[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34327539]but then you will loose gnome 2.23[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAT%C3%89_(desktop_environment)[/url]
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34327539]but then you will loose gnome 2.23[/QUOTE]
Yea but that's not a huge problem for me.
Last time I used 11.10, I replaced unity with Gnome-Shell, so I'd probably end up doing that on what I may be using in the future.
[QUOTE=Dr. Deeps;34327603][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAT%C3%89_(desktop_environment)[/url][/QUOTE]
Or I may be using this
Have they made Gnome-3 semi-usable on netbooks yet? It's unresponsive as fuck.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34327778]Have they made Gnome-3 semi-usable on netbooks yet? It's unresponsive as fuck.[/QUOTE]
I would try it out on my EEE PC 900, but I still need a replacement keyboard :v:
I tried it on a Acer D257 Espresso Black and it runs like shit.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34327539]but then you will loose gnome 2.23[/QUOTE]
You could always make the move to [URL="http://xfce.org/"]XFCE[/URL] or [URL="http://lxde.org/"]LXDE[/URL]. XFCE is pretty similar to GNOME-2, it's not as good as GNOME 2 just yet, but it's close. I wouldn't recommend LXDE as much as XFCE, but it's still nice.
*buntu Spins:
XFCE (Xubuntu) - [url]http://xubuntu.org/[/url]
LXDE (Lubuntu) - [url]http://lubuntu.net/[/url]
You could always use MATE as you mentioned, or mess around with the fallback mode of GNOME Shell.
This is quite a good guide: [url]http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/how-to-make-ubuntu-11-10-look-and-feel-like-gnome-2/[/url]
Finally, [URL="http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/cinnamon-project-keeps-gnome-2-style-desktop-alive/"]Cinnamon [/URL](A GNOME Shell fork by the guys at Linux Mint), may be to your taste as well.
[QUOTE]Unlike the similarly positioned ‘Mate’ desktop, which is a fork of GNOME 2, Cinnamon remakes the basic layout of the ‘traditional’ GNOME desktop using the latest technologies forked from GNOME Shell.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BBgamer720;34328330]You could always make the move to [URL="http://xfce.org/"]XFCE[/URL] or [URL="http://lxde.org/"]LXDE[/URL]. XFCE is pretty similar to GNOME-2, it's not as good as GNOME 2 just yet, but it's close. I wouldn't recommend LXDE as much as XFCE, but it's still nice.
*buntu Spins:
XFCE (Xubuntu) - [url]http://xubuntu.org/[/url]
LXDE (Lubuntu) - [url]http://lubuntu.net/[/url]
You could always use MATE as you mentioned, or mess around with the fallback mode of GNOME Shell.
This is quite a good guide: [url]http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/how-to-make-ubuntu-11-10-look-and-feel-like-gnome-2/[/url]
Finally, [URL="http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/cinnamon-project-keeps-gnome-2-style-desktop-alive/"]Cinnamon [/URL](A GNOME Shell fork by the guys at Linux Mint), may be to your taste as well.[/QUOTE]
Cinnamon performs like garbage, Xfce4 is poorly made in terms of ease of use.. (touchpads don't work unless you tweak Synaptic and X.)
[QUOTE=nos217;34258906]Yes, but a 500-600 KB increase in filesize isn't always worth the barely perceptible difference in image quality.[/QUOTE]
So those who disagree think that PNG is always worth it? Oh wow.
Content:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kcbjX.jpg[/img]
Gnome 3 is definitely not as unproductive and buggy as people claim.
Before you ragequit about the image format, imgur converted the .png to .jpg.
[QUOTE=nos217;34328940]So those who disagree think that PNG is always worth it? Oh wow.
Content:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kcbjX.jpg[/img]
Gnome 3 is definitely not as unproductive and buggy as people claim.
Before you ragequit about the image format, imgur converted the .png to .jpg.[/QUOTE]
It is, run Gnome 2.3 on a Atom, then compare with Gnome 3.2.
"Performance on the ever growing tablet and netbook community is not important at all for one of the most widely used DE"
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cXQwJ.jpg[/IMG]
Decided to give Gnome 3 another try, coming from xmonad, and surprisingly I like it. I enjoyed a tiling wm for a while but I think I prefer a full DE.
Top archey is my new dedicated server that I mostly got to use as a seedbox and just play with when I'm bored.
EDIT: Wtf, does imgur convert pngs to jpegs now or something?
Whats with the ugly slut as your wallpaper.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34333626]Whats with the ugly slut as your wallpaper.[/QUOTE]
I've got a massive folder of them that just rotate every 3 minutes.
Why?
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34333647]Why?[/QUOTE]
Science.
[QUOTE=jatoskep;34333612]
EDIT: Wtf, does imgur convert pngs to jpegs now or something?[/QUOTE]
If the picture is large, it converts it to jpg.
