| |||||||||||||
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power usersMena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power usersPosted Nov 11, 2012 13:58 UTC (Sun) by salimma (subscriber, #34460)Parent article: Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users
Of course, there are those of us who don't just whine about GNOME 3, but simply stop using it when things break beyond acceptable limits (200%+ CPU usage, anyone?), and there were no response on bug reports.
I must say I'm surprised to end up in this camp. I've been running the GNOME Shell previews since the first day they came out, and even stomached Fedora on my netbook being obviously more sluggish than a colleague's netbook (running Ubuntu, at the time presumably with Unity2D)... my eyes got opened when switching to XFCE dramatically improved performance and battery life.
(using Intel HD on-board graphics, in case you're wondering. I bought the rationale of making full use of graphical acceleration etc., but after years, surely it's not unreasonable to expect an *Intel* card to work just fine).
(Log in to post comments)
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 11, 2012 14:03 UTC (Sun) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
> Of course, there are those of us who don't just whine about GNOME 3, but simply stop using it when things break beyond acceptable limits (200%+ CPU usage, anyone?), and there were no response on bug reports.
Where is the 200% cpu usage bug report? I can't recall seeing such a report? Do you have link / bug number?
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 12, 2012 10:56 UTC (Mon) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link] Where is the 200% cpu usage bug report? I can't recall seeing such a report? Do you have link / bug number?Yup, here: RH bz #812624
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 12, 2012 14:41 UTC (Mon) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
No, the one where no one responded. What I see here is a answer from a gnome shell developer after a few days. That he didn't found the cause is different ( unless you mean "I want all bug I report to be solved in a finite amount of time", which is different )
Mena-Quintero: A Friday rant on Gnome 3, journalists, and power users Posted Nov 14, 2012 7:33 UTC (Wed) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]
The bug is still not assigned to anyone (it has a default assignee, who last responded to the bug many replies ago), and at the time of my post, there has been no response for over a week since my post, and over 5 months since a developer responded, despite activity on the thread.
Xfce fanboi here Posted Nov 11, 2012 17:38 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Xfce never disappoints. It eats up less memory, it spares your processors for useful work, changes very slowly and improves all the time. I have all effects turned on ("display compositing") with an onboard Intel graphics card and it seldom reaches 5%.
Not Posted Nov 11, 2012 20:38 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
I'm afraid XFCE did disappoint me. I tried it for a couple of months, then gratefully installed MATE. I may yet try Cinnamon, but the urgency has waned.
I installed Gnome 3.4 on a few machines for relatives/acquaintances. After adding a half-dozen extensions and fair bit of "tweak"ing, they are more or less satisfied. Their browser environment is the lion's share of their user experience. The greatest difficulty, there, is when they try to open a new attachment type, and must know to root around in /usr/bin to find something to run on it.
Xfce Posted Nov 11, 2012 23:28 UTC (Sun) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
> I'm afraid XFCE did disappoint me.
What was it about Xfce that you found disappointing?
I used it for a while, before switching to Cinnamon, and I found it to be a reasonable replacement for Gnome 2. I thought the panel configuration was awkward, but otherwise it was OK.
|
|||||||||||||