Cross you fingers Zeitgeist.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vect Jan 21, 2010 3:20 PM EDT |
The only problems with the current Gnome are it's regressive bugs. Gnome's continually un-finished state doesn't really inspire confidence in Zeitgeist's potential future. Zeitgeist will need to be stellar in order to validate the changes it brings. I don't see it happening. Best case scenario for Zeitgeist is this: Zeitgeist maintains a low-profile, easing any pressure there may be to release a premature product. Zeitgeist reaches the state of a solid, convincing product as would be released by Microsoft, Apple or Adobe. The 'finished' release is special and inspiring in the way that only a well-thought out and completed software project can be. |
| gus3 Jan 21, 2010 4:20 PM EDT |
The best "low profile" is "no profile." If I can't turn off Zeitgeist, I'll be ditching GNOME and rolling my own, Sawfish-based lightweight desktop. Maybe using LXDE. |
| vect Jan 22, 2010 4:29 AM EDT |
I'm with you on that one. I'll try stumpwm before I try zeitgeist. I like current gnome but it's a lame duck president. |
| gus3 Jan 22, 2010 10:22 AM EDT |
I, uh, jumped the gun a bit. I'm on LXDE with Sawfish now, with Eric Hameleers' packages. It took a little hacking (could someone explain why xdg-open is dependent on DE support?), but now it works, and how. After a reboot, starting LXDE with nothing cached takes as long as starting GNOME with everything cached. And once LXDE is cached, another launch really is "in the blink of an eye." It's funny how I have a dual-core, 64-bit system, with 4 gigs of RAM, and still I want something lightweight for my desktop environment. |
| dinotrac Jan 22, 2010 10:41 AM EDT |
gus3 -- Not so funny. Now and then I have marvelled at how little kajillahertz and zoogabytes seem to have helped me when doing everyday tasks like Word Processing. To this day, I'm not convinced that I can do a much better job than we used to do on our old 8mz XT with Microsoft Word for Dos. |
| gus3 Jan 22, 2010 11:11 AM EDT |
"kajillahertz and zoogabytes" I'm not familiar with those ISO prefixes. What orders of magnitude are they? More seriously, I'd rather do word processing with WYSIWYG in a GUI. But even that doesn't require kajillahertz and zoogabytes for reasonable rendering; even WordPad, lame as it was, was WYSIWYG in 1993. |
| techiem2 Jan 22, 2010 12:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:It's funny how I have a dual-core, 64-bit system, with 4 gigs of RAM, and still I want something lightweight for my desktop environment. Phenom II X4 955 (Quad 3.2Ghz), 4GB RAM, Funtoo 64 bit, Fluxbox. :P |
| gus3 Jan 22, 2010 1:10 PM EDT |
Yeah, Fluxbox works on my ancient Toshiba laptop with 96 megs of RAM. I'm sure it had Windows on it originally, but it'll never have snazzy sub-pixel rendering with any Microsoft OS. ;-) |
| vect Jan 22, 2010 5:58 PM EDT |
dinotrac, I think you're onto something there. Access to 'better' hardware and software tools has not really worked out the way we thought it would. When tools were simple it was difficult making things in the bounds of simplicity. With complex tools, it is simple to make things of boundless complexity. I always thought nero had a very complicated interface, but the various console based tools on linux for burning cds have always been simple to use. Pick what you want to do: (1) burn a data disc (2) burn a music disc (3) burn a video disc. The console interface leaves very little room for the sort of visual inefficiency found in nero. |
| theboomboomcars Jan 22, 2010 6:55 PM EDT |
If I am remembering correctly kajilla is 1.42x10^9.72416 and zooga is 1.775x10^12.4777942, which is why they are not commonly used, just too hard to work with. |
| dinotrac Jan 22, 2010 9:32 PM EDT |
BoomBooma - Spot on for kajilla, but I'm afraid that 12.4777943 for zooga. I thought everybody knew that. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!