Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2005 14:49 UTC, submitted by Mitarai
Gnome Ken Mays of Blastwave.org has ported GNOME 2.12.0 to Sun Solaris x86 and has stable packages available for downloading here. Instructions for downloading other Blastwave packages are available in the user guide and mirrors section of the Blastwave organization's website.
Order by: Score:
other ports
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 15:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How about porting it to Plan 9 http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/ or Plan B?

v RE: other ports
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 15:55 UTC in reply to "other ports"
v RE[2]: other ports
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE: other ports"
RE: other ports
by captain_knobjockey on Wed 21st Sep 2005 15:58 UTC in reply to "other ports"
captain_knobjockey Member since:
2005-08-23

why do we have to listen to these annoying anonymous types ?

RE[2]: other ports
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: other ports"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Because we are teh r0x.

Joking aside, I used to like Gnome very much, but it's feeling way heavier lately (2.12). I don't know if it's just the way I'm perceiving it, but I can't use it anymore without major annoyance. I'm running KDE now, it feels suprisingly way faster, despite of that glowy-aquatic-blue-yucky themes...

RE[3]: other ports
by jaboua on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: other ports"
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

Gnome 2.12 used 40% of my 256 MB ram on this box... Gnome is good, and used to be my favourite, but for the moment I prefer e17, fluxbox and ion/wmii.

RE[4]: other ports
by jaboua on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: other ports"
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

The thing I forgot to mention was fluxbox used about 10 MB of ram for buffers... If you count cache aswell, gnome used 100% and fluxbox aswell.

v RE[3]: other ports
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: other ports"
RE[4]: other ports
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: other ports"
Anonymous Member since:
---

That's the way I felt about KDE in the past, and then decided to try Gnome and loved it, running with 256 RAM. Now I can't run Gnome with 512 RAM while KDE 3.4 runs well enough.

RE[4]: other ports
by captain_knobjockey on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: other ports"
captain_knobjockey Member since:
2005-08-23

I always found Gnome to be far faster than KDE. Except for my brief time with Yoper

v RE[3]: other ports
by Mitarai on Wed 21st Sep 2005 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: other ports"
RE[3]: other ports
by puddleglum on Wed 21st Sep 2005 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE: other ports"
puddleglum Member since:
2005-07-20

You don't have too. Just go to your Preferences and filter them out.

Agree
by jaboua on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:05 UTC
jaboua
Member since:
2005-09-08

Ditto for that one...

Someone like gnome, someone like kde, someone like ion, someone like *box, someone don't like X, someone ... No reason for discussing it, everyone has their own opinion anyways.

RE: Agree
by netdur on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 13:53 UTC in reply to "Agree"
netdur Member since:
2005-07-07

god bless you

debian
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Seems every platform/distro will get gnome 2.12 before debian.... it's not even in the experimental repo yet!!!

RE: debian
by captain_knobjockey on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:32 UTC in reply to "debian"
captain_knobjockey Member since:
2005-08-23

is gnome 2.12 classed as stable yet ?
debian likes stuff to be stable
so much so that they still use Xfree86

if you want new stuff, try a distro that supports new UNSTABLE stuff

RE[2]: debian
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE: debian"
Anonymous Member since:
---

err, debian unstable now uses xorg

nixbox:/home/yanik# X -version

X Window System Version 6.8.2 (Debian 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 20050908031534 David Nusinow <dnusinow@debian.org>)
Release Date: 9 February 2005
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 6.8.2
Build Operating System: Linux 2.6.12-1-686 i686 [ELF]
Current Operating System: Linux nixbox 2.6.12-1-k7 #1 Tue Sep 6 16:28:10 UTC 2005 i686
Build Date: 08 September 2005
Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.X.Org
to make sure that you have the latest version.
Module Loader present
OS Kernel: Linux version 2.6.12-1-k7 (dilinger@mouth) (gcc version 4.0.2 20050821 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.1-6)) #1 Tue Sep 6 16:28:10 UTC 2005 T

KDE
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Off topic, but on my Gentoo system KDE 3.4 boots up using about 80 megs of RAM and no swap. That's pretty light in my opinion.

Subjects not permitted to be mentioned
by japail on Wed 21st Sep 2005 17:47 UTC
japail
Member since:
2005-06-30

Apparently there are things that cannot be mentioned with regard to other things without reruns:

The GNOME Show
Everybody Loves KDE
Managed Runtime: Java
Managed Runtime: CLR
Newton's Apple
Itanic
True Microsoft Stories


Two hundred channels and there's nothing on.

Anonymous Member since:
---

So sad, but so true...

