Jordi Mallach wrote: > Accessibility > Hardware: GNOME 3.12 will be one of the few desktop environments to support > HiDPI displays, now very common on some laptop models. Lack of support for > HiDPI means non-technical users will get an unreadable desktop by default, and > no hints on how to fix that. I think the above are fairly big points. It would be helpful to see a pointer to a bug report about how xfce fails when the DPI is higher than usual. (Also, perhaps worth noting that 3.12 is quite a few versions ahead of the gnome currently in unstable..) Another one I've become aware of, but not investigated is that xfce's compositor may not do as good a job at eliminating tearing (with eg, Intel graphics) as gnome's does. (Also, I think xfce doesn't enable compositing by default.) Further investigation of this would be appreciated. > Popularity: One of the metrics discussed by the tasksel change proponents > mentioned popcon numbers. 8 months after the desktop change, Xfce does not seem > to have made a dent on install numbers. fwiw https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=task-gnome-desktop+task-xfce-desktop+gnome+xfce4&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=2014-01-25&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 > systemd embracing: One of the reasons to switch to Xfce was that it didn’t > depend on systemd. But now that systemd is the default, that shouldn’t be a > problem. Also given ConsoleKit is deprecated and dead upstream, KDE and Xfce > are switching or are planning to switch to systemd/logind. systemd did not much affect the switch to xfce. OTOH, double-suspend bugs still being open is a problem. #727605 > Downstream health > > Upstream health > > Community > > Security > > Privacy > > Documentation I don't think these are very useful criteria, unless they lead to actual technical issues/benefits. Which can then be discussed on technical and/or quantified grounds rather than advocacy grounds. > Localization I'm wary of comparing translation percentages since that hides a lot of relevant details. It's better to look at how well a given translation performs in regular usage. Another thing that makes comparing localization numbers work better is to scale them by native speaker populations. Perhaps bubulle could do a more detailed analysis? -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature