Debian User Forums

Mr James wrote:

62chevy wrote:Maybe KDE? Konsole sucks thought.

Yakuake: Hit F12 and watch the CLI goodness decend from above.
Basically it's Guake only a lot better.

Thanks gave it a spin today on KDE very nice indeed. Then installed KDE on a third partition Sid seams sluggish compared to Squeeze KDE.

golinux wrote:

salome wrote:I dread the day when Gnome 3 gets to Wheezy. What can I say? I'm old school. I like things to be simple but usable. XFCE here I come!

+1 . . . in another year or two . . .

Couldn't wait. I'm officially a Gnome refugee. I installed Xfce and all I can say is ... WOW.

Watch everybody next year go "OMG! XFCE is such bloated unusable crap - LXDE FTW!!!"

I try to discourage vogues and just advise others to use what suits them. XFCE I think is one of the best desktop environments, its is very modular.

salome wrote:

golinux wrote:

salome wrote:I dread the day when Gnome 3 gets to Wheezy. What can I say? I'm old school. I like things to be simple but usable. XFCE here I come!

+1 . . . in another year or two . . .

Couldn't wait. I'm officially a Gnome refugee. I installed Xfce and all I can say is ... WOW.

+2, xfce would be my next choice.

I've heard of more people switching to Xfce this year than I have in previous years. I can understand it though. Right now on my Slackware machine I switch between it and KDE. I just use Gnome 2.32 on my Debian Squeeze machine and probably won't change until Wheezy goes Stable. At that point I'll probably switch to Xfce Gnome 3 isn't to my liking by then.

Mr James wrote:Watch everybody next year go "OMG! XFCE is such bloated unusable crap - LXDE FTW!!!"

Bloat was not the reason for my move away from Gnome so Xfce being 'lighter' is just a bonus. The UI is the main issue. It's great that there's another Gnome2-ish option like Xfce.

If tomorrow Xfce is suddenly infiltrated by the Tablet-UI intelligentsia, then I will be the first to leave.

But right now, it's not bad at all.

salome wrote: If tomorrow Xfce is suddenly infiltrated by the Tablet-UI intelligentsia, then I will be the first to leave.

+1

Mr James wrote:Gnome, Unity, and Windows 8 seem to disagree. Your PC should act like a phone from now on, according to them.

After all the criticism of Unity in Ubuntu, it is ironic that the new GNOME proved to suck just as much. Shuttleworth was right:

Embracing those other ideas and allowing them to compete happily and healthily is the only way to keep the innovation they bring inside your brand. Otherwise, you’re doomed to watching them innovate and then having to “relayout” your own efforts to keep up [...]

I just wonder who wants those new innovations. Judging from the comments in this thread (among others), it doesn't seem like it's what the users really want. I think it's the politician syndrome: some elite that is entirely disconnected from the needs of average people unilaterally makes all the important decisions.

I switched to Xfce about the time when I realized that you don't have to use GNOME (Windows refugee). Not that I'm using it now, but it's not bad. In my opinion, it should be the Debian default. People apparently like it and it runs much better than GNOME on old hardware.

I've been switching between Gnome3 and KDE. Both run smooth on my system KDE has the advantage of real panels to place applets but the menus suck. The only redeeming value is that once I load my panel up with the stuff I use there's no need to use the menus. Gnome Shell sucks! And if you have a unsupported video card then you are stuck on fallback gnome and that sucks even more than the Shell but I've stuck with more as a learning curve so when those refuges from windows show up I can answer their questions. If the Devs at Gnome ever get smart they will add real panels to Fallback mode and leave the Shell for the touch screens. I have never like Xfce but understand that some computers will never be able to run Gnome of KDE. I do need to give Xfce 4.8 a spin who knows maybe I'll like it.

Actually what needs to be done is provide 3 seperate UI modes: Normal, Touch, and Fallback. Of course, knowing Gnome, they'll probably feel that having users realize whether they are on a touch screen or not is too complicated...

Mr James wrote:Actually what needs to be done is provide 3 seperate UI modes: Normal, Touch, and Fallback. Of course, knowing Gnome, they'll probably feel that having users realize whether they are on a touch screen or not is too complicated...

