LXDE is an acceptable substitute for Gnome 2

[Daniel B. Thurman]

On 09/17/2011 01:28 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I personally think that you GNOME 3 devs are incompetent (I know that there
>> are some who are not happy about the state of it and perhaps will get an upper
>> hand in due time - the sooner the better).
> That seems uncalled for. Trying to build a new desktop is a large, non
> trivial project. It doesn't take incompetence to get it badly wrong in
> places, it's an inevitable part of any big change. The real test will be
> how well it gets sorted and tidied up.
>
> Most of the Gnome 3 developers have done a heck of a lot more work than
> almost all of the peanut gallery.
>
> Alan
Has anyone taken a poll from the Fedora Community
as to what new directions Gnome-X should be taking
BEFORE making such a paradigm shift? Were this a
commercial product, you will hearing from your customers
who otherwise will drop the product (gnome-3, that is) and
seek solace elsewhere. IMO, the peanut-gallery started with
Gnome-3, not Gnome-2.

I have installed and played with Gnome-3, and my
first impressions was: unholy shite! Where in the ruckus
has everything gone!  Also, my (not that old) desktop
ran fine with Gnome-2, but fell into 'fallback-mode' and
went from turtle to slug. This left a very bad taste in my
mouth and I will not use Gnome-3 as it is.  I truly understand
Linux Torvald's impressions... what a (bleep!) "unholy mess"!
(paraphrased)

I imagine the grief of those who invested into Linux (having
ripped out Winbows due to costs) with Gnome-2 installed
by default, having to explain to their superiors why they
need to update and retrain their people the way of the
mobile UI.

It seems to me, a LOT of work went into Gnome-3,
with the expectation that the Linux community will have
to have it ramroded into their throats, mercilessly water
boarded without resistance, and their screams silenced...
Didn't expect that, did you?