71–80 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. At my company we use Mint Mate on all desktops. It's clean, simple, works great, and doesn't require training for employees who have never used Linux.
Why Mate instead of a modern, extendable DE such as GNOME 3?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. At my company we use Mint Mate on all desktops. It's clean, simple, works great, and doesn't require training for employees who have never used Linux.
Why Mate instead of a modern, extendable DE such as GNOME 3?
As someone who doesn't use a DE, the question for me goes as far as "why conform to the wills of a DE, when you can have the flexibility of using the tools you want ?"
You seem to think that by being more recent, GNOME 3 is automatically better. You couldn't be further from the truth (again, not a critique against GNOME 3, but against the mindset)
Gotta love how people just won't let go and move on. Imagine if all the diehard mac users ported OS9 to OSX because "OSX was forced on them". It's called progress. Gnome2 was a dying project when Unity was announced. Gnome3 was "coming soon", but flailing around. Unity is different, sure, but so was OSX to a degree when it came out. People need to move on. Unity is the present and future of Ubuntu. We've been talking…
Gotta love how people just won't let go and move on. Imagine if all the diehard mac users ported OS9 to OSX because "OSX was forced on them". It's called progress. Gnome2 was a dying project when Unity was announced. Gnome3 was "coming soon", but flailing around. Unity is different, sure, but so was OSX to a degree when it came out. People need to move on. Unity is the present and future of Ubuntu. We've been talking…
Looking at the recommended hardware specs, I see that it absolutely requires 512MB RAM and recommends at least 2GB, yet it says it has modest hardware requirements. Ubuntu Server has a minimum RAM requirement of 64MB and recommends 256MB; I know an X server takes some memory, but does a reasonable desktop environment have to require 448MB to 1.75GB to run? Probably memory use is not a high priority, but it still seem…
I'm sure that are DE's that work well with less than 512MB of RAM, but there aren't any modern web browsers that do. They're going to put 512MB as a requirement no matter what the DE itself requires.
My parents old Athlon laptop with 512MB runs Linux Mint Mate and is fine for their needs. When they started to complain about the browser slowing down, I downgraded them to Firefox 13, and they were happy again. It's not ideal, but modern enough for reading the news, emailing, and watching videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
XFCE/Xubuntu has been the solution (for me) to pining for 10.04 days. I tried Lubuntu first on the presupposition that lighter was better, but it really was too buggy and lacked some necessary features.
XUbuntu on a 2008 Dell laptop with ssd here, boots in 10 seconds, login in 15. UI is fast, no stupid eye candy animations (gimmicks imo). Couldn't be happier.
Gotta love how people just won't let go and move on. Imagine if all the diehard mac users ported OS9 to OSX because "OSX was forced on them". It's called progress. Gnome2 was a dying project when Unity was announced. Gnome3 was "coming soon", but flailing around. Unity is different, sure, but so was OSX to a degree when it came out. People need to move on. Unity is the present and future of Ubuntu. We've been talking…
There are tons of people who still bitch and moan about how OSX 10.6 was the pinnacle of OSX, and that's been going on nearly 5 years. I've seen plenty of people try to make Win8 look like XP too. There's a good percentage of people who simply do not like change.
I switched to Xubuntu and have grown to love XFCE more than I loved Gnome2. Best features: ability to script and directly hack configuration settings, basic features for window tiling. With scripts I can fully configure a dev box with a single command.
What kind of scripts do you use? I use xfce but I only use xrandr (not depends on xfce) to switch between monitors and don't really know what other scripts are useful or good to have. (or what can I achieve with scripting)
Personally, I think Xubuntu desktop is better that Gnome2-based Ubuntu ever was. It's just that the default settings – only one panel (at the top), ugly blue theme & background image – are not very appealing and feel dated. But after adding a second panel, reorganizing panel contents, changing icons & windows themes and background image, Xubuntu desktop is very nice.
How does XFDE how HiDPI? I'm using Gnome 3 now primarily because its the only DE that handles HiDPI well by default.
Firefox does not obey the above DPI setting, so also set about:config / layout.css.devPixelsPerPx separately. Yet this doesn't seem to affect video controls in YouTube, so they are kind of tiny.
Finally, nothing above scales the window title bars. I kind of like the title bars thinner, because they are wasted space anyway. But if you wanted to increase their height, apparently you'd need to edit the png files in the window theme files, because Xfce does not attempt to scale them, but uses them as pixel graphics.
Personally, I think Xubuntu desktop is better that Gnome2-based Ubuntu ever was. It's just that the default settings – only one panel (at the top), ugly blue theme & background image – are not very appealing and feel dated. But after adding a second panel, reorganizing panel contents, changing icons & windows themes and background image, Xubuntu desktop is very nice.
I used to run exclusively Linux distros, but then switched to OS X around 2008. Recently, I installed the Xubuntu Desktop and I felt that dated feeling you write about. My thought was, "Wow this hasn't changed" Even if it has changed, I couldn't tell at a glance. That's good in one way, but bad in a lot of others.