Although Gnome Shell it continues to mature and improve, there are still many users who still do not see its good side and prefer something more traditional.
It was then when the Forks or forks as some call it began to be born, which are limited to being just another Shell for Gnome 3. We have the case of Unity y Cinnamon, the latter has been very well received by users to the point, that I read somewhere that they are proposing that it be the next desktop of Fedora.
But this Shell In the beginning they had a slight problem: 3D acceleration was needed to be able to execute them. The solution came from the hand of lvmpipe, which allows rendering the graph using CPU where the GPU cannot, but this has its disadvantages, such as that it only runs correctly on x86 or amd64 processors.
But getting back to the heart of the matter. GNOME as an alternative, together with its Shell it also launched Gnome Fallback, a kind of traditional desk (and ugly) that in the end they are not going to continue developing because for them it would be to delay in the evolution of this DE.
And that's when it kicks in Ikey doherty (yep, the creator of SolusOS) who together with his team has created a Fork of Gnome Fallback, which they have baptized as consort. consort try to recover not only the appearance of GNOME2, but its options and functionalities, as we can see in the screenshots that they give us on the blog of SolusOS..
consort use a fork of metacity what is its name Consortium which is being worked on to bring it up to GTK3 / Cairo, as it is based on version 2.34 of metacity and this is a nearly dead project. Antialiasing has been introduced for window corners and plugins, as well as extended themes,
Some of the components of Consort:
- Gnome-panel is now consort-panel
- Nautilus is now Athena
- Gnome-session-fallback will become consort-session
- Metacity is now Consortium as I have already told you.
It is important to note that with consort full compatibility with the GNOME suite itself is still maintained. Ikey and his team are not going to touch anything from the core libraries, so consort it can be installed in most distributions with GTK3, without any problem. SolusOS 2 Alpha 7 will be released with the first revision of this new DE.
You can see more details and screenshots in this link.
Those who want to go testing can also get the code in the Github repositories:
https://github.com/SolusOS/Athena
https://github.com/SolusOS/athena-extensions
https://github.com/SolusOS/consort-panel
https://github.com/SolusOS/consortium
En The replicant's gaze They also tell us about this and provide other details to take into account.
Seeing how more and more options are being born Gnome Shell in desperate search for something traditional or more functional, I must say that I feel more comfortable using KDE, a Desktop Environment that is very clear about its objective and that with each version improves performance and functionality .. I have said.
Yes, a lot of freedom of choice and blah but really, when it comes down to it, developers of major companies (or any individual) who want to create their application will have it super complex to integrate it at an advanced level in the system because of so many little used desktop forks and in the end they will opt for the most used Gtk-ubuntu and enough of nonsense.
Meanwhile, wasted efforts to create great things in the two main desktop environments.
You know, 'Who covers a lot little squeezes'
But yes, what freedom to kick, but then when the program X on duty does not look spectacular on your desktop, you know why it is.
It is true, it is precisely so much Freedom that sometimes complicates things, but that is an evil that OpenSource will always drag. I'm still in the higher versions: KDE, Xfce, GNOME and the latter, as the last option Cinnamon ..
In this case, we could not speak of "fork" itself, but of different "shells" for Gnome3, as you can use sh, bash, csh or ksh on the Linux kernel, whichever is more comfortable for you. And as you say: "kicking freedom", some don't like it, perhaps a tyranny is much more "orderly" than a democracy, but some of us still prefer freedom above all else. Regards.
Yes, but remember that for example:
Behind the progress bar superimposed on the Ubuntu-unity icons is code behind.
That in the number of notifications of the Ubuntu-unity and elementary icons there is code behind.
Or behind the quick lists.
(Sorry to only use gtk examples for not knowing from others)
What I mean is that all that you have to program it and if you have to create code to take advantage of the latest news from each of the 'shell's or desk forks (mate) or for each desktop environment (in general)
In the end you do not get such beautiful applications (yes, gentlemen, design is important, neither more nor less than functionality) than if we only had two or three environments to choose from.
PS: I accept your correction about the forks although I was speaking in a general way not in particular about consort.
I think it's perfect that you want Freedom, then don't complain when your favorite projects start to die and have problems self-supplying, since that is caused by the abandonment of developers who are going to fork (general fork or creation of another shell ), instead of joining forces and trying to argue (discussion is also part of democracy;))
What I do not tolerate is that people who want so much Freedom (you will tell me why ..., it must be that you use 20 desktop environments at the same time, or that you use 14 music applications to listen to your favorite song at the same time ... ) then he complains that the X program lacks the Y functionality when the Z program does, although it just so damn happens that the Z program does not fit well with my desktop or I have no way to install it because it exploits my computer.
Joining efforts is not a tyranny, just as everyone doing whatever they want is not democracy, it is debauchery.
regards
As you can not edit the development of the topic anymore since I know when I can answer xD, what I ultimately want to say (and I do not speak for you but in general) is that Freedom is very good (seriously, I think it is ), but if that implies 'worse quality', it starts to annoy me a bit, with worse quality I mean that each developer does what they want, instead of contributing to solid projects, they create their own program that in the 80% of cases will end up abandoning it, and that investment of time and resources has been useless, both for him and for users (they have only lost time).
In the end we will have to offer 138 alternatives to Gnome Shell, and that seems absolutely ridiculous to me, because of the 138 only 3 will be worth it, now tell me, if the remaining 135 projects could not have joined Gnome Shell and contribute / propose new ideas for a better development, that would be the ideal, obviously I'm exaggerating it, if they create 138 forks probably the Gnome ones would shoot themselves xD but "kicking freedom" seems to me something "very valuable" and "impractical" in life real. Because I prefer that there are only 2-3 programs that are very good and comply with what I ask, than that there are 20-23 programs that are not so good and that none of them give me what I ask.
So as a user I would feel bad, it would also be necessary to see what is meant by freedom, because with 5 video editing programs I am also free to choose, or not? maybe 57 programs are necessary to be totally free, or better 278, so I'm sure I'll be free 😀
The same happens with Linux distributions (cough cough Hannah Montanna Linux cough cough), yes, that Freedom is the milk (and I mean it) but that in our ecosystem (and I speak from my experience obviously) causes me problems, because I do not finish getting what I need, but if approximations, and that is due to the abandonment of developers. You just have to see how the applications ask for collaborators.
Anyway, I'm not going to bad (far from it!) But so much freedom (for my debauchery) is a weak point of Linux, as packages (.deb .rpm .yoquesequantos), is it really useful / practical? Do you think that a developer likes to have to package his program 6 times? Wouldn't it be more practical if there was only one extension by default? or 2? That the devs know, and usually they leave the dirty work to the packagers of each distro, they put the source code and wash their hands, but all those packagers also waste time having to package, and there are not always packaged applications, so you have to pull compiling, and it is much easier to click on an icon and have it installed than not to have to compile (right, right? especially for a novice user ...)
Then people are surprised that Linux does not gain so many followers (although things have improved a lot).
Greetings (I think I have not left anything hahaha)
Look, we live on a planet that "made" people, or maybe some external agent created life and people's lives. Be that as it may, they (neither the creators nor the earth) ask themselves whether or not we served a certain purpose. They have only left us in space with the possibility of reproducing and developing ourselves as we want. So the truth is that I do not understand why that effort to join forces and people to get "I don't know where." To progress? to evolution? That's all verse !! Do not fool yourself. The best things are done from the anarchy although mathematically and statistically it does not seem logical or profitable. GNU / Linux in its entirety is a great proof of it, don't you think? First is the human being, then his work. That the system does not eat the coconut. Say no more! from the south, alunado.
