Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 1/4/25 9:01 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-04 17:13, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 1/4/25 10:14 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-04 03:32, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 1/3/25 3:10 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-03 09:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/01/2025 13:56, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-03 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/01/2025 20:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-02 14:42, rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 08:36:41 -0500, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>

I find GNOME rather clunky whereas KDE, at least on Fedora and Nobara,
is perfect out of the box. I imagine that a lot of people who try out
Linux and face GNOME are going to wonder how to do the basics, and they
will likely find that the way extensions work is rather clunky,
especially during upgrades. Meanwhile, KDE is very familiar and offers a
ton of features they could only dream of in Windows like the desktop
effects, theming options and widgets. Unlike Cinnamon too, the widgets
in KDE actually work as they should.

>
The Ubuntu box has GNOME. I live with it but I'm not a fan. I'd rather
have a menu structure rather than the 'Show Applications' button that
brings up three or four screens of unsorted stuff.

>
GNOME was designed with the belief that anyone looking for an application will press the Windows key and then type the name of what they're looking for rather than select it from a menu. That's how I do it whether I use Windows, GNOME or KDE so I would agree with their design choice.
>

Odd, since MATE - a superset of GNOME - expects you to use a menu. Its very XP like.
>
And since XP was what I was running when I switched entirely to Linux, I didn't have to relearn very much at all..

>
We are talking about GNOME _now_ not then.
>

Fairy Nuff. I have no idea what it is now, but MATE is still built on gnome3  libraries AFAIK
And was a sort of fork of gnome2 desktop

>
I always thought that MATE used GTK2. If it indeed uses GTK3, all the better.

>
   GTK3 is a little better.
>
   MATE isn't horrible, but it's still not my fave.
   LXDE is my fave - JUST ENOUGH GUI. It's small
   and it's sane and does what you need the way
   you'd expect. Somewhere between the Win-2k
   and XP experience.
>
   DID like Win-2K ... still have it in a VM and
   DO use it sometimes. Still ran 8/16 ... a big
   advantage for people who love 'antique'-ware.
   Nice simple GUI with few frills.

>
I haven't used much of LXDE but I know that I liked it. If I remember correctly, that was what I installed on the computer I bought my parents in the 2000s. I'm surprised that LXQT isn't as interesting though. I used it for a moment a few months ago.

>
>
   LXQt ... just ain't the same somehow - different feel.
   Was still buggy too when I was fooling around with it.
   'PCManFM'-qt also wasn't as friendly.
>
   Anyway, my choices are LXDE or, second, XFCE. I do not
   care for 'eye candy' or excessive 'integration' much.
   KDE obviously went in the other direction, almost may
   as well buy Winders.
>
   At least with Linux there are MANY choices for desktops.

 It's the customization options of KDE that got me interested. You can customize GNOME to an extent, but it's needlessly difficult whereas KDE includes just about everything you would need immediately. XFCE is even more customizable, but I find it to be somewhat dated. Additionally, it is way too easy to break something specifically because of how open it is to being modified by the user.

   Well, I never try to mod it very much - so no probs.
   Biggest issues revolve around kinda faulty detection
   of the mousepad. Had to go kinda deep and weird to
   help there. Were also a few brightness-default issues
   with the display (but that was X-related, not so
   much XFCE). Had these issues with several distros,
   they don't seem to like laptops. Probs with HPs and
   with some Dells also (including the latest Fedora).
   Anyway, LXDE is what does it for me. "Dated" is
   JUST GREAT in my aesthetic  :-)