Re: Fallback / Classic Mode

[Sriram Ramkrishna <sri ramkrishna me>]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com> wrote:

Allan:

On 03/18/11 04:28 AM, Allan Day wrote:

The message, as Olav has already pointed out, is
that it is 'fallback', not 'classic' GNOME. It's what you get if you are
unlucky enough not to be able to run the full GNOME 3 desktop. It isn't
intended as something that users choose to use.

(There is a switch in the control center that lets you force the
fallback mode, however.)

I can imagine some situations where a user would want to choose
'fallback' mode.  For example, when accessing a remote machine via
XDMCP or Xvnc, users would likely find that 'fallback' GNOME performs
better - especially if latency is high.  If my home directory is shared
between the remote and local machine, I might want to use GNOME 3 on my
local machine, but use "fallback" GNOME when I log into remote machines.

I get your point that for the "average" or "typical" user, it probably
does not make sense to expose the fallback/classic mode.  However, there
will likely always be particular configurations or setups where it makes
sense for people to use it.  Unless GNOME is evolving to simply just not
support these sorts of use cases anymore.

My employer does not have Linux desktops.. they instead provide VNC with fvwm2 or some other light weight window manager in order to work in their linux environment.  Likely they might start moving to virtual machines as well.  In fact, my work model is to use a virtual machines for Window on a Linux host but for most other people it'll likely be the other way around.

I can't help but think that we are missing out on a large number of corporate users, amazon ec2 users, etc when we do not have a strategy to address remote computing; popular among business IT due to cost saving benefits.

sri