You are not logged in.

#1 2004-04-10 03:12:22

whol
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 155

Gnome screen is empty?

I normally used fluxbox, but I decided to try Gnome in hopes the fonts would look better (and they do). 

I though Gnome was supposed to come with a lot of bells and whistles, or at least a virtual screen selector (even fluxbox has that).

When I run Gnome, I get an almost blank system.  Theres 4 icons on the top left, but other than that, nothing.  When I minimize an app, it disappears off the bottom right of the screen.  My mouse doesnt go off the screen though, so I don't think the window dimensions are wrong.

There is no clock on the taskbar, no re-sizer controls, no panel selector, no "gnome foot", no nothing.

Any suggestions?

Offline

#2 2004-04-10 03:15:45

whol
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 155

Re: Gnome screen is empty?

Ok, I see I can add things like a "start menu" and a "clock".    Didn't that stuff use to come pre-configured?  Or is the Arch install the "bare bones" install?  (which is fine, I just wasnt expecting that).

thx

Offline

#3 2004-04-10 03:15:59

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Gnome screen is empty?

You need to add all that stuff.  Try right clicking on that top panel, and you can use that menu to add a new panel, menu bar, clock, or whatever else.


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

#4 2004-04-10 07:30:53

Blaasvis
Member
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 467

Re: Gnome screen is empty?

this is a bug, i am working on it.....


Freedom is what i love

Offline

#5 2004-04-15 19:18:09

srey
Member
From: San Diego
Registered: 2004-02-06
Posts: 51

Re: Gnome screen is empty?

whol wrote:

I normally used fluxbox, but I decided to try Gnome in hopes the fonts would look better (and they do).

Hmmm ... I tried GNOME 2.6 for a few days, and I think my fonts in Fluxbox (fluxbox-devel package) with antialias turned on look better than in GNOME.

I found it helped, especially for web pages, to install the ttf-ms-fonts package.

This is just my opinion of course, but I saw nothing in GNOME 2.6 compared to GNOME 2.4 that blew me away (except of course the higher memory usage).

So, after I got rid of it, I went from Flux 0.1.14 to 0.9.8 and couldn't be happier.   I'm loving the transaparent menus and toolbar in the new Flux.  Yummy!


Arch 0.6 - Kernel 2.6.5 - Fluxbox 0.9.8

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB