Re: Whats missing from Gnome3
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 09:00 +0000, Richard wrote:
> 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 Camalen 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 ?.
It seems like testing's multimedia is quiet alright, aka relatively up
to date.
Hm? Perhaps I should try GNOME from unstable for my testing?!
It's worth to think about it.
Regards,
Ralf
Reply to: