*Official Announcement:* Ubuntu Studio is switching to XFCE.

[Scott Lavender]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Michael Dickson <
mike.dickson at rivendellnh.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 11:14 -0500, Scott Lavender wrote:
> > I apologize for singling out this post, but...
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:37 AM, aYo Binitie <ayobinitie at gmail.com>
> >
> > I challenge you (not just you aYo, but everyone) who thinks XFCE isn't
> > "super" or good or isn't GNOME 2 to actually try it.  Try it for a
> > week.  A day, even.
>
> Umm,  maybe the same could be said for Gnome3...
>
> Rather than dump it (or Unity which will apparently be the "default"
> Ubuntu desktop) for yet another DE which itself has pros and cons.
> Being direct, I haven't seen a "viable" argument yet for why a change is
> necessary. Except perhaps that some folks don't like Gnome3.
>
> And sorry, that's not a whine. Its me stating the truth as I see it.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
> Ubuntu-Studio-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
>

Thank you for being direct Michael.  I do apologize if I seem rude, however
the repetitive "Why leave GNOME 2 for XFCE?  This is bad." without given any
reason has begun to irritate.  I do appreciate those who have brought
specific concerns about XFCE, but unfortunately those have been a very small
minority.


Let's start with the current DE, GNOME panel or GNOME 2.X.  With the release
of GNOME 3 we expect that GNOME 2 will see stagnated development and
eventually little to no support/maintenance.  Therefore, in the interest of
sustainability we need to use a different DE.

Numerous people have tried both Unity and GNOME 3, including several team
members, and most felt the work flow provided was not conducive to studio
work.  I was also among that group.

I am aware of only one person (using Unity) that directly reported to the
contrary.

XFCE was chosen because we felt it provides the closest functionality as
GNOME panel.  We expect it to provide users the same fundamental usability
by default with only slight, topical differences.


That is the logic of the argument that has been provided already.  Without
intending to sound peckish, do you find this agrument not "viable"?  Again,
that isn't meant to be confrontational, sarcastic, etc.  That is a sincere
question.  If you do not find it viable then I welcome your opinion on it.


As an aside, I find GNOME 3 incredible and innovative and will be switching
non-audio computer to it (albeit a Fedora version because it is better
integrated) very shortly after I complete other tasks.  This will end up
being my default computer for all non-audio items.  I find Unity provides a
similar environment, but it seems to provide slightly less (and more buggy)
functionality at this time than GNOME 3.  Although I want to commend those
who did the work on it for accomplishing so much in a very, very short time.

Regards,
ScottL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-users/attachments/20110515/3d8f1ba9/attachment.html>