I agree that it would be best to join forces. But sometimes you just can't. If I remember correctly, the Consort developer uploaded the patches to gnome to restore functionalities to gnome-panel, and after some time of uncertainty, they rejected the changes because it would not respect the design lines that had been proposed. Some time later they left the project. If you were planning to abandon the project, why didn't you let that developer just keep it?
I later found out that he was formally proposed to keep the gnome-panel packages himself (after a few happy crossovers on irc), but probably realizing that the gnome bureaucracy would cost him a lot of time, he decided to just forge it, which allows him complete freedom .
As for freedom, with free software, developers really have it, users have it more limited unless they coincide in being user-developers, the main freedom of the SL is to modify the program and share those modifications, So, at least for me, as a simple user I only have the freedom to choose what is "sung" to those who develop :). About debauchery-freedom, it is an old verse of those who only want to restrict freedom, there is no "too much" freedom, what bothers you is the lack of "consensus" between the different projects, to agree on the general lines, common objectives; But it is something that must be "tolerated" in an area where everyone is free to do whatever they want with the code (That Mountain). There are two options: choosing between a very efficient "tyranny", where everyone is "in agreement" (pyramidal structure) or a less "efficient" democracy (or anarchy, in the political sense) where dissent and consensus are not regulated from within. nowhere, that's the choice, it seems to me; and it remains in our hands (the community) to be more or less "dispersed" ..
Among so much Freedom, thank you MATE and XFCE for existing. 🙂
How about my dear Elav.
Well, it really is a good alternative and I think it deserves the opportunity, although I think so many derivatives of the same thing only do from my personal opinion something that complicates things instead of improving them. As a GNOME Shell user I feel extremely comfortable and I do not miss the old desktop at all and the changes made to Nautilus are more aesthetic than background since many of its functionalities I still have, only with some small differences (in tastes it breaks into genders). Although Ikey has done a great job, I think he should have waited to see the extension that will be available in variant 8 of branch 3 of GNOME Shell and that according to this will allow to have a classic desktop without much fuss.
By the way, I did not switch to Windows, I am on a virtualized desktop because I have a little job to get and that has no way to do it with Linux (at least that I know of) since there is no equivalent application or that has the same functionalities :-)) - (an application to be developed in Adobe Director).
A virtue that you have, my dear, of adapting to changes ... it is something that few of us have as a privilege, but unfortunately there are many others who feel comfortable with what they know and that is when these things happen ...
How about my dear Elav.
I do not know if virtue or misfortune :-), but if I share in something the concern of this somewhat radical change. I was commenting on this because seeing the work of the Elementary, Manjaro, Mint and Ikey team (to name a few) I think it would have been very nice to see something more solid (don't get me wrong) and that it was smoother when it comes to change. The GNOME 2 interface is almost the best and I miss it at times. But anyway, I'm a red-blooded GTK user, and although KDE and QT are beautiful and fantastic personally, they don't appeal to me.
In line with what you are talking about and leaving Consort aside, the truth is that my so much «sucker» in Linux is beginning to tire me…. so much fork and so much milk…. infinity of different projects and they do not join forces in anything clear or in any direction .. this is a house of sex professionals, not to say a house of p… .t… .s
I'm starting to get tired, fed up, and I'm about to stay fixed on my Mac OS X, even if it is Hackintosh, that these are clear.
I said.
Yoyo XD has been hacked
I have also used OS X and it works well, but there is no freedom, the bad thing is that in linux when you get used to gnome2 (for example) you have to update to 3, when I feel comfortable in 3, 4 will come out and the only way to keep using these desktops is with forks and don't say it in RR
I ask you a question, the freedom of what? because I do the same and identical things that I did in linux and in windows, the only freedom I lack is to change DE, which I don't miss either, because the only DE that I like about Linux is kde
Linux is supposed to be open source, and Mac is the most closed thing out there.
Freedom for a developer to take (free) software and "make it his own", that is, create a fork.
Modify desktop, configure the system, compile our software, know what you have installed, many times it is not even known what is being installed and what information the OS is collecting from us, to program, etc, etc and in short I have also done the same, identical as in Win / OS X
regards
No frank as a user you may not feel so much the theft of freedom since after all you were free to install mac and the programs you have and with sour cherries you will still be free to hack whatever you want even if you pay consequences for that.
As it is at the programmer level, the theft of liberties sure if it feels a lot and more when there is $$$ in between or not? xD and I think that having variety is good, very good, although joining forces is not bad either since after all two heads think better than one or at least help others a little and what I don't think is very good is that eagerness to be left behind they are very badly imposed and some may have such a closed mentality that it is surprising but they are lucky that this is GNU / Linux and there is something for everyone.
Well I like to stay neutral or on the sidelines on these issues but there is the bread bothering if I decided to enter and comment nonsense.
Greetings and make more flame that is fun, I say good to show our differences and know different points of view.
That's why the pithon programmer keeps using osx, that's why the wayland guy does the wayland presentation using osx, etc. etc.
And that two heads think better than one, it must depend a lot, here in Linux there are never two heads united, there are two and one in each different project. There is no consequence in Spain for hacking anything, although it is not necessary, practically all programs that you use in Linux, I have them in mac, and if I want I could even compile them. Gimp, Inkscape, blender, libreoffice, firefox, qupzilla, clementine, tomahawk, etc etc-
Freedom to create applications based on existing ones using your code, without forgetting the important economic savings, both with the system and with the applications.
But those applications are usually on all other systems as well, so you can still take the libreoffice code for example, if you are on windows.
With how beautiful the cabarets are 😛
I understand you and I even suffer it and the worst thing is that these derivatives from my point of view are just that: derivatives, whose function is to keep the past times in the memory of the nostalgic ... so much effort of code makeup and changes can be applied of names to the improvement of what already exists.
For me it is a simple act of inability to face the present.
I was just like you and in the end I ended up building a computer just for the hackintosh and I ended up with problems.
What the heck you weren't using firefox and flying and doing magic tricks?
I change my browser every week, I have them all installed.
Another who did the same, I bought the custom PC for Hackistosh and it has been going from Tiger 10.4 to the last Mountain Lion 10.8.2 using the same DSDT.aml and Kexts since Snow Leopard 10.6 and without problems ...
How ugly the attitude 🙁
The developers are going to be very sad that you are getting "tired".
The truth is that SolusOS has very good reasons to succeed as a distro, and I am not saying this only because of the fact of transferring all the technology of Gnome 3 to an attractive and agile Gnome Classic like nobody had done until now, or because of Debian Stable and not being an Ubuntu anymore. Why, in the end, if Linux Mint triumphed with less merits (in my opinion), why not SolusOS?
In addition, SolusOS quickly acquires that point of originality that differentiates it from the rest on the desktop and gives it personality, with a very active community that feels listened to by Ikey and his collaborators, which makes it not only a «very good distribution "But on top of that," most of them like him.
As for supporting large projects, I also share it (I myself use Gnome Shell in openSUSE with a few extensions and so happy ..), but in many cases developers work altruistically and it is normal for them to get to work in something that they really like (the issue of Gnome Shell and the divorce with the users I think it comes a bit around there…) and if Ikey wants a classic desktop and the community supports him, then hey «go ahead!»
Fragmentation in GNU / Linux is a topic that has already been widely debated, but I think that when creating applications the problem comes more from the dependencies and the different package systems of each distro
Greetings and thanks for the mention Elav!
Pufff that will be NOTHING next to the new Gnome Classic that the Gnome people are polishing more and more ..
And if you don't believe me here is the information
http://worldofgnome.org/gnome-classic-not-classic-all/
I respectfully regard this 'new proposal' as an unnecessary waste of energy and time. another fork? by God ... why not improve the managers and desktop environments that already exist ??? At the rate we are going, every developer who separates from a project because they don't feel comfortable will end up creating a distro. And I'm not trying to deny freedom, but this situation already reaches the absurdity.
I like moi and it is the only alternative that I feel comfortable with.
I agree with you, it is not about doing things each one on their own, if not joining and improving what has already been done!
Regards!
elendilnarsil: It seems to me that you are wrong, at least in this particular case, Yes I think it is a waste of energy Mate (for forking an entire desktop with old technology). Or Unity / Shell, which ultimately do almost the same thing (or it can be done in shell with a couple of plugins). Canonical should rejoin effort with gnome for a better interface).
But Cinnamon didn't seem like an unnecessary effort (albeit wrong). There are users who want to continue using gnome3 with the interface they already had in gnome2. Cinnamon took a step in that direction. But he reinvented the wheel. The technology to achieve it already existed, gnome-panel, although it was almost abandoned. Then gnome left gnome-panel and only then, when no one was keeping it, Ikey forked it, to keep it alive. There is no other fork of gnome-panel in its grtk3 version. Solo consort.
The advantages over Cinnamon are overwhelming. Cinnamon keeps adding the missing features. Consort already has everything. Cinnamon has a base of applets / plugins. Consort has everything that gnome-panel had. Even Ikey is developing support for the gnome2 python applets. Supports ubuntu flags. The difference is massive. Ikey did, now, what Cinnamon should have been all along.
Greetings.
I understand what you say and it is true that Mate has been a bad investment. I don't understand how they can get so hung up on outdated code, however, I respect that. Now, I agree with Elav in terms of the environments that I use and test constantly: KDE, Gnome, XFCE and and in the last case Cinnamon. And if it is a manager, I bet on Openbox, although Awesome catches my attention.
That is another of the main advantages of Consort. It is compatible with Gnome, by design. Whatever works in gnome - everything but shell - will work in Consort. From a hawk's eye, it is the gnome 3, but the shell replaced by the panel. This makes consort only consist of a couple of its own packages and the rest use the same ones from gnome3. That keeps the maintenance task for the developer minimal.
There is this detail that there is so much variety in desktop environments, can you imagine a GNU / Linux world where there was only 1 single desktop (either gnome or kde) as in windows or mac that is only 1, the variety is in the tastes and everyone chooses the one that best suits them and is accommodated for that reason is that GNU / LInux is superior in every aspect to the other OS!
The variety is fine, there may be a few alternatives, which I know, 4 or 5, when there are 42 alternatives to the thing it begins to be more worrying, because surely most of the alternatives are for "pijadas":
"Aaay is that the Gnome Shell now only has one bar at the top and I want one at the top and one at the bottom because that way I work in a much more comfortable way, aaaa and that is what I say without having tried to adapt to the new Sheeeelll, is that I am like that.
And regarding your last sentence, there are users (among which I include myself) that none of the alternatives suits them, why? because half an orange is at the north pole and the other half is at the south pole, so nothing is of any use to me at all, I have to adapt by doing strange things. Of course, in the end you get it, because wanting is power they say, but still it continues to annoy.
Excuse my spelling, but frankly so many forks despair and in the end they are all the same, instead of so much fork they do, they will dedicate themselves to polishing the original environments to the maximum, in the case of gnome shell, which even when installed on a computer Powerful also takes a while to charge after login
Excellent work from Ikey Doherty, looking forward to this version of SolusOS where they use Pisi
regards
In favor of Ikey Doherty I would like to comment that a year ago he already tried to contact Gnome developers and maintainers of this desktop in Debian, without getting no longer that they listened to him in his suggestions, but even that they responded to him (it is the version of Ikey, yes, as told on Google +). In any case, aspiring to unification in the Linux world is a pipe dream, and probably has no reason to exist either. GNU / Linux is what it is and in this life everything has advantages and disadvantages, even freedom. For me, the advantages still far outweigh the disadvantages, but this is already a matter of each one.
