I'm not the only one...

General Discussion
1

I use to be a dedicated Fedora user. When they released Fedora 15 with Gnome 3 I wasn’t a happy bunny.

I couldn’t get on with Gnome 3 and before you all comment, I did give it a couple of weeks. Instead of just changing to a different desktop environment I decided to wade out into the murky swamp that is Linux and find myself a new distro. Which I did.

Since then I have revisted Gnome 3 in various guises while testing other distros and I’m still not comfortable with it.

It seems I’m not alone with my feelings towards Gnome 3. My good friend Linus Torvalds, some of you may of heard of him, has once again told the world how HE feels about Gnome 3.

I read this on ITWire and had a little chuckle. I love the way Linus is so passionate and doesn’t care how he gets his point across.

On trying to change font sizes he had this to say;

"Who do I need to f*** to get standard font size and panel options, instead of having to wade through this kind of 'unsupported and random extensions that look ugly as hell and break randomly' crap?"

In the past Linus has also referred to Gnome developers as;

"interface nazis"

Haha I love this guy.

Does anyone here use Gnome 3 as their everyday desktop and if so how do you feel about it and these comments?

Discuss…

2

You should’ve read his whole rant on Google+. I couldn’t stop laughing with a cheesy grin. Even now I laugh at the thought.

I don’t understand how people don’t like Gnome 3. I F***ING love it. I just wish it won’t break as often :frowning:

3

Challenge: Convince me why it is so good.

I have tried, honestly I’ve tried, to like Gnome3. It just annoys me. I was never a fan of KDE either, always a Gnome user through and through. Now, XFCE all the way! I use Openbox on my laptop as well which is pretty cool.

4

My opinions are more than likely to be different from yours. But you compared Gnome 3 with Windows 8’s Metro, and bam. Instant upgrade!

Gnome-Shell for the most part, is good but it does have some usability problems. For instance, having to keep pressing the superkey and then click on a workspace… I should just have a shortcut just like Unity!

The principle is no different of that for Unity. You need to press the superkey in order to search for programs which you haven’t “pinned” to the launcher/dock.

Another thing that kind of annoys me is the launcher INSIDE the dash. I would’ve taken the route of placing it ON THE DESKTOP, to act like a dock.

Apart from those gripes, I love everything else. I love the new notifications system, I love how applets are in an auto-hide panel at the bottom. I love how you can add extensions through the browser, though it does have to be refined, I love the themes available for GS, I love how the time is in the MIDDLE of the screen and not to the right or left. It makes it so much easier just to look up at the time, instead of having to look up and right/left.

I love how the taskbar rounds off, unlike other DE’s, I like how it’s easily customizable.

It does have to cut back some of the fat though, and needs some attention to workspaces, but I’m so used to pressing the Superkey button or putting my mouse in the top left corner that I just expect the dash to come up anyway.

This kind of behaviour has led to some “done goofed” moments when using Windows.

5

I didn’t like having to press the SuperKey all the time. If I want an application I don’t even use the menu I just Alt+F2 and type the desired command. You get to learn all the application names that way!

I also don’t like having screen corner things activated. If I accidently go near the corner it pops up… go away!!

I haven’t used Windows 8 yet so I can’t make any comment.

I also don’t use docks or desktop shortcuts or anything that clutters up my workspace. The ONLY thing I have on my desktop is conky and a small notification area. No window lists, no workspace switches, nothing. Minimalist is next to godliness!

Another thing I didn’t like about Gnome3 was, like you mentioned, the workspace switching.

I thought Gnome3 was designed to be more keyboard friendly but I found I had to use my mouse more… grr!

I will probably try it again, and again, and again because I would like to like it. If that makes sense. The same reason I keep trying KDE again and again!

I am open to new ideas, one of the reasons I love Linux so much, but I can’t like everything.

This is just my opinion though, I don’t want to go starting a flamewar!

6

Why do I like Gnome 3 … simple, “options”.

It’s becoming more and more configurable as time goes on and third party devs find ways to tweak/theme/customise/extend it.

Don’t like the shell … fine … switch to Gnome Classic (Still Gnome 3) … everyone is jumping up and down shouting how much better Cinnamon is … Erm, how naive is that … Cinnamon IS Gnome 3, and is really just a good example of how customisable Gnome 3 is.

There ARE issues/bugs … but these are being ironed out, and overcome with further development and third party additions.

What’s NOT to like … other than the fact it’s young and still under heavy development by both Gnome and third parties ?

