What do you think of Gnome3?

olive · 2011-09-13 13:21:35

I do not want to start a flameware and I am conscious that this subject is polemical but I think we discuss and have opinions. T tried Gnome3, I was somewhat shocked. It has composite effects (with all of its problems) and vaguely resemble to the ipad interface. But it seems many clicks are needed to actually do something useful and seems to lack many features common for the desktop. Moreover it is nearly not configurable except with cryptic commands poorly documented. Is it me or what? Will the non technological people that Gnome seems to target like that? Actually non technological people mainly uses Windows, which is by far more configurable that Gnome. Of course, it is on linux, so it will be eventually hackable, but everything seems having been made to make its hackability difficult.

I wonder what's your opinion. No insult please, I just want share opinions not insulting anybody. It is just that I can't understand the current philosophy of Gnome.

Edited: @Karol: thanks for the links, I will continue the discussion in that thread, sorry...
Reedited: The other thread was becoming a flameware as if Linus have some moral right on the Linux Desktop. Not what I want to discuss here, so better to continue in this thread.

Last edited by olive (2011-09-13 14:18:41)

karol · 2011-09-13 13:35:05

Somewhat related topic https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=123782

arch_nemesis · 2011-09-13 14:14:20

I like Gnome3/Gnome Shell, and have been using it since it was released. However I agree with many of your criticisms, and am patiently waiting for them to polish and improve things. I have faith that it's going to shape up pretty nicely, although as you note this has become a pretty polarizing topic for some.

Honestly, I'm hopin for more (configurable!) eyecandy as much as for improved usability.

Regarding your final question, I think the lack of configurability actually makes sense with non-tech folk as the stated target audience. That audience is less likely to go looking for configuration options than the tech crowd is, I would guess..

karol · 2011-09-13 14:30:06

arch_nemesis wrote:

Regarding your final question, I think the lack of configurability actually makes sense with non-tech folk as the stated target audience. That audience is less likely to go looking for configuration options than the tech crowd is, I would guess..

Plus, if you can't tweak it, you can't break it ;P

frabjous · 2011-09-13 14:47:10

I hated it when I tried it, for the same reasons you give.

I suspect configurability will increase as it matures, however.

olive · 2011-09-13 14:48:13

arch_nemesis wrote:

Regarding your final question, I think the lack of configurability actually makes sense with non-tech folk as the stated target audience. That audience is less likely to go looking for configuration options than the tech crowd is, I would guess..

I can understand this last topic, but it is more complicated than that. There is something that we should be aware if we want to target non technical people. They hates changes. If Gnome2 had attracted some of these users they will not like anything different. They will be reluctant to learn something that will become obsolete in a few years. We must have this in mind. Most people here (me and surely you too) can figure out how to use Gnome3 in an hour or two, it is not the case for the non technological people. Look at your bookstore. You will see 800 pages books to learn how to use Windows, usually going not farther than explaining how to click here and there. You cannot ask people to read 800 pages every few years...

Actually compatibility with old versions is usually much more present in developer products. Look at Python, there is python3 but python2 continue to be supported and will be for several years.

Now there is something I found sad about the present day Linux desktop. You say you hope Gnome3 will improve in the future. Maybe, we will see. But what we do now? Gnome2 is unmaintened and Gnome3 is unfinished (and KDE did the same thing, the first version of KDE4 was unfinished). If we want to see Linux generalized, we cannot perpetually say that it will work better tomorrow. A secretary that have to type a letter on a computer cannot just say: "Oh the system on my computer is not quite finished, once it will be in a few months/years, I will type your letter". 10 years ago, I believed that Linux was really in infancy and that it will become stable in a few years. But I see that once something begin to work, it is just thrown away for something new that will work in a few years. I fear than Linux will perpetually "works well in a few years".

Now look at other successful interfaces (mainly proprietary) that target non technological people. Usually it is the same interface for everybody and they are configurable (look at Windows for example). But things are usually presented in a way that it is still possible to use the computer efficiently without looking at the advanced configuration options.

bernarcher · 2011-09-13 15:45:21

Oh, well. We already had a giant Gnome 3 discussion here. Almost everything has been said there.

Please read (or at least skim) those posts (note: we have a search feature in the forum ) before posting here. If this thread will only repeat already known facts or become flaming it will be TGNed and most probably closed very soon now.

And, yes, please do not necro post in the old thread unless you have something very, very significant to add which hasn't been discussed before.

Mr_ED-horsey · 2011-09-13 17:45:59

I had been a long time Gnome user and seriously gave Gnome 3 a shot on my desktop for about 3 or 4 months. I liked it. It worked. I had no crashes whatsoever on my machine so it's in way better shape than KDE 4 was when it was first released. I adjusted to the new way of doing things pretty quickley and with the installation of several extensions it became usable for day to day use, but for aesthetic reasons I switched to Xfce on my desktop. I prefer simplicity on my desktop and have never been a huge fan of eye candy. I always disabled desktop effects in Gnome 2 (I even put Windows 7 in classic mode). I tried fallback mode for a while, but it just seemed like a crippled/impotent version of gnome 2. I might try it again after the 3.4 release just to see how far it's come, but right now I'm pretty happy with Xfce.

