RE: Installing Cinnamon 2.0
> IOW you might not experience issues with your computer, with Mate and/or
> Windows, but you at least cause issues when using Windows. Those issues
> aren't very serious, but you can't speak about your experiences, that
> everything is ok, while it's not ok.
I certainly can speak about it. I use two machines, one with Windows 8, and one with Debian Jessie. I consider the Linux machine my main machine, and I use Windows mainly for games and email. I'm quite experienced with Debian, and I learn more every day.
> Regarding to the OPs request I guess that there's a reason that Debian
> maintainers didn't upgrade to Cinnamon 2.0 yet. It's easy to build
> packages that run on your or my machine, but a maintainer needs to
> ensure that things don't break by nearly every combination of installed
> packages.
I swear on a stack of Bibles, most people running Wheezy will have minimal trouble. Note: I didn't say no trouble, or all people. But that is true for most packages on Debian, even for those people running Stable.
> I'm not nagging about you. My concern is to nag about recommending a
> third party repository, that is known to cause issues. If the OP does
> like Cinnamon, then IMO the OP should use the official packages to
> ensure that it's as stable as possible and not to switch to Mate from a
> third party repository. If the OP needs a bug fix or a new feature of
> Cinnamon 2.0, it might be worse the effort to build it from source.
The point of mentioning MATE was in context with adding MATE to Debian. Our point was, there are only minor problems with that happening, and they should be solvable fairly easily within a short period of time (i.e., in the time between releases of Stable). MATE is usable NOW, and it's mainly an irrational attachment to Gnome that prevents it, not any real problems with MATE.
People are abandoning Gnome 3 in droves. Most are turning to XFCE, I think largely because it is already in Debian. If MATE were in Debian, a large contingent of those people would use MATE if it were available, I think, because most of them were using GNOME 2 before.
Mark
Reply to: