1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Le 07/06/2011 10:00, Olav Vitters a écrit :
<blockquote cite="mid:20110607080033.GA5019@bkor.dhs.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:48:55AM +0200, Thomas Lottmann wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On the other hand, I'd like to still have the possibility to keep
and install Gnome 2.xx in the future, as Gnome 3 isn't both stable
and reliable and complete yet.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
GNOME 2.x is not needed, there is the fallback mode in GNOME3; it'll
give you a gnome-panel and so on. The default layout looks like
GNOME-shell, but it just is a newer gnome-panel.
Regarding GNOME 3 not being reliable, can you reference some bugreports?
This as I don't see any huge problems, especially not for a .0 release.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Liberation Sans"><br>
The falback mode still relies qui a lot on Gnome 3. I concede I
need to do some more testing on a longer period of time, but on
the two computer using a SuSE based system running Gnome 3, I had
quite a lot numerous visual issues and got one program crashing.
But some time has passed and there were probably updates so I need
to retest. <br>
<br>
But looking at the available environments, I'm thinking that in
case some people really can't handle Gnome 3, there is actually
Xfce that can be a good fallback. I'm not sure there are enough
people for maintaining Gnome 2.32 for six extra months. I am
simply cautions about releases that may not be really polished and
stable. <br>
</font>
</body>
</html>
|
