To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by mrAmiga500
I feel justified in saying "GNOME sure does suck". I've had GNOME crash on me 15 times in a day. I can consistently and repeatedly crash GNOME, just by doing basic things. (and yes, I've submitted bug reports)
Now you are justified in saying "GNOME sure does suck". Before you didn't say why you thought it did suck.
No, the #1 problem is ridiculous comments like first one, and then acting surprised when no one wants to hear them and losing the conversation vis a vis goodwin's law.
What version of Gnome? I'm still on 2.30 (Gentoo) but Gnome NEVER crashes on me. Are you talking about the entire desktop, X, the panel, the windowmanager, or what? Maybe it's a distro thing or a version that isn't working properly. The only issue I seem to have is with banshee hanging but it's not even an official part of Gnome.
BTW comapring Linux to Nazi Germany is hyperbole to the Nth degree. It makes you look foolish. Perhaps your distro just sucks. I have very few problems with reporting bugs but I also don't have thin skin.
I think your comment was indeed relevant to the subject matter, however you really should have elaborated, as you did in the post I'm responding to. Otherwise, you appear to be trying to start a flame war (and possibly succeeding).
I've always had a love/hate relationship with GNOME; I was a big fan of 1.x, when many weren't. 2.x sucked at first, then 2.4 made my year. 2.6 went a step backwards for me, and slowly improved again from there. The majority of my experience with GNOME early on was via Slackware, then Debian and Ubuntu after Pat dropped it.
GNOME currently, to me, is like a lump of clay; it's a pile of crap until someone (Canonical, for example) picks it up and shapes it into something useful and beautiful. Someone who never cared for it in the first place (Pat Volkerding) could make it somewhat usable and decent looking, but really didn't put much time and effort into it, so when it became too unwieldy to maintain it had to go.
As for Unity...I don't know. I didn't care for it at all on my netbook, and switched to the default desktop in Ubuntu. It may turn out to be a better fit on big desktops, so there's hope I guess. I haven't used Gnome Shell yet, but from the look of the screenshots and text descriptions, I don't think I'll like it either.
I think in the future I'll stick with XFCE. Canonical's implementation of it is decent, and Slackware's version is pretty much vanilla so it's easy to customize to my liking. Hell, I may even give KDE another go, though not on the netbook; it needs a lot of screen space to really do well in my experience.
Edited 2010-10-26 01:35 UTC
GNOME currently, to me, is like a lump of clay; it's a pile of crap until someone (Canonical, for example) picks it up and shapes it into something useful and beautiful.
I have to agree with this sentiment to a degree. I felt the same way about early Gnome and the transition to where we are now. I love Gnome now but not in its default incarnation. I don't use all the standard Gnome apps, theme, or defaults but I have been able to shape it into exactly what I want. My fear is that with Gnome-Shell and possibely other parts of Gnome that are changing, it will become increasingly difficult to alter different parts of the stack.




Member since:
2009-03-20
Read what I said. I said "my comment is more relevant".
"GNOME sure does suck" in a thread about GNOME replacement is CERTAINLY more relevant than "I wanted to take a crap here".
I feel justified in saying "GNOME sure does suck". I've had GNOME crash on me 15 times in a day. I can consistently and repeatedly crash GNOME, just by doing basic things. (and yes, I've submitted bug reports)
The #1 problem with Linux is the incredibly hostile response to anybody who complains about something. It's like Nazi Germany.
Edited 2010-10-25 19:59 UTC