobody's forcing you to use mate. Indeed. But we have a code duplication policy, and I hope we enforce it before shipping such software (especially sed-generated libraries). -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1348049750.3542.386.camel@pi0307572
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:08:23PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I'm so tired of these gnome2 vs gnome3 discussions... Stop proliferating them then! They are orthogonal to the point of this thread, and you will never shout down all the people who disagree with your point of view. -- 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/20120919075442.GB2663@debian
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Hi! 2012/9/18 Wouter Verhelst : > [...] > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:21:06PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> GNOME is seeking people to develop the GNOME-Panel - if MATE >> developers want a classical desktop environment based on modern >> technologies, they should develop the GNOME-Panel instead of forking >> unmaintained and outdated technology like Bonobo or GConf. > > I'm so tired of these gnome2 vs gnome3 discussions... Me too... > One of the primary freedoms in free software is the freedom to fork. If > you want to tell people they shouldn't fork, you have no business being > a free software developer. That's not true. Identifying why people fork software and suggesting alternatives to a fork is totally valid. Most forks are bad for projects and are unnecessary. > If the gnome people would prefer that there was no fork of gnome2, then > they should not have thrown it out. But they did, so it's their own > fault. There have been reasons for abandoning the old GNOME2 software. There are still valid reasons for not using GNOME-Shell, and I understand people disliking it. But this does not mean that you have to fork *all of GNOME2*. Instead, doing a fork of some core applications and the GNOME panel would have been enough. And people working on GNOME3-Panel are very welcome. > Also, "forking unmaintained software" is a contradiction. If you're > forking it, then by definition you'll be maintaining it. > >> I don't consider MATE to be future-proof. > And that's your good right, but that really doesn't mean anything. Yes, but I know that. I'm not here to make any decision, I want to add some information and my opinion, that's the whole point of discussions. > Fact is, gnome2 is now abandoned by the gnome developers, and there are > many people who consider that a bad idea. These people have decided to > continue the development of gnome2. AIUI, one of their stated goals is > to port gnome2 (the interface) onto gnome3 (the APIs), so that the two > can live side-by-side. This should not bring harm to gnome3 -- on the > contrary. Agreed. I still don't think forking all of GNOME2 was a good idea - now they would have to do a GTK+3 migration, a DConf migration a DBus-migration etc. again on their own. Last time I talked to some people who were Mate developers (they claimed to be it), they didn't even know about this issue... > Now, if you don't like that, nobody's forcing you to use mate. If you > think they're silly and backwards in continuing to develop what some > other people have decided is outdated, you're free to ignore them. But > please do not attempt to tell people what they should spend their own > free time on. You won't be successful. I'm not telling anyone what to do :P I added my opinion, which really is only my opinion does not mean anything for someone else. The thing I don't like is that Mate might slow down the adoption of new GNOME base libraries, which is really bad. Deprecating the old stuff is very important for me, and with Mate tools still using the old libraries, this goal can't be achieved that easily. Of course many other desktops also use "old" technology, but they all have plans to switch to the new libs (and are discussing it). I definitely need to talk to the Mate people again to see what their plans are, but the "let's fork everything!" approach is definitely not good... - a "let's fork the GNOME-Panel and Nautilus and make them better" solution without the old libs would be better and a pretty great solution. At time I see Mate in the same line with the Trinity desktop (fork of KDE3). As always, just my opinion, I'm telling nobody what to do :-) (why should I try to do that, btw.?) Regards, Matthias -- 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/caknhny9g6vgxwgw1yno5fz+vc8cos246rl0oae+spggcpba...@mail.gmail.com
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
