Re: Re: gnome-panel & gnome-applets?

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 13:42 +0000, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> 
> > As pointed out before the fallback-mode is not a continuation of
> GNOME 2. It was just the easiest way to create a fallback because we
> don't have the resources to create a non-3D shell that could act as a
> fallback. As we have gnome-panel already it was choosen as the
> fallback mode.
> 
> Is it an indication of a problem in gnome3 architecture?

I don't see any "problem" here.

>  Is it simpler to maintain extra modules than to scale mutter and
> gnome-shell down?

define "scale down".

if your definition of "scale down" implies "do not use hardware
acceleration" then the answer is obviously no. that's the whole point.
the whole graphics stack (cairo, x11, gtk) is trying to be as hardware
accelerated - it's not a "new thing".

the "scaled down" version of mutter is metacity with the default,
xrender-based, compositor; but mutter is just providing the window
management infrastructure for gnome-shell - and you simply cannot
implement the gnome-shell designs using a non-hardware accelerated
environment.

> Sergey, who sometimes prefers to look backwards rather than forward

no problem with that. you can maintain the old user experience for
yourself and never upgrade.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi