Re: Whats missing from Gnome3
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:53:50 +0100
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:16 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > > Instead of trying to use alien to install rpms directly perhaps you
> > > > might say exactly what you are wanting to accomplish and the brain
> > > > trust on the mailing list might have a native alternative suggestion?
> > >
> > > I thought I had Bob, its the either 4 or 5 Gnome3 extensions which
> > > allow further functions to be added to the Gnome3 desktop.
> >
> > I guess I just had not followed the thought of the message well enough
> > to know exactly what you were asking for. It wasn't clear to me.
> >
> > > AND it definitely worth complaining about as they are in existence,
> > > the other distros using Gnome3 have them so why not make them
> > > available in debian.
> >
> > As Camaleón writes those appear to be available in 3.2.
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645554#22
> >
> > They are going to be available in the released version. But you are
> > running the version that is still be developed to be the release
> > version.
> >
> > > They are :-
> > > gnome-shell-extension-common
> > > gnome-shell-extension-cpu-temp
> > > gnome-shell-extension-remove-accessibility-icon
> > > gnome-shell-extension-alternative-tab
> > > gnome-shell-extension-alternative-status-menu
> > > gnome-shell-extension-auto-move-windows
> > > gnome-shell-extensions-common.
> >
> > Since 3.2 is available in experimental then perhaps the best thing
> > would be to install 3.2 from experimental to get these additional
> > features.
> >
> > It doesn't seem like it can be any worse for you than it is now.
> > Might as well be, In for a penny, In for a pound.
> >
> > > Its a bit like buying a car, automobile, with the wheels being sold as
> > > extras.
> > > ...
> > > I don't consider it much to ask for that when the new gnome shell is
> > > added that the extensions are added as well.
> >
> > I don't disagree with you there. I think it is really terrible of
> > GNOME to have made this redeployment. It would have been fine in my
> > mind if they had created a new direction and had left the old GNOME
> > available. Then people could evaluate the new paradigms and
> > transitioned from one to the other as they decided to change. But it
> > is really bad that GNOME burned the bridge down first before having
> > created the new one. That forced people to transition and to
> > transition before GNOME was ready for it.
> >
> > However Unstable and Testing are by design are not released products.
> > They are the development area for the release. Which means that
> > anyone running Testing cannot have the same expectations as those
> > running Stable. During big transitions such as this it is going to
> > have some turbulence.
> >
> > I am not directing this at your but at the mailing list at large.
> >
> > People who can't handle that should be running Stable instead instead
> > of Testing or Unstable. And I know there are a lot of people who will
> > come back and say, "But Stable isn't new enough." Well, Testing right
> > now during the GNOME redeployment is what "New" looks like. There is
> > going to be some thrash during big transitions. You can't have it
> > both ways. At least not with the current release strategy. Perhaps
> > in the future continuously-usable-testing then maybe.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Wrong!
>
> I still can restore the last GNOME 2 version of testing from a backup
> and lock the GNOME 2 packages. There's no need to use the outdated
> stable.
>
> For sure, using testing does mean that it's wise to backup, before doing
> risky upgrades.
>
> GNOME 3 anyway isn't ok at the moment, so it's not about using testing,
> but about a dropped GNOME 2 that is stable.
>
> "But it is really bad that GNOME burned the bridge down first before
> having created the new one."
>
> Why should we switch the DE? Why shouldn't we fight to get back GNOME 2
> if we prefer this? If most people prefer GNOME 3 it would be ok. But
> seemingly there are more voices that don't like GNOME 3.
>
> - Ralf
>
>
The problem is Ralf that Debian is always a bit slow to envelop new s/w, so
the problems we are seeing with Gnome-shell are OLD, compared to other distros.
There's saying about opening the stable door after the horse has bolted, in this case
the horse has been to the knackers yard.
I've taken the risk of using SID and no problems, my configuration of the desktop looks and feels like
gnome2-shell.
The major problem has been caused by the extensions being held back by the maintainers.
G2-shell for ages has has similar graphical menus, but most has used it in its classical
mode, so that there has been a natural progression, but most including me either chose to ignore it or
were unaware of it..
My concerns are also audio related as I use the computer for software defined radio, and thats where
latency is very important , as the problem then becomes much the same as lip sync with digital TV.
I've yet to recompile the apps using GCC 4.6, but I don't envisage a problem unless a developer has
decided that the mass users can manage with simplified fortran, floating point range.
BTW has multimedia a unstable branch, as if I'm running Sid , I should be using the newer multimedia
stuff as well ?.
--
Best wishes / 73
Richard Bown
e-mail: richard@g8jvm.com or richard.bown@blueyonder.co.uk
nil carborundum a illegitemis
##################################################################################
Ham Call G8JVM . OS Debian Wheezy amd64 on a Dual core AMD Athlon 5200, 4 GB RAM
Maidenhead QRA: IO82SP38, LAT. 52 39.720' N LONG. 2 28.171 W ( degs mins )
QRV HF + VHF Microwave 23 cms:140W,13 cms:100W,6 cms:10W & 3 cms:5W
##################################################################################
Reply to: