Time is precious. Therefore, thus, ergo, ipso facto, concordingly, here be a tutorial explaining how to make the default Gnome 3 desktop more productive and accessible, including Gnome Tweak Tool, windows buttons and application menu, essential extensions, panel-like dock, how to show desktop, software tweaks and changes, other tips and tricks, and more. Enjoy. http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/gnome-3-more-accessible-guide.html Cheers, Mrk
Thanks for this article, Mrk, which gives good hints how to improve Gnome 3. Nevertheless, I think I will stick with KDE. However, I disagree with this statement: Yes, Systemd is a highly debated thing. But calling Wayland something which is there to give developers a job is simpy wrong, IMHO. Here's what Martin Grässlin once wrote: Martin is the maintainer of the KDE Plasma Compositor and of KWin. So he definitely knows what he's talking about. You might argue that there is no malware in the wild which abuses these X11 weaknesses. However, this must not be a reason to NOT fix an identified security weakness which will be abused sooner or later. That's why it's a good thing that Wayland will replace X11. That Wayland still needs some polishing is another story.
As a user, I don't care about security. I care about programs launching. Security is a byproduct. So redesigning something to fix a non-existing issue (X security) is not a reason to disrupt the usability. BTW, the statement - making it easier to develop - is not mine. It's the official byline for Wayland. Mrk
Agreed! But that doesn't mean that developers shouldn't try to fix security holes even if they haven't been exploited so far. It is not non-existing. By this definition every security bug that had not been exploited before was "non-existing". Fixing security bugs must act pro-actively. The disruption of usability is, as mentioned above, another story and could mean that Wayland isn't mature enough yet. That's certainly possible although there are other positive voices. From what I read on Phoronix, Michael Larabel is happy with it. So it could be related to your specific hardware. For example, some kernels from the 4.8.x series in Fedora caused my system to freeze reproducibly while obviously most other users were not affected. Such is life.
Security is meaningless if it hurts users. So okay, there are problems, fine. They need to be fixed SEAMLESSLY. And saying such is life is not acceptable. You don't accept that from your fridge, tv or car. Why software then? Mrk
Yes, it should not happen. And perhaps it was premature that Fedora uses Wayland as the default. But at least it's easy to switch to X11 if there are problems. If the motor of your car is broken the only choice you have is to leave it behind and walk - unless you're Fred Flintstone But my main point was that Wayland is not there just to give developers a job. But I understand that some witty remarks make such a review more interesting to read
Of course it is. 99% of all open-source/Linux projects are entirely self-supporting. What is the business case for Wayland or systemd? Mrk
I'd like to ask why Gnome 3 should be modified to be like something else instead of directly using that something else, like MATE, which is quite similar to Gnome 2 already.