In my opinion, Linus is being VERY short sighted in this … again … remember, this is the guy that didn’t (originally) think Linux was going to go anywhere :wink:

Hell, Linux wasn’t exactly “ready” when he released it … it needed time to develop and mature … god though he is, I think he’s being a bit unfair in expecting it to be perfect from day one, when you measure it by his own yardstick :slight_smile:

7

I totally understand. That’s why I keep going back to it and trying different things. I haven’t tried it in a few months but I’m going to review Fedora 17 so I’ll see how it works in that.

8

That’s kind of my point … even if one doesn’t consider it “ready” yet … rather than discount it, give it time.
(nothing wrong with using sommat else till then though)

To me it’s IMMENSELY configurable, and has a good framework to hang other stuff on … bit like Gnome 2 was when it was released … only better … and is improving rapidly.

9

Cinnamon honestly isn’t the BEST example of how customizable Gnome 3 is, as they forked the shell which IMO was a STUPID move. But let’s not get me started on that.

The first time I seen Gnome-3 from previews, (we’re talking over a year now, see this thread) I wasn’t really all for it.

Once I used it though, hahaha… Oh it bit me, and it bit me good. :slight_smile:

10

It may be a fork of the shell (though debatable, as the shell was always INTENDED to be tweaked/changed/added to/cstomised) … but it’s still Gnome 3 … so it’s just another Gnome 3 customisation project.

Too many people seem to be seeing Cinnamon as something “separate” from Gnome 3 … and Mint are happy to allow this perception to propagate … BUT IT AINT.

11

I can only admire Linus for speaking his mind (and for not mincing his words).

As for Gnome3?. When I tried it felt like I got on the train going in the wrong direction.
Not because it was not feature complete but because it was getting in my way.
It was making it more difficult for me getting on with things I do with the computer.

You can add more tweaks (extensions) to enable a sane workflow,
but that it is still not going to change the fact that it is still going in the wrong direction.

@Mark
Mint does not make it a secret that it is built on Gnome 3:
http://www.linuxmint.com/rel_maya_whatsnew.php#cinnamon

Cinnamon is built on Clutter and Gnome 3. It's a modern-looking environment with a traditional and familiar desktop. It features compositing, animations and some unique innovations but it relies on 3D acceleration, lacks some of the features found in Gnome 2 and isn't yet compatible with every graphics card available on the market.
12

But aren’t you (like everone else) basing their opinion of Gnome 3 on the shell ? … it’s only a shell, change to another if you don’t like it (Gnome Classic aka. gnome-session-fallback, or Cinnamon, and there’ll likely be others) … that doesn’t change the fact that there’s nothing (much) wrong with Gnome 3 whereas the Gnome 2.x code was (according to the devs) a mess.

In fact the proliferation of shells is a sign of a strength, not a weakness … and proves how customisable Gnome 3 is.

Personally I like the default shell (once tweaked) … but even if you don’t, why write off the whole DE because of a shell that’s easily changed/tweaked/customised ? … and it will only become MORE changeable.

As I said … Linus put out Linux WAY before it was ready for the big time, and wanted others to help make it great … seems a shame he’s slagging off another project for doing the same … hell Gnome 3 was MUCH more useable (for the average person) at release than his original code release.

I CAN’T … not when it’s aimed at someone elses project, that has no real bearing on his >:(
(angry face is for Linus :wink: )

Do Gnome publicly slag off the kernel every time it makes their desktop look bad by having say broken wireless drivers etc. ?

Linus is entitled to his opinion … but he’s being very hypocritical over this, he didn’t like it when Tanenbaum (and others) slagged off early Linux … IMHO, because of his position and the weight his words carry, he’s doing Linux on the desktop an unwarranted disservice.

I’ll listen to Torvalds as far as the Linux kernel goes … anything other than that, he should either keep his trap shut, or at least give others the same degree of respect he was deserving of when others tried to slag off Linux.

Linus knows his words can carry weight with a lot of people so he SHOULD choose his words wisely, and keep his OPINIONS to himself … what makes him more of an expert on DE’s than Gnome anyway.

On the whole, he’s bitchin about the lack of extensions used in the default install of Fedora 17 … even he said he knew most of the things he didn’t like could be “fixed” with extensions … seems to me he thinks Gnome should dictate the WHOLE desktop interface, rather than allow Linux distros to choose which shell/extensions/customisations/etc. to apply by default … so I’d say his problem is mainly with Fedora, not Gnome.

He also bitches about the instability of some extensions … like all Gnome 2 add-ons worked perfectly from day one ???

Gnome 3 is new, the extensions are new, it will take time for them to mature, and the distributions to decide which to use to distinguish themselves … exactly like it did with Gnome 2.

