On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 10:27:05AM +0100, Frédéric Crozat wrote:
[snip]
> Seriously, this would add too much work for almost no real pro. And since
> we intent to remove GNOME 1.4 (core, not librairies) for next release, I
> want this to be done as early as possible..
Will there be any way to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:31:40 +0100, daz wrote :
> I know Frederic Crozat is on vacation/guadec next week, however, if any
> other cooker developers that work on gnome are floating around, please
> respond.
>
> I was wondering why there isnt a parrallel gnome1.4/gnome2 installation
> like there i
On 2002.03.28 Steve Fox wrote:
>
>I've been using GNOME 2 every since beta 2. Some of the applets don't
>work and such, but no big deal. The panel and Nautilus have been almost
>rock solid (and Nautilus is also *much* faster :).
>
I have noticed it works much much faster.
but now the million$ qu
On 28 Mar 2002, Steve Fox wrote:
> Intentional. It is meant to replace GNOME 1.x. There are many more KDE
I know its supposed to *eventually* replace gnome1.x. However, its going
to be awhile yet (see below). kde3 is supposed to replace kde2, also.
> people at MDK so they have the time to b
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 10:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I was wondering why there isnt a parrallel gnome1.4/gnome2 installation
> like there is for kde2/kde3? kde3 installes in /opt, gnome2 replaces
> crucial gnome1.4 files, like 'gnome-panel', 'gnome-session', etc. Whas
> this just overlook
I know Frederic Crozat is on vacation/guadec next week, however, if any
other cooker developers that work on gnome are floating around, please
respond.
I was wondering why there isnt a parrallel gnome1.4/gnome2 installation
like there is for kde2/kde3? kde3 installes in /opt, gnome2 replace
