On 01/07/12 14:51, Samuel Penn wrote:
> On Sunday 01 July 2012 10:45:56 Chris Liddell wrote:
<SNIP>>
>> What GNOME 2 did right, *eventually*, was allow a hell of a lot of the
>> functionality to be configured by the user, should the user wish to do so.
>
> But it was Gnome 2 which removed all that configurability in the first
> place. Gnome < 1, when it was designed with Englightenment in mind, was
> incredibly configurable. Far more so than Gnome has ever been since then.
Yeh, that's kind of my point: having gone down the route of removing all
that configurability in GNOME 2, and then effectively being brow beaten
by disgruntled users into putting an awful lot of it back in again in
subsequent maintenance releases, I'm surprised (and a little depressed)
by the fact they've done it again with GNOME 3.
> KDE has kept the configuration options (KDE 4 was originally a broken
> mess, but it has improved a lot since when it was first released), which
> was why I moved to KDE pretty much entirely since KDE 3.
I haven't tried KDE in several years - I may give it a another go soon.
I regularly create and throw away virtual machines for various testing,
builds and so on, so I have the chance to try things out quite a bit.
Chris
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
