16 replies to this topic

[Asrokhel]

Matthias Clasen on the behalf of the GNOME Release Team has announced that they have decided to eliminate GNOME's "fallback mode" with the upcoming 3.8 release that allowed a "GNOME classic" mode that didn't depend upon OpenGL/3D rendering and was more like the GNOME2 traitional desktop.

The choice came down to rework the GNOME fallback mode and continue maintaining it for the foreseeable future or to just eliminate the fallback mode. The GNOME developers have decided to drop this mode. Now for GNOME users without a proper GPU and drivers, if you want to still use GNOME, you will need to use LLVMpipe for a software-accelerated experience of the GNOME Shell.

LLVMpipe isn't good for all users but the GNOME developers just view reworking and maintaining the fallback mode as too much of a burden. This is a similar move to Canonical dropping the Unity 2D desktop in Ubuntu 12.10 and just forcing everyone onto Unity even if it means using LLVMpipe. While Ubuntu got rid of their non-compositing desktop, just last week they were discussing the need for a non-3D desktop.

At least mainline KDE still plans to not force users onto LLVMpipe while Xfce, LXDE, and other desktops also still work fine without requiring proper graphics drivers.

The GNOME fallback dropping was announced in this mailing list post and more details are available from this GNOME Live page.

Matthias wrote, "We've come to the conclusion that we can't maintain fallback mode in reasonable quality, and are better off dropping it."















http://www.phoronix....item&px=MTIyNTE

[- Kaboose -]

well it makes sense on many levels, they simply can't maintain 2 approaches to the gnome desktop.

[68k]

And what about Linux users who don't want all the fancy eye candy? Who want a fast, fully customizable UI (which GNOME 3 isn't)? Who have been using Linux since the late 90s, and still enjoy using the retro themes from back then? Who want a desktop manager that will run on a Pentium III with 128MB of RAM?

The answer to the above is LXDE - which I expect to become very popular over the next few years. If you haven't tried it, download a Knoppix Live CD (which uses it as its default window manager). Here are simple instructions on how to make a bootable Linux USB drive: http://www.pendrivel...-easy-as-1-2-3/ You'll see what I mean - it's lightweight, (very) fast, and maintains the traditional desktop elements (a taskbar, "Start" menu, and desktop icons).

XCFE is not bad either, but I don't like its "Dock". KDE has improved over time, however, still requires a lot of system resources. Stay away from GNOME 3 - it's okay for beginners (who have one window or program open at a time), however, if you do serious work (in Linux), it will feel quite restrictive to work with.

[- Kaboose -]

68k, on 10 November 2012 - 13:54, said:

And what about Linux users who don't want all the fancy eye candy? Who want a fast, fully customizable UI (which GNOME 3 isn't)? Who have been using Linux since the late 90s, and still enjoy using the retro themes from back then? Who want a desktop manager that will run on a Pentium III with 128MB of RAM?

The answer to the above is LXDE - which I expect to become very popular over the next few years. If you haven't tried it, download a Knoppix Live CD (which uses it as its default window manager). Here are simple instructions on how to make a bootable Linux USB drive: http://www.pendrivel...-easy-as-1-2-3/ You'll see what I mean - it's lightweight, (very) fast, and maintains the traditional desktop elements (a taskbar, "Start" menu, and desktop icons).

Linux, when stripped down, is fast. XCFE (when compared to LXDE) is not bad either. KDE has improved over time, however, still requires a lot of system resources. Stay away from GNOME 3.

Gnome is pretty fast on any decent hardware, even if its like 4 years old, so that argument is pretty much null. If you want to run a DE on 128mb of ram, don't talk smack about Gnome because it won't run, because that's retarded to say the least. Stop posting nonsense posts please, Neowin has enough trolls and idiots talking nonsense for the sense of typing something!

[n_K]

- Kaboose -, on 10 November 2012 - 14:00, said:

Gnome is pretty fast on any decent hardware, even if its like 4 years old, so that argument is pretty much null. If you want to run a DE on 128mb of ram, don't talk smack about Gnome because it won't run, because that's retarded to say the least. Stop posting nonsense posts please, Neowin has enough trolls and idiots talking nonsense for the sense of typing something!

His point isn't just about gnome-shell using a lot of system resources, gnome-shell is a ****ing horrid mess. In fact here's a video I watched yesterday of things removed from gnome-shell in gnome 3.6 and it even shows you bugs in it because gnome's QA team obviously couldn't care less for it either,

Gnome fallback is what I'm on and I like it, I haven't got any (now this is my opinion) stupid gestures or 'hot corners' or dumb ways to switch workspaces.

Anyway note for anyone using gnome-fallback on gnome 3.4 and earlier do NOT upgrade to gnome 3.6, fallback mode is entirely broken in it, and it's not broken because more featured have been added, it's more broken because the gnome team have ****ed it up on purpose (having no notification icons, mouse wheel failing to change volume slider, completely broken GTK2 themes and all the other bugs can only be described as sabotage).

[68k]

- Kaboose -, on 10 November 2012 - 14:00, said:

Gnome is pretty fast on any decent hardware, even if its like 4 years old, so that argument is pretty much null. If you want to run a DE on 128mb of ram, don't talk smack about Gnome because it won't run, because that's retarded to say the least. Stop posting nonsense posts please, Neowin has enough trolls and idiots talking nonsense for the sense of typing something!

