Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-13 10:38:48

I'm torn between installing Gnome Shell on the Arch linux, or just creating my own custom one using Compiz as a WM. I've done the compiz thing a few months ago, and it worked well enough for me to use, but I would like to try Gnome Shell. The only thing stopping me is, is there a lot of bloat? I'm installing Arch on a 16GB usb stick, so which one would be a better choice?

Also, do I need to install X for Gnome Shell too? And is it themeable?

Thanks,
Vapour

jeslinmx · 2011-05-13 11:38:31

Gnome Shell uses Mutter as its backend for all the fancy window management features (in fact, the whole thing is built on Mutter) and mutter is an Xorg window manager, so yes you do. It's hard to think of any program which has a gui and doesn't draw it using Xorg.
This is very much a matter of personal preference, but I like the gnome shell idea. You might as well try something new.
Gnome Shell is quite themable, as a quick search on deviantArt will show you, but it might not be as customizable as, say, Compiz standalone. There are several hacks online though that let you do stuff that Gnome Shell disables, like alttab window switching.

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-13 13:06:10

Yeah, shell looks pretty tempting, but how big is the install ?

ANOKNUSA · 2011-05-13 19:51:41

You can use Compiz as a stand-alone window manager.

mandog · 2011-05-13 19:58:56

you can also use compiz with gnome3 with out shell and use emerald for window decoration looks cool.

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-14 04:10:16

Yeah, My choices are use Compiz as a standalone WM or gnome shell. Gnome shell seems cool, and i like how everything is integrated, but at the same time, the integration seems like a boatload of bloat.

So what's gnome 3 without gnome-shell? Just basically gnome 2 with updated libraries ?

jeslinmx · 2011-05-14 06:56:32

Seems like it.
Can't you just do a pacman -S gnome gnome-extra to see how large it is?
My greatest peeve in Gnome is evolution. Attempt to install an app with gnome integration and it pulls in gnome-desktop, which pulls in evolution and all its friends. (like dammit, I install gedit and it pulls in a mail client. What is this, emacs?)

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-14 07:43:07

Yeah that's what I meant by the bloat. If i want something that's part of gnome, I have to install like, a billion dependencies, and if i want to remove something, it breaks another ten things.

jeslinmx · 2011-05-14 08:08:01

It takes up 500megs on mine, even with some other stuff already in place like python, gconf etc. And i checked, pacman -S gnome-shell pulls in 250mb of deps. So its basically all or nothing with the bigger DEs.

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-14 08:24:59

So its 250mb with all the Gnome 3 and it's programs, and gnome shell?

jakobcreutzfeldt · 2011-05-14 11:10:34

I'm a complete pacman newbie and I managed to install gnome3 + gnome-shell + the gnome applications that I want and I was *not* suckered into installing Evolution (which is a hulking turd). On a fresh Arch install I just installed gnome and then when I went to install the gnome-extras package, I just chose what I wanted (ie none of the accessibility programs).

triplesquarednine · 2011-05-14 12:36:57

Vapourstreak wrote:

Yeah, My choices are use Compiz as a standalone WM or gnome shell. Gnome shell seems cool, and i like how everything is integrated, but at the same time, the integration seems like a boatload of bloat.
So what's gnome 3 without gnome-shell? Just basically gnome 2 with updated libraries ?

AFAIK, you can't install gnome3 without gnome-shell and have a properly functioning desktop in Gnome3-fallback. Certain tools like gnome-tweak-tool won't even run without Gnome-Shell installed. I originally tried to remove gnome-shell, but you basically have to have it there in order for certain things to work properly, even if your not running the shell.... so i think that pretty much sums it up. However, throwing compiz into the mix isn't a big deal - as compiz isn't all that huge, judging by the 4 minutes it takes to compile with pretty much every plugin....

Gnome 3 without Gnome-Shell is similar to Gnome2, but also a little bit different. ie: the backend is much different, it isn't nearly as extendable as Gnome2 (but easy to work around)... but, it is also lighter than G2 and faster...

I am running G3 with compiz 0.9.5 (i think it just bumped versions yesterday, from git). you can use standalone, but you don't have to.. i compile compiz every few days and it picks up gnome being present in the scripts that i use;

git clone git://anongit.compiz.org/users/soreau/scripts

You don't need to use Emerald either, if you don't want to use it. At first i was using emerald, but after a few bugs, i decided I would rather be able to theme with gtk3... gtk-window-decorator works fine - and you can use metacity themes, included with the gtk3 themes...i believe all that is required is changing one setting in gconf to get metacity theming to work...

gconf-editor-->apps-->gwd-->metacity theme ( i think this was also the same in gnome2?)

I don't think Gnome-shell is extremely bloated either, but it does require things like Pulseaudio, and the other odd dependency that may be static - which i despise I have both compiz and Gnome-Shell installed - i play with GS sometimes, but in general i find it to be semi-useless for my workflow/desktop usage anyway. it's really geared at keyboard use over mouse, and because of that, using my tablet in Gnome-Shell pretty much sucks....

gnome3 is pretty tweakable/customizable, though. I ditched gnome-panel, Pulseaudio, GDM, etc. I am only using compiz and cairo-dock with the gnome 3 stack. My system boots nice and quick, and uses fairly low RAM on boot.. At first, i had some issues with removing gnome-panel, gettings an error in dmesg of gnome-panel segfaulting, and subsequently slow booting into gnome.. after doing 2 things the problem went away;

1. recompiling my glib-schemas, after removing all gnome-panel related schemas.

http://developer.gnome.org/gio/2.28/gli … hemas.html

it's actually really easy to do takes 2 minutes...

2. Ditching GDM

after doing these 2 things, no more issues with gnome-panel. the only exception would be gnome's search-tool. it works fine, but after closing it, it will segfault - it probably tries to interact with the absent gnome-panel or something like that, causing it to flop. Lucky for me, i don't use it anyway.

I bring up this example, becuase i like many people thought i would be stuck with the new environment and that gnome3 was going to be a more constrained, but with a bit of effort, it's very usable - and you can cut out whatever you dont want. you just might need to fix up the odd little glitch, or adjust to some of the new tools. (whether using compiz or GS)

Here's a screenshot of my gnome3 compiz setup (with a theme a am working on);

I would probably recommend taking Gnome-Shell for a whirl, because if you don't end up liking it, disabling it is rather simple... and regardless, even if you want to use compiz over GS with gnome 3 - you are going to require gnome-shell being present anyway.

there's my 2 cents, hope it helps!

Last edited by triplesquarednine (2011-05-14 12:43:21)

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-14 14:00:26

Just wondering, gnome shell has that foot logo right? Is it possible in some way or another to replace all those logo's with custom one's?

That would pretty much seal the deal for me.

triplesquarednine · 2011-05-14 14:38:59

Vapourstreak wrote:

Just wondering, gnome shell has that foot logo right? Is it possible in some way or another to replace all those logo's with custom one's?
That would pretty much seal the deal for me.

which foot logo? (you mean my foot logo?) lol.

yes, you can replace whatever logos you like, you just have to know where they are in the file-system!

this is my gnome-tweak-tool, remix logo;

this is my arch logo (that i made) to replace the gnome-logo in gnome-system-settings;

the theme is also mine as well, just started it yesterday or the day before!

sometimes it can be tricky to find where certain logos are located, but once you find them, it's really just a matter of replacing them with your image, but renamed to match the file you are replacing. fairly simple stuff/.

side note: my desktop pictures aren't gnome-shell - it's gnome 3 running compiz (see the reflection in the first picture, that i posted?? - that's compiz running). obviously, it doesn't matter what interface your using, you just have to replace the image files, right?

cheerz

Last edited by triplesquarednine (2011-05-14 14:51:52)

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-14 14:45:29

double post sorry

Last edited by Vapourstreak (2011-05-14 14:48:34)

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-14 14:47:04

Okay, so just to confirm, if I were to install Gnome-Shell in arch, i would install gnome 3, and gnome shell, and i wouldn't have to install all gnome applications that come with extras or gnome, and i would be able to change all the logos in Gnome Shell?

triplesquarednine · 2011-05-14 15:05:29

Vapourstreak wrote:

Okay, so just to confirm, if I were to install Gnome-Shell in arch, i would install gnome 3, and gnome shell, and i wouldn't have to install all gnome applications that come with extras or gnome, and i would be able to change all the logos in Gnome Shell?

pretty much, just consult the Gnome archwiki, installation is pretty straightforward. In my case it was just an update. So, i wasn't starting from scratch. Some things you will have to install, while others you may not. I believe you can pick and choose certain things to install or to not install...While others (like pulseaudio) will be pulled in a dependencies. also, you will want "gnome-tweak-tool" - it's pretty handy, and its a good idea to have it around.

...and yes, you can totally change the logos, if you like. if you want i can post a few of the ones, that i know of - and i could also give you some tips on how to find ones that you would like to replace. - i will just need to look up a few things, as i don't recall locations off hand.

keep in mind - you can do this type of customization on any Desktop environment. Linux is built to a degree, on the ideals of Unix - "everything lives in the file-system", and you can access all of it - if that is what you want to do!

I'll get back to you, later on with whatever info i have, im heading out the door right now..

Vapourstreak · 2011-05-14 15:15:00

Alright thanks for your help.

And okay good. I remember trying to install gnome before and it pulled in a whole crapload of dependencies from evolution to just about every application that comes with ubuntu.

jeslinmx · 2011-05-15 05:54:37

Maybe gnome3 altered its deps a bit so that evolution is only needed for some components.
Still, if gnome3 fallback is faster than gnome2 I'm sold. Gotta try it. I'm not too fascinated by Shell though, looking around many people complain about it's "distraction-free" nature being nothing more than inefficient task switching. Just my opinion, I think Shell has some of it's own awesomeness too.

triplesquarednine · 2011-05-15 15:02:09

jeslinmx wrote:

Maybe gnome3 altered its deps a bit so that evolution is only needed for some components.
Still, if gnome3 fallback is faster than gnome2 I'm sold. Gotta try it. I'm not too fascinated by Shell though, looking around many people complain about it's "distraction-free" nature being nothing more than inefficient task switching. Just my opinion, I think Shell has some of it's own awesomeness too.