*sigh* On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:21:06PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > GNOME is seeking people to develop the GNOME-Panel - if MATE > developers want a classical desktop environment based on modern > technologies, they should develop the GNOME-Panel instead of forking > unmaintained and outdated technology like Bonobo or GConf. I'm so tired of these gnome2 vs gnome3 discussions... One of the primary freedoms in free software is the freedom to fork. If you want to tell people they shouldn't fork, you have no business being a free software developer. If the gnome people would prefer that there was no fork of gnome2, then they should not have thrown it out. But they did, so it's their own fault. Also, "forking unmaintained software" is a contradiction. If you're forking it, then by definition you'll be maintaining it. > I don't consider MATE to be future-proof. And that's your good right, but that really doesn't mean anything. > If you don't like the GNOME-Shell, using GNOME3-Panel or Xfce instead > is a much better choice. Unfortunately, you're not in a position to decide anything about anyone's preference, except where it concerns your own. Fact is, gnome2 is now abandoned by the gnome developers, and there are many people who consider that a bad idea. These people have decided to continue the development of gnome2. AIUI, one of their stated goals is to port gnome2 (the interface) onto gnome3 (the APIs), so that the two can live side-by-side. This should not bring harm to gnome3 -- on the contrary. Now, if you don't like that, nobody's forcing you to use mate. If you think they're silly and backwards in continuing to develop what some other people have decided is outdated, you're free to ignore them. But please do not attempt to tell people what they should spend their own free time on. You won't be successful. Thanks. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- 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/20120918190823.gx29...@grep.be
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
GNOME is seeking people to develop the GNOME-Panel - if MATE developers want a classical desktop environment based on modern technologies, they should develop the GNOME-Panel instead of forking unmaintained and outdated technology like Bonobo or GConf. I don't consider MATE to be future-proof. If you don't like the GNOME-Shell, using GNOME3-Panel or Xfce instead is a much better choice. I'm working with some Fedora developers, and the MATE packaging is just done by interested developers, and it's not clear at time if it will be present in the next Fedora (depends on various factors, being in the time-shedule being the most important one) Regarding systemd, Fedora gained lots of support for this move, there have been a few problems at first, but nothing serious. I can' offer any number here, but all people I talked to love systemd or don't have an opinion. (because they don't care) - but that's a different topic. Cheers, Matthias 2012/9/18 Jon Dowland : > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:45:36PM +0300, Serge wrote: >> There's no need to walk through the minefield, it's already done. >> Fedora lost more than half of the user base with the Fedora 15 >> release (GNOME3 and systemd). > > [citation-needed] > >> They now bring GNOME2 back. [1] :) >> >> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MATE-Desktop > > MATE is not GNOME2, it's a fork of GNOME2, and there's no indication > that they are planning to offer it as default, which is what we're discussing > here. > > > -- > 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/20120918130657.GA16659@debian > -- 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/CAKNHny8O8r1VbXUS=sziofz68ECTSLSYdNSYzj7Y7h3nLnE=o...@mail.gmail.com
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:45:36PM +0300, Serge wrote: > There's no need to walk through the minefield, it's already done. > Fedora lost more than half of the user base with the Fedora 15 > release (GNOME3 and systemd). [citation-needed] > They now bring GNOME2 back. [1] :) > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MATE-Desktop MATE is not GNOME2, it's a fork of GNOME2, and there's no indication that they are planning to offer it as default, which is what we're discussing here. -- 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/20120918130657.GA16659@debian
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, 19:45:36 EST, Serge wrote: > 2012/9/11 Jon Dowland wrote: > > > I feel that the decision to change from GNOME to something else, on the > > basis of complaints about GNOME 3, should only be considered after > > we've actually released with at least one version of GNOME 3. > > There's no need to walk through the minefield, it's already done. > Fedora lost more than half of the user base with the Fedora 15 That really needs a citation. .. > release (GNOME3 and systemd). They now bring GNOME2 back. [1] :) > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MATE-Desktop I am not familiar with fedoras package addition - is there something about it which means its a project decisision rather then interested developers? Thanks, kk -- 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/1347973062.2485.3.camel@Nokia-N900-02-8
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