I find that offensive. When I say "fast", I mean boot up in less than 10-20 seconds. Yes, faster than Windows 8 and Mac OS X. My point is that a desktop manager shouldn't require at least 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 just because of all it's fancy (pointless) effects, that get in the way when you work. I personally have all effects switched off.

[08993]

http://igurublog.wor...ting-in-threes/ - sums up the state of DE's in Linux at present, It's a long read but hits the nail on the head.

[Javik]

I agree with this article, since their most recent major iterations Gnome and KDE have taken a step backwards, but the step made backwards with Gnome is far worse in my opinion, especially given how many distributions use it as their default. I'd take the start screen over Gnome 3 with Unity and I can't stand the start screen.

[+Majesticmerc]

68k, on 10 November 2012 - 13:54, said:

And what about Linux users who don't want all the fancy eye candy? Who want a fast, fully customizable UI (which GNOME 3 isn't)? Who have been using Linux since the late 90s, and still enjoy using the retro themes from back then? Who want a desktop manager that will run on a Pentium III with 128MB of RAM?

The answer to the above is LXDE - which I expect to become very popular over the next few years. If you haven't tried it, download a Knoppix Live CD (which uses it as its default window manager). Here are simple instructions on how to make a bootable Linux USB drive: http://www.pendrivel...-easy-as-1-2-3/ You'll see what I mean - it's lightweight, (very) fast, and maintains the traditional desktop elements (a taskbar, "Start" menu, and desktop icons).

XCFE is not bad either, but I don't like its "Dock". KDE has improved over time, however, still requires a lot of system resources. Stay away from GNOME 3 - it's okay for beginners (who have one window or program open at a time), however, if you do serious work (in Linux), it will feel quite restrictive to work with.

Disclaimer: I'm an XFCE fanboy.

Regarding the first part. The beauty of Linux is that there's a whole variety of DE's to choose from. Don't like Gnome? KDE, XFCE, LXDE, etc are all there to choose from. It's great .

Regarding your XFCE point about the "dock". All panels in XFCE are removable and customizable to your needs. I keep the dock, but I make it auto-hide so it only pops up when I want it. If you don't like it though you can simply right-click and delete the panel entirely. You can also move the panels to anywhere on the screen (quite literally), even in the middle if you're some messed up guy who likes his taskbar to interfere with everything you do .

See the attached image for my XFCE setup.

Attached Images

• 

[+SharpGreen]

68k, on 10 November 2012 - 13:54, said:

Stay away from GNOME 3 - it's okay for beginners (who have one window or program open at a time), however, if you do serious work (in Linux), it will feel quite restrictive to work with.

I find that I do plenty of serious work on Linux and have never found Gnome3 to be limiting or restrictive in any sense of the words. In fact I think I can say I work faster in GNOME3 on linux than on Windows.

Plus for anyone who cares about things that look good (ie. Gnome3) or doing serious work, they won't be using crappy hardware like Pentium 3s and tiny amounts of RAM.

[n_K]

SharpGreen, on 11 November 2012 - 01:33, said:

they won't be using crappy hardware like Pentium 3s

If P3's were so crap, Intel wouldn't have dumped P4's whole architecture and gone back to P3's for their intel core line of products

[Growled]

I think Gnome is striving for irrelevancy.

[javagreen]

- Kaboose -, on 10 November 2012 - 14:00, said:

Gnome is pretty fast on any decent hardware, even if its like 4 years old, so that argument is pretty much null. If you want to run a DE on 128mb of ram, don't talk smack about Gnome because it won't run, because that's retarded to say the least. Stop posting nonsense posts please, Neowin has enough trolls and idiots talking nonsense for the sense of typing something!

Sorry, but no.

Gnome Shell 3x is an evil fetus that should've been aborted long long ago, back when it was but mere a seed in the devs' minds. Too bad it came to fruition.

[firey]

well that kinda sucks... I use cinnamon which is based off of gnome and I have an old PC which requires fallback mode.. I don't like the dock/sidebar style de's, I like the standard taskbar with start button style.

[HawkMan]

68k, on 10 November 2012 - 14:08, said:

I find that offensive. When I say "fast", I mean boot up in less than 10-20 seconds. Yes, faster than Windows 8 and Mac OS X. My point is that a desktop manager shouldn't require at least 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 just because of all it's fancy (pointless) effects, that get in the way when you work. I personally have all effects switched off.

Ithought you said faster than windows 8 ?

Anwyay, it's Fallback mode, it's not meant for actual use, and there's another way to make their non fallback mode work on older hardware so.

n_K, on 11 November 2012 - 01:50, said:

If P3's were so crap, Intel wouldn't have dumped P4's whole architecture and gone back to P3's for their intel core line of products

Technically that's not entirely correct. the P4's where faster than the P3's, but at the same time as the P4 their Israel department was developing the P3D mobile CPU based on the P3. the P4 while a good CPU struggled with scalability and heat issues. meanwhile the work the Israel team had done on the P3D lead to a CPU that had the potential to be very scalable and be more power efficient.

However the Core isn't base on the P3, it's based on the P3D, And even then it's a brand new CPU line just like the P4, it's got as much in common with the P3 and the P4 had, they just kept different bits of the old P3 design.