It has good advantages, such as some very very light desktop environments that are halfway between using only the console and a desktop environment, which is very good for very light computers or to make a home server and not be scared just to see the terminal.
But I think what we want to say is that there are a few options, depending on the need, but that to meet that same need there is a "pot" because no, that's when the effort is divided and lost ...
What difference does this have with the MATE DESKTOP project, because they do not include mate and voila.
As far as I know, MATE is a fork of GNOME2, that is, it uses almost obsolete libraries and applications. The idea is to use the new technologies, but visually adapt them to resemble the old one 😀
It looks pretty clean, aesthetic, and simple. It's great, maybe I'll try it, they think that these repos will affect my debian or I shouldn't put them.
https://github.com/SolusOS/Athena
https://github.com/SolusOS/athena-extensions
https://github.com/SolusOS/consort-panel
https://github.com/SolusOS/consortium
Wenas! ..
Starting with the main topic ... ... I think that the decision of SolusOS is not entirely wrong ... and the way they focus on it is well planned. Gnome is on the right track by not wanting to keep their Gnome Fallback, and a group that wants something classic that doesn't need 3D acceleration, gives a lot of users a good chance ... especially their own community that is asking for something similar. .
As for the great diversity of projects ... I think it is something that makes us complex and also identifies us in the GNU / Linux world ... ... many projects remain stagnant, many others progress ... but most importantly, in my way To see, is to be able to see all those developments ... and use those ideas at will, which are unique in each of their forks, there are many that can transfer them to their own environment. What do i mean? I mean that we have the freedom to do whatever we want with each thing .. ..and that gives me the freedom to make my environment the most comfortable and appropriate to my specific needs .. ..there is something that we have to keep well in account, and that is that although each environment (examples Gnome, KDE, QT) are made with certain objectives ... no matter how much they want they cannot satisfy all the specific needs of each person who uses them (not to mention how giant the version would remain)
Like me ... surely many were overwhelmed by so many DEs to choose from and the constant changes we have to adapt to. In my case I preferred to stay with Openbox as stand-alone-WM, which changes I doubt it will have .. since the last update was for 2011 .. I adapted it to my needs, and I am adding its own characteristics .. .. And that is a great freedom! .. ..and I am sure that each person can also be adapted to their needs in a complete DE, be it any of those mentioned ..
In short, as an alternative to something that we don't like ... or we try to help, or report ... or we create it ... ... and that great difference that occurs ... and that large number of forks ... are the cause of that alternative that before that person did not have ...
And as they come saying: "I said" ..: D .. Greetings ..
From already thank you very much..
Cinnamon, Mate and now Consort. Three projects with very similar objectives. I hope that one prevails and that the losers join the victor. I don't understand what happens with GNOME, the GNOME Shell extensions are supposed to allow customization. Wouldn't it be better to develop new extensions and put aside so much fork?
Perhaps you understand by reading this interview they did with Ikey.
http://linux-updates.org/?p=369
It seems to me that Ikey wants to stay between two waters. You want a desktop like GNOME 2, compatible with GNOME 3, and that doesn't require hardware acceleration (or llvmpipe) to work well on modern, outdated machines. It's a good idea but I still think there are too many projects looking for the same thing (resurrecting the classic desktop).
I think the same as you. There are too many projects looking for the same thing. But if I had to choose which is the right path, I think the one Ikey chose is the best. The others (Mate, Cinnamon, the classic gnome-shell mode) seem to me to be wrong paths.
Mate is, the way I see it, the worst effort directed (not by the people, don't get it wrong). It is based on non-maintained technology (gtk2) that forces the team to make enormous efforts to solve the bugs found, or to look the other way so as not to have to solve them.
As for Cinnamon, it will be almost cloned in the new classic environment released by the gnome team (that is a wasted effort! - gnome should find a way to integrate cinnamon to its team, or at least recommend cinnamon for experience gnome2 on gnome3) based on plugins only.