When his kernel carries no bugs … THEN maybe he’ll be in a position to criticise others code … but until then…

God bless him for the Linux kernel … but even Mr. Torvalds occasionally says something stupid and unwarranted (and I’ll bet he’s the first to agree), then the press make more of it than was intended.

I didn’t say Mint made it a “secret” … I said “Mint are happy to allow this perception to propagate”.
(I really meant Mint and its fans are happy to allow this [mis]perception to propagate)

I would draw your attention to a different paragraph from the same Mint webpage you linked to:

Cinnamon was born for the same reasons as MATE. Gnome 2 was one of the core components of Linux Mint, and Gnome 3 lacked the features and design of a suitable alternative. Linux Mint started by developing the extra features it needed on top of Gnome 3 [b]and eventually started to develop its own environment called Cinnamon[/b].

Now if that doesn’t try to make it sound like they’ve moved away from Gnome 3 … I don’t know what does.

Without having tried Cinnamon, it just looks like a mintified gnome-session-fallback shell to me ??? … in other words a “tweak” of an existing shell.

They mintified the Gnome 2.x desktop and tools too … but they never tried to give it a separate name, thereby allowing people to perceive it as more than it actually is.

13

I’ve tried Cinnamon. I did not like it. Let’s just leave it at that.

Here’s a video to cheer everyone up. It’s our lovely Linux queen, Nixie! :smiley: drool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZU9XzJBgVc#ws

14

Ooops … did I put the topic on a downer … apologies if I did, didn’t mean to offend anyone, or bring the topic down … I was just throwing in my 2 cents worth in maybe an overly enthusiastic way :slight_smile:

15

You were just being you. ;D

16

Nuff said then :slight_smile:

17

For what it’s worth, I hate Gnome3 and Unity - a more blatant display of design and management stupidity I’ve yet to see.

Thank goodness for Slackware - there are no gnomes in Slackware.

I really don’t get the anti-KDE thing though. KDE4 is great. It doesn’t treat me like a 4 year old child with ADD, it looks gorgeous and doesn’t crash.

18

I’m confused … in one posting Linux Mint is a comfortable new saddle … yet in this posting Gnome 3 is a “display of design and management stupidity”.

Or are you like everyone else, actually disliking the default Gnome 3 shell ?

Can’t you see how customisable Gnome 3 is … take a look at Mints Cinnamon … erm, Gnome 3.

Gnome-session-fallback can now look and behave just like Gnome 2.x … erm, Gnome 3.

There are a TON of extensions appearing that allow you to completely change the shell beyond recognition, exactly as they did with Gnome 2.x … add-ons were what made Gnome 2.x great too

and all this in a VERY short time frame.

Oddly enough … I made the same “design and management” comments about KDE 4 default shell (and still do) … and it sure wasn’t stable when I last used it, admittedly a while ago, but at about the same age as Gnome 3 is now … IMHO Gnome 3 was more stable at release than KDE 4.2 was when I tried it.

I get the feeling that most people that don’t like Gnome 3 are either just resistant to change … or can’t see past the default shell, which is surprising, as it’s normally seasoned users that are bitching.

I’m sorry, but this confusion between Gnome 3 and its default “shell” really pisses me off … the clue is in the name … it’s a “SHELL” … change it, tweak it, spay paint it florescent pink and give it diamond encrusted rabbit ears if you want … the whole point is YOU CAN.

And for those that can’t be bothered … gnome-session-fallback (which is installed along with Gnome shell) … for christ sake are people that lazy they can’t change session ?

Bit OTT ?

BTW, this is’t aimed at you (or anyone else) personally … more generally at people that confuse the “default shell” with Gnome 3, and/or refuse to see the possibilities, and/or refuse to give it a chance to mature :slight_smile:

If you don’t like it as it currently stands … don’t use it, or tweak it … but please people, stop slagging off something that is new, still maturing, and turning out to be HUGELY customisable … I was guilty of the same thing with KDE 4, and I’m sure if I tried it again (and gave it a chance) I’d be proven wrong.

I’ll give Linux Mint one thing … they seem to be the only mainstream distro that have picked up on the idea that you don’t have to supply the shell in its default state … they are customising it to their own identity, and much more so than they could with Gnome 2.x … well done Mint for seeing the power and possibilities of Gnome 3.

19

Linux Mint doesn’t necessarily denote Gnome, there are other desktops available.
I install Mint for people who want Linux but are new to it.

Gnome 3/Unity is all but a paradigm shift in desktop computing. I don’t think it was necessary. The two issues are intertwined, perhaps to the detriment of the argument.
Ubuntu 10.4 was beautifully done.
I installed it on a couple of computers in a residential care home where the users were used to Windows. I was not able to give any guidance other than leaving a brief txt file on the desktop. Because of the compliance with the fundamentals of UI design they were able to use it without issue and I heard nothing but praise for the change.
Would the same be true now? Would they be able to just “get on with it” or would there be a period of “uh? what on earth is this?”.
You might say that Gnome 3 is configurable so it’s all but as Gnome 2 was, which only goes to prove my point. Gnome 2 was useable, Gnome3 is useable if you’re prepared to go through the learning experience. An experience that is unnecessary. Ubuntu was brilliant. A brilliant distro with a brilliant community. I used every release from the first beta up to the introduction of Unity. A beautifully designed desktop that got better and better. And then they changed to Unity. And were a bit patronising to objectors, who had, after all, a reasonable argument.

It has divided the Linux community even more than proprietary blobs, flash, rpm vs deb or vi vs emacs.

I express only my personal opinion.

20

I still think you’re confusing Gnome 3 and the Gnome shell … all you have to do for (pretty much) a Gnome 2.x style desktop is switch shell to “Gnome (Classic)” at the login screen.

Granted Gnome (Classic) … aka. gnome-session-fallback … isn’t quite as configurable as Gnome 2.x YET, but it is becoming so … effectively Cinnamon is gnome-session-fallback with a few custom extensions.

Gnome.org didn’t do everything in Gnome 2.x either … a LOT of the customisability and functionality came from third party plugins … there’s no difference with Gnome 3 other than it’s younger, so the third parties are still building the plugins, but the ARE appearing/improving.

Gnome are NOT forcing you to stick with the default shell in Gnome 3, any more than they did with Gnome 2.x … IMHO, they’ve given you MORE OPTIONS.

According to Gnome, the Gnome 2.x code base had become too much of a tangled mess … so they started again … but have given you all the tools necessary to bend the desktop to your will … only Mint seem to have realised this and took up the challenge, granted they only seem to be changing it back into a Gnome 2.x alike, but that’s fine if that’s what they want to do … everyone else seems to have just run off without thinking or without waiting for third parties to improve it.

They even included gnome-session-fallback … and still people bitched … did people want Gnome 3 to be exactly the same as Gnome 2, or did they want improvements to the code … I repeat, if you don’t like the DEFAULT SHELL … change it … YOU CAN.

But please stop confusing the Gnome 3 “SHELL” with Gnome 3.

Ubuntu/Unity is a whole other question … they seem to be slowly making it harder to use anything other than Unity.

Gnome have given you a VERY customisable desktop … as they did with Gnome 2.x … their choice of default shell is subjective … but they WANT you to change it if you don’t like it.

As for your residential care home example …

Because of the compliance with the fundamentals of UI design they were able to use it without issue and I heard nothing but praise for the change.

What “fundamentals” ? … DOS jockeys hated/got lost in the GUI … Mac users hate/get lost in Windows, XP users hate//get lost in Vista, ex Amiganauts hate everything else :slight_smile: should the UI have stopped at the command line ? … I would have thought the “fundamentals” in a GUI are mouse pointer, windows, icons, files, and folders … all still there in Gnome 3 … yet nobody’s bitching that even some of those “fundamentals” are slowly disappearing on other devices.

Also … 2 mouse clicks at the login screen, and you’re at the Gnome (Classic) desktop … not really that difficult ???

Yes, Gnome 2.x (by default) was closer to the “M$ Windows” GUI … but that doesn’t necessarily make it easier for a beginner … again subjective, and too early to know … and since when does the Linux desktop have to be a Windows clone, just to help Windows users ?

I’ve seen the car analogy used … “they wouldn’t suddenly change the steering wheel to pedals, etc.” … but the car industry did JUST THAT when they changed from a tiller for steering (and clutch/gears on a big lever on the side of the car) … IMHO Gnome 3 now comes with joy stick (by default), some will like it, others won’t, but the beauty of Gnome 3 is you can easily change from a tiller to a steering wheel to a joystick … or even add your own method of control (as Mint are doing) … how is that not an improvement ?

It’s NOT as though they said “you’re getting a joystick, like it or lump it” :slight_smile:

It has divided the Linux community even more than proprietary blobs, flash, rpm vs deb or vi vs emacs.

So did KDE4 … for all of about ten minutes … no big deal … and IMHO far too easy to do :wink:

Not to mention, in the Linux world “division” usually just means more choice … yet I fail to see how Gnome 3 has divided anything, it’s NOT a fork of Gnome 2.x … Gnome 2.x is DEAD, and MATE will last about as long as the KDE3 forks did … no division at all.

If division = some like it, some don’t … isn’t EVERYTHING divided ?

I REALLY need to work on shortening my responses :wink: