:: Re: [dyne:bolic] Dynebolic default …
Página Principal
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Hal
Data:  
Para: dynebolic mailinglist
Assunto: Re: [dyne:bolic] Dynebolic default WM
what about the apps that will be of use. Will some of them be from the
gnome environmnet and others from other DE environments? Because that
means installing parts of each desktop anyways...

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:38 PM, dreamer <dreamer@???> wrote:
> Well, I think having an option to install your own custom environment later
> is of course very much wanted.
> Not sure if we'd want separate 'spins' with different
> environments/software, but imho the 'cleanness', minimalism though good
> integration of LXDE make it a nice candidate for some of dyne:bolic's
> applications.
>
> The fact that it's slim and still has plenty of features you might expect
> from a window manager and DE would make the release much more 'slick' imho.
>
> @ Eric, I'm personally a fan of fluxbox, but any *box can tickle my
> enthousiasm ;)
> I just think that LXDE provides the desktop experience that many users are
> expecting from an operating system.
> And still be better equipped for low-end systems than Gnome and Xfce.
>
> I agree that Xfce is 'easy to use' but imo it has a lot of clutter and
> brings a lot of Xfce specific things that don't give it a very neutral
> experience.
> What I see dyne:bolic as is a system anyone is able to use and interact
> with, is able to be customized to the users needs and not give too much
> overhead.
> Perhaps gnome is 'familiar', but it doesn't give the release the edge to
> show what it can really do.
>
> Lets just see what we can squeeze out of LXDE, I'm sure we can find a good
> middle-ground
>
> Alexander
>
>
> ps; perhaps the full-dvd can have an option to select a particular
> environment in the boot-menu?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM, El Evans <3l3vans@???> wrote:
>
>> I like Xfce. It is easy to use for just about anybody, and if it's slower
>> than openbox I hardly notice on my machine.
>>
>> The gnome 2 interface on this version of dyne was BARELY slower and it
>> looks really good. I didn't notice any detriment in performance (when
>> comparing it to my experience with Dyne II), except some applications  were
>> a little slower to load. I will bet that there are alot of "geeks" that are
>> going to miss gnome2, maybe using it could attract more attention to
>> Dynebolic III?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Eric Gunther <a59303@???> wrote:
>>
>> > just my 2 cents but I like blackbox for slim power.  Although I think
>> that
>> > there
>> > would likely have to be some *configuration and *tweaking.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > dynebolic mailing list
>> > dynebolic@???
>> > http://lists.dyne.org/mailman/listinfo/dynebolic
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> dynebolic mailing list
>> dynebolic@???
>> http://lists.dyne.org/mailman/listinfo/dynebolic
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dynebolic mailing list
> dynebolic@???
> http://lists.dyne.org/mailman/listinfo/dynebolic
>