How much talent wasted on projects with little or no future!
Totally agree with your comment.
Thanks for the article. I like the variety. It makes you acquire new skills in new situations. And although some say shell or fork, everything goes on, so waiting to return to what it was and is no longer does not seem very sensible. Consort is a solution, I think, forward. I don't think his intention is to go back.
There each with a choice.
Consort is the right way to go with gtk3 libraries, even better than Cinnamon which does not achieve the simplicity, configuration, ease and productivity of gnome 2 with gnome 3 libraries.
It is next to KDE the best bet on the desktop.
I hope you have a stable version soon to install on debian and derivatives.
Well, I am very, very satisfied with my Debian testing Xfce. Mate I loved it at one point, in fact I have recommended it to everyone in many of my posts on Taringa and Consort I find it very interesting, but considering the incredible general power of xfce, why would I take a step back in functions, appearance - customization and speed that xfce offers me? It would be necessary to see the consumption of resources that this desktop will have and the real possibilities of it ... I have tried both Gnome-shell, Cinnamon, Mate, KDE, Unity, Lxde and Xfce as complete DE that they are and really the one that most satisfies me is Xfce 🙂
buuuuuuuuu be late to the flame ¬¬ hahaha
Well, as the others say, if all the projects rowed in the same direction, I think this ship would advance further: /
It's never too late for the flame XDDDD
I believe that everyone has their own boat instead of each one rowing in their direction ...
For those who think that XFce is the one that uses the least resources, it is true and also Lxde. But there is one that is going to make the competition and very serious is Razor-Qt.
Also when xfce goes to the gtk3 libraries it will use more resources the same as lxde but Razort-Qt you use those of KDE 4.x and in each new version they improve consumption.
I said, it is better a standard in desktops as in other aspects of free software, installers, mother distribution, compiler versions, etc ...
But I still think that Consort and Kde will be the reference on the desktop in machines of the medium and high-end segment.
Hello… what worries me is the sudden changes. It should have a defined route. And not keep experimenting with so many things.
this sudden changes confuses me ... because one gets used to using an environment, modifying it etc ... and it is easier to use it knowing it. Each new environment requires learning and redeveloping skills in it. Not that one is lazy but stability saves one from being like a ping pong ball. Cheers
Of the 3 desks that want to have the Gnome 2 look, the one that is doing the best is Ikey, since mate is a project made with practically dead technology and Cinnamon, no matter how much they make it, one knows that deep down it is the same Gnome-Shell that makes people disgust. Also, once the look is done, Consort is going to start to evolve and become a favorite of the old school Gnomers.
regards
I like Cinnamon. It is true that it could improve in many things, but I see it much more usable and configurable than Gnome Shell.. Matter of taste maybe.
I get an error in archlinux T___TU
Ahh! aside - the new script looks good, always aimed at simplicity. Hey yoyo I was surprised by some of your expressions, it is as if you were disenchanted with the Solus OS project, being your one of the most enthusiastic as I have seen until recently. I for my part have patience, there are only 2 ways to grow or disappear, we have to give time to this process of evolution and accommodation - that's why I continue using current linux waiting for version 2 solus without haste. When 1.3 comes out I'll probably try it too… .Nothing forward….
I use linux on another computer ... that is, my favorite. Today I write from win7, but nothing…. I use dual boot And it seems to me that if solus acquires its own personality, and follows a firm step towards consolidation as a mother distro, it seems to me that it will have its own niche within the linux world. I've downloaded every released version from the beginning. We will see what brings us soon. Windows I use it without much illusion continues to disappoint me even though "as a family" it still follows the custom of using it and it is necessary to keep it even as a second OS option. For those who still do not get used to Linux or are afraid of it. But that is changing step by step …… the use of free OS. GNU / linux is spreading more and more. Greetings to all your Linux friends.
And this consort is not applicable to android or someone who implements it in android ?, since I read there that it does not need a graphics card.