If by normal you mean Gnome-2.3 then I agree but that is what the Fallback should be. The Shell is better suited for touch screens. The current Fallback Mode is for telling user you suck get a better computer and I thought only Window$ did that.

AFAICT the fallback mode is almost identical to gnome2. It has real panels, just like gnome2, you just have to alt-click to make changes. It's still a little slow, though, and I'm trying out xfce. That's not without its own problems, and I'm not sure exactly where I'll end up. But I do know that the performance penalties of gnome3 will keep me from using it. It's just too slow and takes too many clicks to get anywhere for me. If a 1GHz processor isn't fast enough, then I can't use it for now, nor for the foreseeable future.

62chevy wrote:

Mr James wrote:Actually what needs to be done is provide 3 seperate UI modes: Normal, Touch, and Fallback. Of course, knowing Gnome, they'll probably feel that having users realize whether they are on a touch screen or not is too complicated...

If by normal you mean Gnome-2.3 then I agree but that is what the Fallback should be. The Shell is better suited for touch screens. The current Fallback Mode is for telling user you suck get a better computer and I thought only Window$ did that.

Normal = Traditional concept of a desktop
Touch = Gnome Shell and Unity
Fallback = Normal, except without compositing and pulsating buttons.

Mr James wrote:Normal = Traditional concept of a desktop
Touch = Gnome Shell and Unity
Fallback = Normal, except without compositing and pulsating buttons.

So Fallback is really Normal, glad we got that straightened out. LOL Fallback is only similar to Gnome2. One of the things I always liked about gnome2 point and click, drag and drop. Want something on the panel for one click launch no problem right click select and left click it was there for use. Now you have to go through all kinds of hokes pokes to get a program to launch. Like sling your cursor to the top left corner (kinda fun with a trackball) to Alt+` key combo just to get to a menu then when you get the menu click on an item like Sound and if you have a lot of stuff there you may have to scroll to fined then click on it. 3 clicks just to get a program launched when it only took one before but to be far you can do it in 2 if you know what you want and type it in, still 3 steps.

Mr James wrote:Actually what needs to be done is provide 3 seperate UI modes: Normal, Touch, and Fallback. Of course, knowing Gnome, they'll probably feel that having users realize whether they are on a touch screen or not is too complicated...

Yea, after KDE I believe Windows 8 will do the same. Can not imagine anybody using "touch oriented" UI on serious workstation.

62chevy wrote: Like sling your cursor to the top left corner (kinda fun with a trackball) to Alt+` key combo just to get to a menu then when you get the menu click on an item like Sound and if you have a lot of stuff there you may have to scroll to fined then click on it.

Alt+` combo remind me that when I tried GNOME Shell, I really wanted to get used to its "improve" window switching, but never managed to switch from first attempt to the program I wanted when having two terminals and two editors open. Silly me

Mr James wrote: Gnome, Unity, and Windows 8 seem to disagree. Your PC should act like a phone from now on, according to them.

Ha ha
It's funny that Canonical Unity was the less worse.
It's hilarious that people actually believe them.
And it is surprising that Microsoft fallback mode is better than GNOME fallback mode(this decade history proves otherwise).

prana_yama wrote:Alt+` combo remind me that when I tried GNOME Shell, I really wanted to get used to its "improve" window switching, but never managed to switch from first attempt to the program I wanted when having two terminals and two editors open. Silly me

Gnome shell is what I was talking about, gave it some time but all that clicking is just to much. I'm setting up KDE now don't much care for the menus but you can ad stuff to the panels so no need to use the menus much.

62chevy wrote:I'm setting up KDE now don't much care for the menus...

Right click on the K icon, you can turn the menu to 'classic style' (widgets need to be unlocked first). Or try adding the 'Lancelot' style menu (right click on panel -> add widgets)... some prefer it.

confuseling wrote:

62chevy wrote:I'm setting up KDE now don't much care for the menus...

Right click on the K icon, you can turn the menu to 'classic style' (widgets need to be unlocked first). Or try adding the 'Lancelot' style menu (right click on panel -> add widgets)... some prefer it.

Thanks that worked. Menus I can deal with now.

Why would any Distro give you a Desktop setup for a tablet when they know full well it will end up on old-style computer.