I'm not saying anyone is wrong in the way of what apps define a useable system. It's all subjective and therefore a completely silly thing to argue about. What I've been saying all along is, that epiphany, Galeon and Firefox is a little redundant. What I've been saying is that not only do "I" eliminate redundancy on "my" personal gnome install, "I" also eliminate apps "I" never use. Why would "I" build or even install an app that "I" never use? Following that way of thinking, it is VERY easy to wind up with a 70 package gnome install and have it do EVERYTHING "I" need it to do. Have I finally got my point across with all the first person quotations?

I'm aware of Metacity being a WM and nautilus being a FM.. I was trying to cut to the point and stress that your average desktop user (the dreaded generalization) does not use ekiga nor will they use some of the other apps that comprise Gnome as a whole.. So you don't fall into the statistical 'check your email/Browse the web' catagory of users. Huzzah! No problem..

"I" personally have no need of dbus/hal.. I suspect that sooner, rather than later, I'll have no choice in the matter and will have to start building it as a dependency. I can't stand fluff and unecessary stuff. That's why I build and use Gnome. I'm an anal control freak and everything has to be my way when it comes to my box. That's why I use Slackware.

This is my ulimate point in posting here on this thread. Gnome is not as hard to build as it's made out to be and I hate it when indirect misinformation is suggested or otherwise. The 200 package thing is laughable. Not even close. Again tho... It's subjective to what your needs are. My needs are few and simple. End of story.

Since you're comparing a discussion of how to best install GNOME to a discussion of how best to UNinstall it, I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

Like i've said before, gnome does not come with galeon/epiphany/firefox. It comes with epiphany. And that is it. galeon isn't even DEVELOPED anymore, and hasn't come with gnome in a very long time(even if at all).


But the rest isn't that important. You're NOT using gnome. Gnome actually has a minimum amount of packages you have to install before you are using gnome. You're using metacity+a few gnome apps, but not a full blown gnome desktop. To ship a full blown desktop, you do infact need to ship all of those 200+ packages. And that is why dropline/freerock/ubuntu/suse/debian/arch/LFS/mandrake/fedora/gentoo/freebsd/Sun/50 others do it.


EDIT: See, if you are building your own desktop, you can use whatever packages you want, but distributors like dropline/freerock MUST ship the 200+ packages, because if they didn't, the first post on the mailing lists would be, "Where is app X, i thought it was supposed to come with gnome?"

Personally, I'd just skip it.

Why would I want a "DE" that wastes more of my HDD, and unneccesarily complicates my lean, mean, Slackware install?

I've never needed HAL, DBUS, Automounting, another webcam app (enough of that), and screwing with my hard earned setup. If I wanted it, I'd get it.

So to all who want to argue with these "Gnome Fanatics":

It's the same as wrestling with a greased pig. After awhile, you'll realize that the pig likes it.

Gnomites are the most rabid, 'perfect' people ever to inhabit this forum. "Mine is better". "No, Mine is.". "What do you mean it changes things? Only what is required to force my bloated, out of sync DE onto your desktop." "It looks and acts just like Windows! We'll change things for you. We'll update everything for you."

Yeah, right.

Congradulations. Your opinion is the only valid one!

Let me guess. You never used gnome. Ever. Hell, you've probably never even seen screenshots of it, if you think it looks anything like windows that is.

It's fun to judge what you don't use! Especially when your criticisms of it are completely false.

Yes, that's a valid point. I was focusing more on simply the most desirable end result, regardless of the starting point or direction taken, but I didn't make this very clear to be sure.

Setting aside the definitional warfare that is going on, I accept that you are using a "type of Gnome" (maybe we can all accept that term). How do you find and decide upon which of these ~70 packages are needed, and then what method do you use to install them? By which I mean is there some script being used that compiles them in a pre-defined sequence which accounts for the basic dependency requirements....or what exactly?

Because it gives you a nice, easy to use, functional desktop? It's not a hard question. Also, putting DE in quotes comes off as a little pompus, bud. Someone was trying to gather information on the various gnome distributions for slack, so obviously it makes sense to come in an insult those who like, support, or develop them.

Good for you. I'm glad that you've got a setup that works well for you. I don't see the point of trashing others (rather fine) work makes sense if you're already happy with what you have, nor why you're even in the topic. Go be happy with your specific install, or find something else positive to do.

You're making a damn fine case for yourself, though.

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread even though it is degenerating into a bit of a heated debate ( not a flame fest yet). I'm a huge Gnome fan, I love Gnome on my Ubuntu box. I actually usually use KDE on my Slackware box, but, I'm encouraged that Dropline appears to be a mature incarnation of Slackware Gnome (I'll find out when I try it out). Perhaps more so than Freerock if I can read between the lines in this thread. I've used Freerock.
I'm going to give Dropline a try, it sounds very promising indeed.

You are the one that is looking like what you are describing (a fanatic).
As per your advice I won't argue with you.

But seriously, there is no need to act so dismissive of others, and just because you feel you are in the "right" is not a valid excuse. If you want to have people listen to, respect, and consider what you have to say then it helps to forward a little of that along in the way you present your points. At present you come across quite badly. I doubt you speak like this to people you come into personal contact with in daily life (and for good reason).

He doesn't care. He joined specifically to say that, and it is his only post, and he isn't even reading what we are posting, and will not probably post anything else again. He just wanted us "gnomites" to get angry.


One of the "beauties" of having a choice I suppose.

However, I would bet that if Linus/Pat had said, "Use Gnome", he would probably be using Gnome right now.

Yes, yes, yes liquidtenmilion... I understand. Perfectly infact. You build for the lowest common denominator.

What my beef is that all of the gnome dists replace WAY TOO MUCH, some MUCH more than others. And Dropline does come with Firefox, Epiphany, Thunderbird and Evolution if I'm not mistaken.

I'm no mind reader and I also don't know Pat V, but I believe this is why he is shaky about people doing this kind of thing. It's his baby. It's "tampering' in a way that strikes a nerve with him.. Don't laugh and just let that stew for awhile. Whether we pay him for subscripts or not is irrelevant. I've been building my own OS for a few years now and I've poured my heart and soul into it. As a result, it has that same "vibe".. It just radiates stability and I haven't run into ANYTHING that won't compile on it. I have a set way of how my OS should be and it's not going to change. Simplicity is golden.

I've used dropline many times over the years and I actually like alot of aspects of it, despite the rampant, almost indiscriminate, package replacement. It's a nice all encompassing Gnome Desktop. Well, I just don't have a need for that. When Linuce started packaging Gnome I jumped for joy because that meant I didn't have to take the time to build it anymore. He has the same mind set as I do when it comes to not tampering and enjoying a truely vanilla Gnome. Well, he just up and disappeared and now I'm back to building it again. In fact, I build lighter than Linuce did and his package set was at around 100 give or take.

So anyway... Enough of the bickering... Jesus loves you (hurl) And sorry for the hostility zborgerd. I just don't like people snapping at me. It's a knee jerk reaction.

I just think it's beneficial for the anal Gnome/Slackware user to consider having a go from source. If you don't care about such things and aren't obsessive/compulsive like me then it really doesn't matter.

I overlooked a question as I was digging in and piling sandbags:

I have my own .SlackBuilds that I use. Minor things might change from version to version but they all basically stay the same. I built dbus/hal on 2.12 but I cut it out on 2.14 along with some other stuff. Basically there is a generalized set build order for gnome and that link I posted is it. You can check out BLFS and that's pretty much the same build order. A few packages are reordered but on either list, the deps are listed before the required's... I went a little overboard on 2.14 and added some packages that I don't use. Why? Not sure. It's been awhile since I built everything that Gnome recomends. Well, I wasn't missing very much and 2.16 will be slimmed back down again (about 60 packages or so). I've also posted my doinst.sh notes on the official gnome forum. As long as you understand what needs to be run on the post-install, building proper gnome slak-paks are easy and fun.

As I and liquid have said, I'm just instered in Metacity, Nautilus, Gnome-terminal, Gedit and file-roller. The rest be damned. I have no need for it. Totem sucks. Epiphany... Well, Firefox is better. Evolution? Too bloaty. I prefer Thunderbird. All the networking progs/tools/config-apps? Don't need em'. I do it by hand. That alone cuts out MANY packages. Pretty much, everything after "gnome-system-monitor" on that official gnome install list is fluff. Even alot of stuff before it is. BLFS does a better job of indicating when you can stop and check it out. Which according to their list, it's ussually around yelp I think, which is another pointless piece of crap...

Just for general info, BLFS only lists 68 packages total for Gnome2. Cut the accesibilty out entirely, a few of the "utilities" and a few of the "libraries" and that is pretty much what I use. That is what I consider to be a "standard" gnome install, ALL of what BLFS lists that is. I am running a 'slimmed' version of a 'standard' Gnome.

There are ofcourse the general libs and what not but 10:1 you won't have to touch those on a fresh Slackware 11 install. A few may need to be rebuilt if they explicity link against a Gnome component.

Pat was really far behind on the "G" libs for quite awhile but it looks as if he kicked it into overtime and squared things away. This will make things much easier. I'm not sure I understand the hype of not being able to build gnome on current. I've never used current ever tho. I would have ventured that current is set up quite nicely for a gnome install now.

Has someone actually done comparative benchmark tests on Dropline, Freerock, and Pat's packages?

I don't think building gnome locally on current would be an issue (save for perhaps some added maintenance), but it is problematic to try and run one of the pre-build flavors on the current branch and I think that is the source of many comments you might see on the subject.

Well that's a hard benchmark to do. Pat's is automatically the slowest, since it's 2.6, and that is the slowest gnome.

And then Dropline is 2.14 and freerock is 2.12, and 2.14 is inherently faster than 2.12. But, dropline's optimizations actually do make a difference, especially on gstreamer and it's plugins.