2012/9/11 Jon Dowland wrote: > I feel that the decision to change from GNOME to something else, on the > basis of complaints about GNOME 3, should only be considered after we've > actually released with at least one version of GNOME 3. There's no need to walk through the minefield, it's already done. Fedora lost more than half of the user base with the Fedora 15 release (GNOME3 and systemd). They now bring GNOME2 back. [1] :) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MATE-Desktop -- Serge -- 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/caovenervo606dy5kpqw+76g_9jaebhzmkxoklpfcv1fbqdq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Well, I know there *is* a Git commit to set it to xfce instead of gnome, but I don't know how authoritative or influential it will end up being. I also like the idea of compressing/trimming GNOME. Thanks for the feedback. http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tasksel/tasksel.git;a=commit;h=2a962cc65cdba010177f27e8824ba10d9a799a08 On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Ztatik Light wrote: > > > But, even *more* reason to not entirely push GNOME > > aside for Xfce. ;) > > That hasn't happened at all, the tech media you have been reading and > believing neglected to check their facts: > > pabs@chianamo ~/tasksel-3.13 $ grep -A3 tasksel/desktop debian/templates > Template: tasksel/desktop > Type: multiselect > Choices: gnome, kde, xfce, lxde > Default: gnome > > Indeed, the release team have been pursuing compressing GNOME better > so it will fit. > > -- > bye, > pabs > > http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise >
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:33:26PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 9 September 2012 23:21, Ztatik Light wrote: > > According to popcon, Xfce is more common on Debian than GNOME... And > > How do you figure that? > > http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=meta-gnome3 > http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=xfce4 > > Just looking at popcon, GNOME is installed several more times as much > as XFCE. Even gnome-shell has more installs than xfce4-panel despite > GNOME Shell having not been included in a stable Debian release yet. And exim has so much more installs than postfix, so it must be tremendously better than the latter, right? You're comparing a default option with a non-default one, in such a case even 5-10% for the contender sends a strong message. Remember, most users (by count, ie what popcon measures) don't really know any better than "enter, enter, enter" -- or rather, "click next, next, next". And it's not just new users: it's everyone who has no special reason to choose another alternative over the default. Years ago, I went with exim as that was the default, and for a smallish mail server (~11 users) I feel no urge to learn postfix or something -- as I understand, both have their own strengths and problems, yet are roughly equivalent overall. Popcon can be used to measure relative popularity of xfce vs kde vs windowmaker vs lxde vs ..., but it can hardly tell you anything about gnome. -- Copyright and patents were never about promoting culture and innovations; from the very start they were legalized bribes to give the king some income and to let businesses get rid of competition. For some history, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 11:03 -0400, Lennart Sorensen a écrit : > If I can't find how to maximize a window, how to logout, or much of > anything else in the first 5 minutes of use, then it isn't usable. > > Of course this is probably getting off topic for debian-boot and almost > debian-devel. Yes, FUD is off-topic for these lists. Unfortunately, this particular FUD is pretty widespread. So unless you are able to quote at least ONE serious feature that GNOME 3 in “classic” mode is missing from the GNOME 2 panel, I suggest you shut the fuck up and stop spreading FUD. Thanks, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1347376072.25952.337.camel@pi0307572
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:47:34PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > It is the same codebase, and has the same functionality. It is the same source code tree, with a bunch of code completely changed, and it certainly does not have the same functionality (although it may be slowly gaining some of what was missing in 3.0 back). > Please give one serious example. The two features that I know to be gone > in the panel are the ability to change the color easily (ha, ha) and > absolute positioning for applets (which was useless and buggy anyway). > > Unless you talk about gnome-shell which is an entirely different piece > of software. Quite honestly, as a user, I don't care what gnome names each piece of the UI. I consider it all gnome. If I can't find how to maximize a window, how to logout, or much of anything else in the first 5 minutes of use, then it isn't usable. Of course this is probably getting off topic for debian-boot and almost debian-devel. -- Len Sorensen -- 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/20120911150302.gd22...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Jon Dowland writes ("Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to
install a full desktop environment"):
> There is not a single Debian release with the version that is being
> complained about. Therefore the audience of stable have not yet
> tried it, and you're drawing conclusions from the anecdotes of a
> sample of users who may not be representative of our (stable) users.
Firstly, my social circle is not confined to Debian users. Secondly,
although I'm not one of them, I know that many people who like to run
Debian on their desktop prefer to use testing because they feel it is
more up to date. I don't know what proportion of the overall Debian
userbase that represents, but neither do you.
> I feel that the decision to change from GNOME to something else, on the
> basis of complaints about GNOME 3, should only be considered after we've
> actually released with at least one version of GNOME 3.
I don't agree at all. If xfce is more like GNOME 2 than GNOME 3 is
like GNOME 2 then you might as well argue the contrary.
Ian.
--
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/20559.21041.910629.654...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 10:34 -0400, Lennart Sorensen a écrit : > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:23:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > You can’t be serious. Xfce is way more different from GNOME 2 than GNOME > > 3 classic is. > > Well if gnome 3 classic was the default, then fine. But gnome 3 with > the new panel as default is really not acceptable and just plain mean > to users. Yeah sure, it is mean to ask whining users to just select “GNOME classic” in the login manager. It is an extremely complicated task, so complicated even that it would have to be made default to avoid 2 clicks at the first boot to those poor whiners (and add 2 more clicks for other users, but who cares). > > If those users are satisfied with Xfce, that’s very good for them, and I > > agree Xfce is of very good quality. However, it still lacks a number of > > features and for many use cases, you need pieces of GNOME with it. > > Well it certainly doesn't lack the basic features I use that gnome 3 > with the new panel is missing. Again, I’m eager to learn what features you deem “missing” from gnome-panel 3.4. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1347375022.25952.335.camel@pi0307572
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 10:32 -0400, Lennart Sorensen a écrit : > Well as a user, gnome-panel 3.x is NOT a continuation of gnome. It is the same codebase, and has the same functionality. > When gnome 3 hit unstable, I switched to something else. I couldn't > find anything, or make it do any of the basic things I expect my window > manager to do, so it is gone. Useless piece of shit. Please give one serious example. The two features that I know to be gone in the panel are the ability to change the color easily (ha, ha) and absolute positioning for applets (which was useless and buggy anyway). Unless you talk about gnome-shell which is an entirely different piece of software. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1347374854.25952.332.camel@pi0307572
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:23:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > You can’t be serious. Xfce is way more different from GNOME 2 than GNOME > 3 classic is. Well if gnome 3 classic was the default, then fine. But gnome 3 with the new panel as default is really not acceptable and just plain mean to users. > If those users are satisfied with Xfce, that’s very good for them, and I > agree Xfce is of very good quality. However, it still lacks a number of > features and for many use cases, you need pieces of GNOME with it. Well it certainly doesn't lack the basic features I use that gnome 3 with the new panel is missing. > I would not qualify most of the whiners as “fellow contributors”. Perhaps not, but I think a pretty large chunk would qualify. -- Len Sorensen -- 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/20120911143434.gc22...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:52:44PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Just because these people are noisy doesn’t make them numerous. > > Furthermore, Debian (and Ubuntu too IIRC) makes “GNOME classic” > available right from the login manager, with the default installation. > Not considering gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing > environment is purely bad faith. Well as a user, gnome-panel 3.x is NOT a continuation of gnome. When gnome 3 hit unstable, I switched to something else. I couldn't find anything, or make it do any of the basic things I expect my window manager to do, so it is gone. Useless piece of shit. -- Len Sorensen -- 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/20120911143225.gb22...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On 11 September 2012 08:06, Ian Jackson wrote: > Based on this, I think there is at the very least no reason to > reverse the decision to switch the Debian default to xfce. Except as Paul said, the decision to make XFCE default for Wheezy has not been made so it can't be reversed. Jeremy Bicha -- 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/caaajcmyy3xrukcng3to015kmqpxgxzw7wp8yw+rvjj906om...@mail.gmail.com