Here is screenshots of all the workspaces I keep open. (sorry for being such a weaboo faggot)
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/iyQKW.png[/img_thumb]
^ Browsing
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/lmlJ7.png[/img_thumb]
^ Desktop
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/9qkZG.png[/img_thumb]
^ Music
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/EM2Yz.png[/img_thumb]
^ Terminals (2 on the bottom are root, 2 on the top are normal user)
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34333647]Why?[/QUOTE]
theres a high possibility that he likes looking at women
[QUOTE=LieutenantLeo;34334030]Here is screenshots of all the workspaces I keep open. (sorry for being such a weaboo faggot)
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/iyQKW.png[/img_thumb]
^ Browsing
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/lmlJ7.png[/img_thumb]
^ Desktop
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/9qkZG.png[/img_thumb]
^ Music
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/EM2Yz.png[/img_thumb]
^ Terminals (2 on the bottom are root, 2 on the top are normal user)[/QUOTE]
Anime background? Wtf?
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34334131]Anime background? Wtf?[/QUOTE]
sorry i couldn't help myself
[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/p5h98.png[/IMG_thumb]
Obligatory archey screenshot. Normally my windows aren't floated like that, but it was blocking the wallpaper.
Switched to Fedora; so far Gnome3 isn't that bad.
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8063726/Pictures/g3f13.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Larikang;34382930][IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/p5h98.png[/IMG_thumb]
Obligatory archey screenshot. Normally my windows aren't floated like that, but it was blocking the wallpaper.[/QUOTE]
What Chrome theme is that?
[QUOTE=FPtje;34399690]What Chrome theme is that?[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jlgdloilieclkegafohackmhffbmdpko"]Yulia Brodskaya[/URL]
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/2012-01-26--1327634225_1280x1024_scrot.png[/img]
I'm really loving Crunchbang. Openbox is just the balance of easy-to-use and customizable, but I'm thinking about trying out awesome wm or dwm.
Why should I switch? Why do you like it? I'm just curious about switching.
:dance: New Arch Install! :dance:
[URL="http://i.imgur.com/fnW4b.jpg"][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/fnW4bl.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
The VNC window in the bottom right is actually connected to a craptop behind me running Lubuntu which runs Spotify and is connected to a pair of speakers. I'm lazy and set up VNC so I don't need to move to change the song.
XFCE4 + Zukitwo + Emerald + Compiz + Faenza Icons.
I'm going to get a dock later but libdesktop-agnostic doesn't want to compile for some odd reason.
Why does everyone use Arch? It seems a pain and (from what I have seen here) looks like its from the 90's.
Ubuntu, Fedora and Mint all look epic, I myself love Unity with Ubuntu 11.10
I just don't see what this huge craze is over Arch Linux :/
[QUOTE=macman2;34448077]Why does everyone use Arch? It seems a pain and (from what I have seen here) looks like its from the 90's.
Ubuntu, Fedora and Mint all look epic, I myself love Unity with Ubuntu 11.10
I just don't see what this huge craze is over Arch Linux :/[/QUOTE]
Ubuntu, Fedora and mint slam a user interface in your face, expecting you to use it. If you don't want it, you'll have to uninstall it yourself and install some other DE or window manager. There is no such thing as "Arch Linux looks like ..." because the way Arch Linux looks is completely defined by the user. Except for the terminal part.
Arch has no user interface besides the terminal. If you want a user interface, you're expected to install one yourself. This gives the user freedom to choose any DE or WM in existence that is compatible with Linux.
This can be generalized to almost every piece of software in Arch Linux. You can choose what software you want from the bottom up. It's completely customizable. Customization is what power users such as many people here want.
A second reason is the package manager. Pacman (and yaourt) are very powerful tools. In my opinion they're way better than aptitude (which is what Ubuntu/mint has) or yum because they allow for power management of applications. You can see which packages are dependency-less, which packages are not needed anymore, etc.
Arch stands for clean coding and full customization, which is what many of us here like.
You can make your desktop look however you want it to look. If some people want to have it look like it's "from the 90's", then it's their choice. You can easily install Gnome 2/3, KDE, etc. on Arch. Judging a distro by its looks is just stupid.
People choose Arch for numerous reasons. One of the biggest reasons is because it comes with virtually no bloat, and you get to choose what you want and don't want. You have complete control over your OS.
Arch is also Rolling Release, so instead of having to install a new version of Arch every 6 or so months, all you need to do is a simple
[quote]pacman -Syu[/quote]
and your system is completely up to date, at any time. There's also the [url=https://aur.archlinux.org/]AUR[/url] - the Arch User Repository, that's full of things that aren't in the official repos, and it integrates quite nicely into the package manager.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
ninjad
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
