Re: The State of GNOME
- From: mawarkus t-online de (Matthias Warkus)
- To: gnome-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: The State of GNOME
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:29:03 +0100
+++ Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 01:10:45PM +0200 +++
Albert Strasheim e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> I'm running the most recent version of GNOME [RPM-wise, at least], on a
> Red Hat 5.2 system with Linux 2.2.2.
Hm. It's unwise to install Gnome from tarballs right now. There might
be library glitches you'll never find out about.
[schnibble]
> Half the games in 0.99.7 release didn't even work. 0.99.8 is a little
> better, but not near production quality. Whilst this may seem as something
> very trivial, the first thing a newbie user looks for are some Games to
> keep him entertained, after he's broken the rest of his system. When the
> games blow up in his face [literally], he/she is going to go look
> elsewhere for some shiny, new stuff.
0.99.8.1's games work well for me.
> Another classic example is gtop. A simple utility, you might think. Allows
> me to check out the CPU usage of the processes running on my machine. Yet
> when I fire up gtop, it sucks up 11% of my CPU. There's no such thing as
> immature code to destroy performance.
In case you haven't yet noticed: it's not unusual for even a normal
console top(1) running at an update every 0.5 seconds to eat 10%-20%
CPU, too.
> And where is Enlightenment? Methinks someone needs to tell Rasterman to
> get it done so that we can have a new stable release to look at. GNOME
> isn't going to pull it off if the only Window Manager that works properly
> with it [but not always] is icewm.
FWIW, Window Maker and FLWM(?) support Gnome, too.
[schnibble]
> The state of GNOME 1.0 is a troubling affair. At least, in my mind. I want
> GNOME to krush KDE and wipe Windows, not get crushed and wiped by
> aforementioned products.
Yawn. Without this above silly sentence, you would have more of a
point, methinks.
mawa
--
Every problem in our life demands intelligence to be solved. Why do
people insist on computers not needing intelligence to be set up, used
and maintained?
-- mawa
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]