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 13:06 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > I have encountered numerous people who have been complained (not in > particular to me, just i general) about changes to GNOME. Not being a > GNOME user myself I don't really appreciate these complaints. > However, I have observed that these complainants have generally been > told by their peers to switch to xfce and been broadly satisfied with > the results. > > I haven't seen anyone in my social circles praise these changes as > good for them. > > Based on this, I think there is at the very least no reason to > reverse the decision to switch the Debian default to xfce. You can’t be serious. Xfce is way more different from GNOME 2 than GNOME 3 classic is. If those users are satisfied with Xfce, that’s very good for them, and I agree Xfce is of very good quality. However, it still lacks a number of features and for many use cases, you need pieces of GNOME with it. > Please do not accuse fellow contributors of bad faith. I would not qualify most of the whiners as “fellow contributors”. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1347369789.25952.319.camel@pi0307572
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > I have encountered numerous people who have been complained (not in > particular to me, just i general) about changes to GNOME. Not being a > GNOME user myself I don't really appreciate these complaints. > However, I have observed that these complainants have generally been > told by their peers to switch to xfce and been broadly satisfied with > the results. > > I haven't seen anyone in my social circles praise these changes as > good for them. > > Based on this, I think there is at the very least no reason to > reverse the decision to switch the Debian default to xfce. There is not a single Debian release with the version that is being complained about. Therefore the audience of stable have not yet tried it, and you're drawing conclusions from the anecdotes of a sample of users who may not be representative of our (stable) users. I feel that the decision to change from GNOME to something else, on the basis of complaints about GNOME 3, should only be considered after we've actually released with at least one version of GNOME 3. -- 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/20120911131116.GA31130@debian
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to
install a full desktop environment"):
> Le lundi 10 septembre 2012 à 20:08 +0200, Karsten Merker a écrit :
> > I am not going to repeat all the discussions about GNOME 3, but
> > at least from the impressions I have gotten around here, many
> > previous GNOME 2 users seem not to consider GNOME 3 / GNOME shell
> > a continuation of their existing environment, but instead see it
> > as a radical break, effectively as a different desktop
> > environment, and a lot of them seem to have adopted XFCE as the
> > "heir" of GNOME 2.
>
> Just because these people are noisy doesn’t make them numerous.
I have encountered numerous people who have been complained (not in
particular to me, just i general) about changes to GNOME. Not being a
GNOME user myself I don't really appreciate these complaints.
However, I have observed that these complainants have generally been
told by their peers to switch to xfce and been broadly satisfied with
the results.
I haven't seen anyone in my social circles praise these changes as
good for them.
Based on this, I think there is at the very least no reason to
reverse the decision to switch the Debian default to xfce.
> Furthermore, Debian (and Ubuntu too IIRC) makes “GNOME classic”
> available right from the login manager, with the default installation.
> Not considering gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing
> environment is purely bad faith.
Please do not accuse fellow contributors of bad faith.
Ian.
