Ubuntu/GNOME deteriorating?
in [General Linux]
|
From: mechanic on 26 Mar 2010 08:56 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:32:43 +0000, White Spirit wrote: > On 26/03/2010 00:48, Ignoramus30639 wrote: > >> I would like to state that in a chase after the latest and greatest >> concepts, developers of Gnome and Ubuntu are not paying attention to >> the basics, and my feeling is that we are deteriorating into a big >> mess. > > Try KDE4. I recommend it. Ah a sensible comment without quoting dozens of the same lines as everyone else! How refreshing! -- mechanic
From: White Spirit on 26 Mar 2010 09:01 On 26/03/2010 12:52, Ignoramus8345 wrote: > On 2010-03-26, White Spirit<wspirit(a)homechoice.co.uk> wrote: >> Try KDE4. I recommend it. > Do you run it daily? Yep. I run it on my desktop and laptop computers. > Is it stable? Absolutely. I've been running it since v4.0 and have had no issues with it. Everything is laid out nicely with much better usability than Gnome IMO. The developers wrote their own compositing system from scratch and I have found it to be perfectly stable. I didn't find Compiz/Fusion to be unstable but it did have a few bugs last time I looked at it while KWin has been bug-free.
From: White Spirit on 26 Mar 2010 09:03 On 26/03/2010 12:53, Ignoramus8345 wrote: >> Probably. If by that you mean a windows like GUI that allows you to >> manually connect to WiFi. > To wifi, and to wireless broadband and modems. For WiFi, I tend to use wifi-radar. >> I have to say, I junked it in favour of a 'connect at boot time' script.. > connect at boot time does not work for me -- I use too many different > ways of connecting. I only connect at boot time on my desktop machine. It doesn't really make sense for a laptop.
From: J G Miller on 26 Mar 2010 09:07 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:56:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Ignoramus30639 wrote: >> OK, maybe I am a little stupid, but if Ubuntu is based on Debian, how >> can it be less stable than Debian? >> > cos its based on debian unstable? As far as I understand, it is specifically a snapshot of Debian "testing". Debian unstable which is less "stable" than testing is officially known as sid "still in development". The reason the final release (which takes years to get there) of Debian is so rock solid, is that newer versions of packages first get put in sid, which some people do use, and report back the bugs. Then when these bugs are fixed, the package version gets moved to "testing" where as the name implies, it is rigorously tested, not just on x86 systems but all the other platforms which Debian supports. When the number of ciritical bugs in Debian testing falls below 300, a freeze is declared, the critical bugs are fixed, and when the project manager is happy, the release is announced and testing is moved to release. (Hopefully that is an accurate representation of the process.) The only real problem with Debian is that because it takes so long for the packages to get from sid to testing to final release, by the time they get there, that version can be considerably out of date. The reason why people should not install Debian sid (I tried this once) is that there are daily updates (sometimes at weekends perhaps 50 or more packages) and just sometimes, these updates have serious bugs which stop the package from working at all. Of course if one of these critical bugs is in the package management system, it requires some dexterity to fix the problem unless you rigorously keep backups of the system before each update (and assuming that tar and bz2 or gzip has not been broken, but that is exceptionally highly unlikely). > Debian stable lenny is pretty good for me. It is fine as a desktop system but as I say, some of the software is rather old and building your own new versions can be time consuming because you also have to install (in /usr/local of course) newer versions of the libraries as well because the software will not build with the Debian old version of the library. Overall, I really only run Mint now on my main desktop rather than Debian is because of the newer versions of the software.
From: Ignoramus8345 on 26 Mar 2010 09:50
On 2010-03-26, White Spirit <wspirit(a)homechoice.co.uk> wrote: > On 26/03/2010 12:53, Ignoramus8345 wrote: > >>> Probably. If by that you mean a windows like GUI that allows you to >>> manually connect to WiFi. > >> To wifi, and to wireless broadband and modems. > > For WiFi, I tend to use wifi-radar. Maybe, but I actively use wifi, ethernet, and wireless broadband. >>> I have to say, I junked it in favour of a 'connect at boot time' script.. > >> connect at boot time does not work for me -- I use too many different >> ways of connecting. > > I only connect at boot time on my desktop machine. It doesn't really > make sense for a laptop. Exactly. On desktops and servers, removing NetworkManager is the first thing that I do. i |