Gnome3 is definitely faster than gnome2. here's a couple of quick examples - the G3 stack uses a lot less context switching. Because gnome are moving away from gconf - which causes a lot of context switching - everytime something is referenced in gconf, the system must find a given key in the file-system -> so it takes both cpu and disk io time. dconf uses a binary format (think windows registry), so instead of having to reference a whole bunch of little keys, in your file-system -> it only references one, which is a essentially a database of dconf's keys. because there is less cpu/disk io with this method.... you actually save a few cycles, and it improves scheduling performance.

then also because, the G3 stack itself is much cleaner, is naturally lighter and has less bulk, you should notice slight improvements, here and there in performance. I have been very happy with it so far, just at first gnome3 was a bit annoying, because certain default behaviors, are different than gnome2 - most can be switched back however.

I think the Shell also has some of it's own awesomeness.. the fact that it is based on javascript/css was a fantastic idea. but i do also think Gnome-Shell is super inefficient when compared to how I classically use my desktop. ~ which tends to be similar to MacOSX, meaning - 4 desktops (expo), fast-application switching (scale plugin) and i use shift-swithcer (cover-view). I thing i really don't like about GS - is having to leave my desktop to get anything done - they call it "distraction-free" - but from my perspective, anytime i need to leave the desktop to do something done - that is extremely distracting, and much slower than my current standard (which is using Compiz++).

Atleast with Compiz i can setup the desktop/compositor to work towards whatever is best for me. none of it's plugins darken the screen, leave the desktop or anything - and are also much faster (as you have control over speed, etc). On both of my machines Mutter reduces FPS, and hardware acceleration in general - which reminds me of compiz/beryl in the old days. But now, Compiz 0.9+ does not do that. I can run a compositor with all of my software - no problem

So, i will keep my eye on Gnome-shell - but until i see some dramatic performance improvements, real tweakability/customization and some "killer-features" - i doubt i will be using it any time soon. My current desktop does circles around GS, and is much more usable.

jeslinmx · 2011-05-17 01:51:41

Thanks for the explanation! But isn't the Windows registry supposed to be less efficient since it takes linear time to access a key?
Heh. My old Compiz setup was even more Mac. I had a global menu on top of that

triplesquarednine · 2011-05-17 16:41:03

jeslinmx wrote:

Thanks for the explanation! But isn't the Windows registry supposed to be less efficient since it takes linear time to access a key?
Heh. My old Compiz setup was even more Mac. I had a global menu on top of that

Dconf isn't exactly like the windows registry, yes it does use a binary format (specialized database?), but versus gconf - apparently there is a nice reduction in access time. ~ so i think it is a good thing. the registry was just the best example i could think of at the time.

I think phasing out gconf is probably going to be benifical in the long run. it should be more robust, and clean.

Last edited by triplesquarednine (2011-05-17 16:43:15)

jeslinmx · 2011-05-18 03:11:13

Ah, I see! Thanks!

moljac024 · 2011-05-18 11:47:43

jeslinmx wrote:

Seems like it.
Can't you just do a pacman -S gnome gnome-extra to see how large it is?
My greatest peeve in Gnome is evolution. Attempt to install an app with gnome integration and it pulls in gnome-desktop, which pulls in evolution and all its friends. (like dammit, I install gedit and it pulls in a mail client. What is this, emacs?)

It wishes it was emacs

But, it's all GNU anyway...pick your poison.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-05-13 10:38:48

Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#2 2011-05-13 11:38:31

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#3 2011-05-13 13:06:10

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#4 2011-05-13 19:51:41

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#5 2011-05-13 19:58:56

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#6 2011-05-14 04:10:16

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#7 2011-05-14 06:56:32

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#8 2011-05-14 07:43:07

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#9 2011-05-14 08:08:01

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#10 2011-05-14 08:24:59

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#11 2011-05-14 11:10:34

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#12 2011-05-14 12:36:57

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#13 2011-05-14 14:00:26

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#14 2011-05-14 14:38:59

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#15 2011-05-14 14:45:29

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#16 2011-05-14 14:47:04

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#17 2011-05-14 15:05:29

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#18 2011-05-14 15:15:00

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#19 2011-05-15 05:54:37

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#20 2011-05-15 15:02:09

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#21 2011-05-17 01:51:41

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#22 2011-05-17 16:41:03

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#23 2011-05-18 03:11:13

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

#24 2011-05-18 11:47:43

Re: Gnome-Shell or Custom DE (With compiz)

Board footer