Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 27th Nov 2011 22:07 UTC, submitted by Nooone
Linux So, it's no secret that the Linux desktop - at least, the GNOME-side of things - is a bit in a state of disarray. Unity hasn't exactly gone down well with a lot of people, and GNOME 3, too, hasn't been met with universal praise. So, what to do? Linux Mint, currently one of the most popular Linux distributions out there, thinks they are on to the solution with their latest release, Linux Mint 12.
Thread beginning with comment 498303
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No solution... might be a solution.
by Jason Bourne on Mon 28th Nov 2011 14:25 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

I have tried Mint and the problem is not GNOME Shell. The problem is having Ubuntu as upstream. It inherits all illness from this distro.

I have bashed GNOME Shell in previous posts here to death, but right now it's what I have been forced to use. Surely its default fonts and settings are from hell, but with a little tweak (and no fallback mode) you can make yourself at home after getting used to. I came to this conclusion after experiencing about dozen of unacceptable KDE crashes. GNOME 3, the unholy mess, is what I am using now, with no crashes whatsoever, but this has to do with Arch Linux too.

My solution to the desktop dilemma was to give up and move to Arch Linux. Basically I installed the base and base-devel from installation and then, after a reboot, in this order:

xf86-ati-video
xorg-server
xorg-utils
gnome
gnome-extras
gnome-packagekit
firefox
flash-plugin
quodlibet


This gave me a basic desktop and gnome-packagekit handled the rest:

gstreamer-plugins (all packages)
libreoffice & language aids
hunspell


AUR gave me more tweaking:
ubuntu rendering engine packages
which is about 4 packages to create.

and of course, I always keep the Ubuntu fonts in ~/.fonts, because it's the only thing in Ubuntu now I admirely recognize as a great thing. I need these sexy fonts!

Problem solved. GNOME 3 is not perfect, but is more stable than KDE. After two weeks of being forced into Shell, I had an apnea going back to GNOME 2 in another machine. I mean, it is still very messy when you open more than 8 windows on your desktop workspace. But I believe we have no choice other than adapt and hope things will get better. I hope KDE gets better too. I just don't see hopes for the other lame desktops. It's going to be it: GNOME and KDE. These two. And they will be like they are.

What I want to say is that Linux distros should focus more on being Arch based than Debian or Ubuntu based. Of course, I will miss the shiny delta rpm thing from Fedora, but I hope one day it will be introduced in pacman, with package signing, et all.

Please leave Ubuntu to do its own thing. Platform of the future? Well, no. Not now, at least. And it sounds arrogant. Haven't we got hell of enough Debian and Ubuntu based stuff? Things really started to get messed up after 9.10 release.

Edited 2011-11-28 14:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Arch based? Really? I'm a bit bored, if you would share what you're smoking, that would be great! Debian is an amazing distro, don't blame Debian for what Canonical has done to it.

Edited 2011-11-28 20:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Jason Bourne Member since:
2007-06-02

Arch based? Really? I'm a bit bored, if you would share what you're smoking.


I can give you a few tips as to why Debian is not the hottie you think it is.

- Excessive -dev packages. They shouldn't even exist. These were the days of 1GB hard drives?

- Too long cycle release. A Linux distro must be neither too hot or too cold. It's gotta have balance. If stable is too old, what's the point if I want a new software feature?

- Torvalds himself points it as "pointless exercise".

- Debian is a stupid name, too. Mix of Deborah and Ian? Oh give me a break!

But I will give you the stability credit. But RHEL and clones are on par with it.

Reply Parent Score: 0