> partial on my desktop (through nouveau) so my vote would be against Gnome > because their fall back looks significantly different (at least until they
Are you talking about the default panels and applet arrangement? That can be changed by ALT+Right Clicking on the panels. Then you can remove and customise applets like with Gnome 2. Other problems like pressing CTRL+Del to delete in Nautilus can also be changed. Is there anything else major that is different? > finish making it so shell doesn't require acceleration). What sucks about > that is, say, for documentation when we say "click here and do this" well if > your desktop looks and acts differently it will be confusing - so we should, All XFCE configuration GUIs are different to Gnome 2's. Won't that also break the "click here and do this" documentation? > in my opinion, go with Xfce and "Trisquelize" it or go with Unity and > Unity-2D and Trisquelize that as well, only because the former has no need > for a fallback and the latter has a fallback that looks and acts like the > real thing. My biggest long term worry with Gnome Fallback is that it might not be getting a lot of attention in the future. At least not from Gnome developers now that they are looking at making Gnome Shell use LLVM for software rendering. But that is not ideal for older computers. So unless they get software rendering mode to be really fast and lightweight, I don't think we will be using that any time soon.