Gnome slowness
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 18:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think it might be distro specific, how things are setup etc, Ive used 2.12 on gentoo, and it was very slow/buggy, now am using it on Fedora core 4, and its way faster than the default 2.10, and extremely stable, not to mention WAY easier to install (simple enable nrpms repo/ yum update/upgrade instead of unmasking tons of packages, recompiling different libs over and over again, and dealing with the DBUS/HAL dependancies, since gnome wants the newest, and the whole rest of the system wants the old/stable versions.) warning tho, the clipboard manager they raved about including, basically doesnt work, especially if you use any non gnome apps, and the menu editor is not even really an editor, use smeg instead.

hollovoid

RE: Gnome slowness
by jaboua on Wed 21st Sep 2005 18:21 UTC in reply to "Gnome slowness"
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

Agree about the menu editor, it can't do more than deactivating items... However, thei'll probably make adding items a feature in the future ;)

RE[2]: Gnome slowness
by chrisr on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnome slowness"
chrisr Member since:
2005-08-26

They might not - the idea is each app should add menu items when they are installed, so the user would never need to add an item manually themselves.

I understand the reasoning, but think it assumes a level of completeness that many apps haven't yet reached. I guess installing smeg should be easy enough.

RE: Gnome slowness
by jaboua on Wed 21st Sep 2005 18:37 UTC in reply to "Gnome slowness"
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

Just one more thing about gnome being more slow/buggy on gentoo - it might have been about your CFLAGS (-O3 uses more ram and is a bit more buggy but is however faster when it comes to CPU usage, while -Os uses less ram/diskspace and is less buggy, -O0 is the slow but definitive working option...) and USE-flags (lots of USE-flags = bunch of features, but more code). Just a thought, it may aswell have been other reasons.

RE[2]: Gnome slowness
by hollovoid on Wed 21st Sep 2005 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnome slowness"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

I believe I had it set at O2 for cflags, I was gonna recompile the system with --newuse but the crazy circular dependancies that wanna downgrade dbus hal and ivman/pmount then re-upgrade them later kinda steered me away (since the older dbus/hal didnt work, and the new ones did, and 2.12 wants them) n kinda lost interest in running gentoo now that I dont have as much time to constantly be messing with it...

anyways, on topic with the story, anybody tried gnome 2.12 on solaris/thoughts?

RE[3]: Gnome slowness
by jaboua on Wed 21st Sep 2005 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Gnome slowness"
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

Myself I have yet to try solaris at all...

RE[3]: Gnome slowness
by Anonymous on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Gnome slowness"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Is the difference between O2 and O3 really perceivable? I doubt it!

I thought it was about Solaris
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 19:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'm running Gnome on the Nevada build, and it pretty much rocks and rolls... anyone else running Nevada?

RE: I thought it was about Solaris
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 22:25 UTC in reply to "I thought it was about Solaris"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I thought it was about Solaris 10 too. You see more posts going on a tangent here nowadays. Now, seeing that the JDS is really gnome, is your installation a barebones gnome then? How would you compare?

Gnome
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 22:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

@ jaboua
"-O3 uses more ram and is a bit more buggy"

Not really in my experience. I find it either compiles or breaks. If a program breaks with -O3, the program's makefile forces -O2. Sometimes -O2 is forced when a program will run slower with -O3.

Anyway....
I welcome this port. I use computers in such a boring way nowadays that Open Office and a recent Gnome desktop is all I really need. Might as well be on Solaris as anything else.

RE: Gnome
by jaboua on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 14:16 UTC in reply to "Gnome"
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

Sometimes it however does result in code which compiles, but won't run.

re[3]: debian
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 23:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

err, debian unstable now uses xorg

Actually Debian Testing uses XORG, as well. Yes, Debian Testing is making great strides. In the last couple of weeks it upgraded Gnome, too. OK, it moved to 2.10, but hey, it's progress.

Not a lot of Solaris users out there that use this site, are there? Putting it differently, perhaps there are Solaris users out there, but they don't much care about the latest desktop environment, or OpenOffice, or XORG, or anything else desktop related.

RE[4]: debian
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 23:15 UTC in reply to "re[3]: debian"
Anonymous Member since:
---

indeed. They just got NVidia drivers... What they want now is some native games ;)

Speed
by JLF65 on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 02:32 UTC
JLF65
Member since:
2005-07-06

I keep reading how one DE or WM is faster than another, but on my dual-Opteron workstation, they all seem pretty much the same to me! Go figure...
:)

On topic, I've been meaning to download Solaris x86_64, and now that they have Gnome (what I normally use on all my boxes), I have another reason to finally give it a whirl.

RE: Speed
by rm6990 on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 00:33 UTC in reply to "Speed"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

I keep reading how one DE or WM is faster than another, but on my dual-Opteron workstation, they all seem pretty much the same to me! Go figure...
:)

On topic, I've been meaning to download Solaris x86_64, and now that they have Gnome (what I normally use on all my boxes), I have another reason to finally give it a whirl.


Solaris has had Gnome since Solaris 10 was released. Just not Gnome 2.12 seeing as it was released just recently.

RE[2]: Speed
by JLF65 on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Speed"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah - thanks for the info. I didn't know that. Shows how much I've looked into Solaris at this point. ;)

DTrace...
by Saem on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 05:42 UTC
Saem
Member since:
2005-07-06

Does this mean GNOME will now be ready for full bore DTrace profiling, that should yield some fruit, at least in identifying any performance issues, not just in gnome, but also GTK and other underlying structures.