I said no such thing. I just want a distro that comes with both GNOME 2 and GNOME 3. I can then choose at login time which I want.
GNOME 3 can then be developed in any direction, I don't care.
> You have been informed about disruptive change before but choose to disregard it for the sake of selfiness.
Being informed of a disruptive change doesn't stop it from being disruptive.
The fact is there is no distro that comes with GNOME 2 and GNOME 3.
> Some journalists are supposed to be objective but, in Gnome case, displayed the level of fanaticism and extreme bias.
I didn't actually make any argument about that. But I will now. It's dangerous to label anyone who criticisms GNOME 3 as non-objective and not worth listening to. Irrelevance lies in that direction.
> You liked Gnome because it matured in time, did you like it on its first release? Every desktop environment on early release has their own quirks
People keep making that argument about GNOME 3. But I don't think it's down to bugs. It's a deliberate paradigm change.
I don't think the GNOME developers intend on bringing back the taskbar or having static workspaces, or a configurable top panel.
And that is their choice and I'm ok with that. But why deny me from using GNOME 2 which does have those things?
And even if that were not the case, why should I not be able to use the mature GNOME 2 until GNOME 3 matures?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds