Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-24 23:59:24

... that Gnome 2.12 rocks, but Metacity is awful. Really, this WM is ridiculous. As a measure of how freaking slow it is, applications actually take perceptibly longer to start with it than with Openbox. Windows still move around with a degree of jerkiness foreighn to other WMs, and the ugly show-borders-when-minimizing effect is - wait for it - ugly as ever. I know that the Gnome devs have worked hard as hell for a long time to give us this, and I appreciate that... but I still think that a DE's default window manager should not get in the user's way.

keevn7 · 2005-09-25 00:06:17

I concur. I think that waimea needs worked on and then accepted as the default. Openbox needs more work too, because I love it but it does have its issues with things such as making certain windows set to "always on top" when they are not supposed to be, along with setting them to "always on bottom" when they are not supposed to be. Other than that it is a great WM and I enjoy using it.

Anyway, this is about metacity so back to that.... I also hate the little animation for minimizing windows. It reminds me of a slightly less annoying version of the animations that Windows uses for maximizing/minimizing, except I do not know how to make metacity not do it. At least people can still use Openbox with GNOME.

Edit: This should go in Desktop Environments.

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-25 00:19:27

I figured I'd post it here, as it's a rant, not a tip, question, request, bug, etc. Maybe you're right though.

Not sure about Waimea being the default, it's more designed for standalone use, with a right-click menu and all. Then again, that might be a plus - if you wanted Gnome to act like a full DE, you'd use Nautilus to draw the desktop, and if you wanted it to act like a desktop shell (ala E17), you'd turn the desktop off. Still not sure about it though.

(Maybe someone should resurrect Sawfish?)

keevn7 · 2005-09-25 00:28:18

Sawfish was not too bad, so perhaps it indeed should be brought back from the dead.

Yeah, since the heading for those forums is "Arch Help" I suppose its current placement does make sense. heh I do not read as much as I should.

codergeek42 · 2005-09-25 02:49:12

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi … t=metacity

If you don't tell the Devs (mainly Havoc) what needs fixiing, it won't ever get fixed. If you don't even attempt to help fix the problem, then you have no right to complain that the problem even exists in the first place.

My two cents...

keevn7 · 2005-09-25 02:56:03

codergeek42: Yeah, but sometimes developers like to piss on bugs when they are just saying that it runs slow. Then you also have people like me who will just use something else if one thing fails to work to their standards.

deft · 2005-09-25 22:11:40

Gullible Jones wrote:

... that Gnome 2.12 rocks, but Metacity is awful. Really, this WM is ridiculous. As a measure of how freaking slow it is, applications actually take perceptibly longer to start with it than with Openbox. Windows still move around with a degree of jerkiness foreighn to other WMs, and the ugly show-borders-when-minimizing effect is - wait for it - ugly as ever. I know that the Gnome devs have worked hard as hell for a long time to give us this, and I appreciate that... but I still think that a DE's default window manager should not get in the user's way.

I'd agree with that - Gnome 2.12 is a welcome update with incremental improvements as ever. However, compared to something like Fluxbox or "KDE" the screen does seem "flickery" "jerky" "flaky" "not solid" when opening windows - as a contrast many other wm's seem "flat" "sharp" "crisp" when opening new windows - and yes, the black-rectangular minimizing effect is redundant and annoying.

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-25 22:57:05

/me wonders if there's a way to disable the Metacity dependancy for Control Center without breaking Gnome.

Daenzello · 2005-09-26 20:00:12

the minimizing effect can (no, should, no wait, MUST!) be disabled through gconf, "the gnome's regedit"

By the way it seems not to be easy to find, i did it ages ago (around 2.6) and actually, even after have looked at it again, I can't tell you where it's supposed to be.

so all i can say is "good luck", but tust me, it's really really better without, so it's woth searching around a little.

phrakture · 2005-09-26 20:06:56

keevn7 wrote:

Sawfish was not too bad, so perhaps it indeed should be brought back from the dead.

Ick! Lisp! (/me begins a language debate!)

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-26 20:16:23

Hey, I like Lisp!

Daenzello wrote:

the minimizing effect can (no, should, no wait, MUST!) be disabled through gconf, "the gnome's regedit"
By the way it seems not to be easy to find, i did it ages ago (around 2.6) and actually, even after have looked at it again, I can't tell you where it's supposed to be.
so all i can say is "good luck", but tust me, it's really really better without, so it's woth searching around a little.

I'll look around. Does it do anything to speed up Metacity, or is Metacity pokey as ever after those effects are disabled?

deficite · 2005-09-26 20:36:48

I must just not be as picky as you guys, but I don't even notice the minimize effect unless I look for it, and it seems plenty fast enough for me. Maybe you guys are running older computers than I am or something?