--
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/20559.10558.139040.633...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Le lundi 10 septembre 2012 à 20:08 +0200, Karsten Merker a écrit : > I am not going to repeat all the discussions about GNOME 3, but > at least from the impressions I have gotten around here, many > previous GNOME 2 users seem not to consider GNOME 3 / GNOME shell > a continuation of their existing environment, but instead see it > as a radical break, effectively as a different desktop > environment, and a lot of them seem to have adopted XFCE as the > "heir" of GNOME 2. Just because these people are noisy doesn’t make them numerous. Furthermore, Debian (and Ubuntu too IIRC) makes “GNOME classic” available right from the login manager, with the default installation. Not considering gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing environment is purely bad faith. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1347364364.25952.311.camel@pi0307572
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Ztatik Light wrote: > But, even *more* reason to not entirely push GNOME > aside for Xfce. ;) That hasn't happened at all, the tech media you have been reading and believing neglected to check their facts: pabs@chianamo ~/tasksel-3.13 $ grep -A3 tasksel/desktop debian/templates Template: tasksel/desktop Type: multiselect Choices: gnome, kde, xfce, lxde Default: gnome Indeed, the release team have been pursuing compressing GNOME better so it will fit. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/CAKTje6E_rZUQZ_u8sO4=+u-41QDvRJL=zr+dfxxikduat_v...@mail.gmail.com
A modest proposal [Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment]
On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Karsten Merker wrote: I do not think that making the default desktop environment dependent on the type of the installation medium would be a good idea; that would cause much confusion IMHO. This was discussed years ago, but (with some trepidation) I'd like to bring it up again... Why can't the user be allowed to choose the desktop environment she prefers (if any) at "tasksel" time? If there is not any "preferred" DE, there's no need to clutter up CD-1 with packages that apply to only a single DE -- CD-1 would only need to provide a basic environment and could be kept small; maybe almost as small as the netinst CD. If it makes sense to provide a separate CD for Gnome, KDE, xfce/ lxde... then let that be CD-2a (Gnome), CD-2b (KDE), CD-2c (xfce/ lxde)... but without the basic install stuff (it's already on CD-1), leaving more space for the DEs to grow into... Just a thought... Rick -- 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/97d3e332-ff53-4e7d-98f4-5b6ab60d2...@pobox.com
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Oops, yeah -- I guess I was mistaken. I was using `gnome-common' as the basis, but I guess that's even less appropriate than something, like, say ... `gnome-panel' ... But, even *more* reason to not entirely push GNOME aside for Xfce. ;) On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 9 September 2012 23:21, Ztatik Light wrote: > > According to popcon, Xfce is more common on Debian than GNOME... And > > How do you figure that? > > http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=meta-gnome3 > http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=xfce4 > > Just looking at popcon, GNOME is installed several more times as much > as XFCE. Even gnome-shell has more installs than xfce4-panel despite > GNOME Shell having not been included in a stable Debian release yet. > > Jeremy >
Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
On 9 September 2012 23:21, Ztatik Light wrote: > According to popcon, Xfce is more common on Debian than GNOME... And How do you figure that? http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=meta-gnome3 http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=xfce4 Just looking at popcon, GNOME is installed several more times as much as XFCE. Even gnome-shell has more installs than xfce4-panel despite GNOME Shell having not been included in a stable Debian release yet. Jeremy -- 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/caaajcmy6nngvdj9j_9mtozgtad18f2zvp6cenvl2oaebzgv...@mail.gmail.com
RE: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Just a quick suggestion. As a compromise, instead of enabling Xfce as the "universal default" in tasksel *entirely* ... How about only enabling Xfce as default for the CD* distribution, and leaving the default as GNOME for all non-CD distributions? (DVD, netinst, ...) That will express true "bipartisanism" ... instead of explicitly being biased towards one direction or another simply at the whim of (a) certain decision maker(s), especially over a technicality. Yes, you can argue this might incur a "split" between install bases and, thus, possibly be less "easy" to support ... But both GNOME and Xfce are officially integrated into Debian, and so should both be considered equally ... GNOME has a longer-standing status, specifically with Debian, and other GNU/Linux distributions at large. It's also an officially-supported GNU project, as well as being more "authoritative", in the sense that it's the base of GTK+ which is utilized by Xfce. According to popcon, Xfce is more common on Debian than GNOME... And considering the recent controversy surrounding v3, many have opted for alternatives such as Xfce, MATE, Cinnamon, Unity, or etc... I, personally, feel as if GNOME is sort of going the "KDE path" as far as becoming somewhat bloated. Xfce's lightweight-focused approach can be appreciable, but modern high-level functionality shouldn't necessarily be compromised by lack-of/restricted resources. Simply the fact that it's an OPTION is terrific. But, from the premise of this entire letter, shouldn't exactly be *forced*. Thus, I reiterate that it might be a good idea to maybe consider the possibility of thinking about the potential for ... Xfce being set to default tasksel in CD* distributions, while GNOME remaining default in others. At *least* as a compromise during a ``transitional'' period, whereupon the eventuality of settling on a single/unified default may come into play yet once again. :D