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-26 21:04:27

Sempron 2200 here - not incredibly powerful, but damn fast for the stuff I'm doing. FWIW, windows in Gnome/Metacity move very jerkily, whereas windows under Gnome/Openbox move smoothly. Also, Firefox takes about 2-3 seconds longer to start up under Gnome/Metacity, and everything feels less responsive.

keevn7 · 2005-09-26 22:27:09

phrakture wrote:

keevn7 wrote:
Sawfish was not too bad, so perhaps it indeed should be brought back from the dead.
Ick! Lisp! (/me begins a language debate!)

Maybe with other people, but not me because I do not really know what Lisp is all about. XD

phrakture · 2005-09-26 22:30:44

keevn7 wrote:

phrakture wrote:
keevn7 wrote:
Sawfish was not too bad, so perhaps it indeed should be brought back from the dead.
Ick! Lisp! (/me begins a language debate!)
Maybe with other people, but not me because I do not really know what Lisp is all about. XD

(lisp (cod(e loo(oks l(i(k(e) this)))))

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-26 23:04:10

(define (judge-user user)
(cond
      [(likes-lisp? user) (display "You rock.")]
      [else (display "You are a loony.")]))

(judge-user phrakture)

deficite · 2005-09-27 02:54:38

I'm running on an Athlon XP 2000+ and it's just fine for me. Yeah, it does have a little bit of jerkness when you move windows around, but if you are going to complain about THAT then you must have OCD.

dust · 2005-09-27 10:18:24

I'd just use E17 as the window manager . I'm debating wether to use just E17 or to go ahead and install gnome. Here alot of good thigns about it, but I just don't use all the bloody bells and whistles that beast installs.

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-27 10:39:32

I don't know... It's just that, when I use Gnome/Metacity, it seems as though the system is a couple paces behind where it ought to be. It's as if Metacity hogged up much more RAM than it should.

shadowhand · 2005-09-27 14:42:13

dust wrote:

I'd just use E17 as the window manager . I'm debating wether to use just E17 or to go ahead and install gnome. Here alot of good thigns about it, but I just don't use all the bloody bells and whistles that beast installs.

I hate to bust your bubble, but E17 isn't a window manager in the traditional sense. It's also not a desktop enviroment like Gnome or KDE or Xfce. Rasterman describes it as a "desktop manager", a window manager with extended functionality.

Short story: you can't use E17 with Gnome or KDE. You use E17 with E17. There's no window manager application, it's part of the "Enlightened Desktop", like the modules, the wallpaper, and the virtual desktops (which are all run under the "enlightenment" process).

dust · 2005-09-28 03:54:56

I know that E17 isn't "just a window manager", but you can very much use it inplace of metacity with gnome. Check out the gnetoo off the wall boards for screenies of it, and/or ask curtis.

deficite · 2005-09-28 21:42:51

Yes, to second dust, it is very possible to use E17 with GNOME. A lot of guys on Ubuntu have their systems set up like that.

sml · 2005-10-02 04:55:48

Gullible Jones,

I don't understand why it has taken 2 page of posts for everyone to understand your original question.

I have noticed that Gnome is slightly slower & lags on every distro that I have tried .. probably about 15 distros or so. Arch is no exception. Ubuntu & Kubuntu is no exception.

I would still like to know the answer to your question .. why is gnome a little hesitant when compared to kde, and many other wm's? And what can be done to fix it?

ozar · 2005-10-02 05:06:32

I do like the layout of Gnome, and the way it's well organized. It's really a very good looking desktop environment, too, but those slow reaction times for opening menus and new windows tends to turn me off.

sml · 2005-10-02 13:43:03

ozar is with us now too Gullible Jones ... now what are the problems and how do we solve them? Let's get back on track to your original question.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-09-24 23:59:24

Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#2 2005-09-25 00:06:17

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#3 2005-09-25 00:19:27

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#4 2005-09-25 00:28:18

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#5 2005-09-25 02:49:12

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#6 2005-09-25 02:56:03

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#7 2005-09-25 22:11:40

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#8 2005-09-25 22:57:05

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#9 2005-09-26 20:00:12

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#10 2005-09-26 20:06:56

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#11 2005-09-26 20:16:23

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#12 2005-09-26 20:36:48

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#13 2005-09-26 21:04:27

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#14 2005-09-26 22:27:09

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#15 2005-09-26 22:30:44

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#16 2005-09-26 23:04:10

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#17 2005-09-27 02:54:38

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#18 2005-09-27 10:18:24

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#19 2005-09-27 10:39:32

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#20 2005-09-27 14:42:13

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#21 2005-09-28 03:54:56

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#22 2005-09-28 21:42:51

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#23 2005-10-02 04:55:48

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#24 2005-10-02 05:06:32

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

#25 2005-10-02 13:43:03

Re: Someone ought to tell the Gnome devs...

Board footer