Marklar · 2011-09-22 03:30:26

Wouldn't be so bad if Fallback mode was actually worth a darn

ataraxia · 2011-09-22 14:36:02

I really wanted to like it. But - it makes the assumption that you want to focus on what you're doing, and not be interrupted. That may be fine for many people, but my job function requires me to not miss mails and IMs. I'm supposed to be interrupt-driven, and drop what I'm doing when anyone wants to get in contact with me.

I think this is really also another "lack of configurability" issue.

WorMzy · 2011-09-22 17:05:08

It's not for me.

In my opinion, GNOME2 was the pinnacle of Desktop Environments. GNOME 3 was a giant leap in the wrong direction; it alienated a large proportion of it's userbase, and I expect that it's popularity will have taken a pretty big hit from that.

But y'know, horses for courses and all that. I'm sure there's people out there who feel that GNOME 3 is the way forward.

fsckd · 2011-09-22 19:17:15

If this turns into another "I don't like Gnome 3" pile-on, this topic will go nowhere.

That said, I think it looks good and has some promise. Personally I would never use it, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

olive · 2011-09-22 19:25:22

fsckd wrote:

If this turns into another "I don't like Gnome 3" pile-on, this topic will go nowhere.
That said, I think it looks good and has some promise. Personally I would never use it, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

I think the main problem comes from the fact that Gnome2 is not supported anymore. I think they should have supported both versions. I personally don't like Gnome3 it at all but some people might. I am not at all against the fact of developing a new stuff. But throwing away something that was good won't do any good to Linux. Having something stable will help to reduce bugs and could make the system more widespread. By the way where Linux really wins: in the servers, that is exactly what is done. Python3 is out but python2 continue to be maintained for a long time and the change wasn't that big.

Last edited by olive (2011-09-22 19:27:30)

erje · 2011-09-23 13:24:43

I want to like Gnome3, and there _are_ a lot of things I enjoy. But they broke some small stuff that really bugs me. Chief among these breakages is Alt + Tab. Why, O why, did they have to break Alt + Tab?

Perhaps relevant to note that I am a daily Gnome3 user, so I get along. But I can understand why people aren't happy. I also don't think I should have to do some ninja to get a simple system monitor à la Gnome2.

Last edited by erje (2011-09-23 13:27:04)

bernarcher · 2011-09-23 14:07:58

@erje:
Please use BBCodes instead of underlines for emphasis. Follow the "BBCode" link below the edit window to find out more.

Awebb · 2011-09-23 14:34:18

bernarcher wrote:

@erje:
Please use BBCodes instead of underlines for emphasis. Follow the "BBCode" link below the edit window to find out more.

I think we just found ourselves something more interesting to discuss than more Gnome 3. Didn't we? Did we?

Mr_ED-horsey · 2011-09-23 15:31:15

I reinstalled Gnome back on my laptop after using Xfce and a short stint with Mate (not bad at all - just don't see much of a long term future for it as with all DE forks). 3.2 is going to be released pretty soon and I'm curious to see what they've done with it... Although I'm not expecting any amazing miracle changes, but I just can't seem to let go of Gnome. With the exception of two years with Slackware and KDE/Xfce (which I only really used because they dropped Gnome), I've been using Gnome since I started out on Linux with Fedora Core 7... I'm honestly more comfortable using Gnome 3 than any other DE or WM out there.

taylorchu · 2011-09-23 16:49:03

honestly gnome is still better than xfce4. gnome 3.2 fixes lots of stuffs that people dont like. (Like the crazy line-height)
xfce4 lacks a display manager, volume manager, up-to-date archiver, media player. In addition, its config options are separate, which are hard to find.
Therefore gnome still has its advantage.

Iranon · 2011-09-23 20:34:49

Not to my liking at all: it doesn't seem easy to tweak, default behaviour and philosophy don't work for me. Gnome seems to try hard to remove any possible source of confusion and distraction, at the expense of control and efficiency (examples: reduction and deliberately wide spacing of buttons/hotspots. No static and preconfigured workspaces). Unfortunately, those are the characteristics that make a DE pleasant for me.
In a way, I see its attraction in the extremes: Complete newbies who haven't yet gotten used to older paradigms, and power users willing to jump through a few hoops to fix the patronising bits for a sophisticated yet uncluttered environment.

Back to getting my brain eaten by FVWM, or bolting things to a *box until it does what I want. I really wish the usability fetishists would write sane starting configs for tweakable but ultimately simple tools, with the cool kids making flashy extensions to the same. Best of all worlds for everyone.

Last edited by Iranon (2011-09-23 20:36:19)

ozar · 2011-09-23 22:31:20

What do you think of Gnome3?

All the different desktop environments have some really nice features and benifits, and every one of them certainly has their share of annoyances. I've found that Gnome 3 fits right in there with the others pretty well. It all boils down to what you like and what you don't about each one. I'd could get by with any of them in a pinch.

caligo · 2011-09-24 12:05:38

I used Gnome3 on my netbook for quite some time, and generally I liked it. Some time ago, however, I jumped ship and installed SubtleWM.

I miss the app-focused task switching, which I found really intuitive. Also, I like the philosophy of reducing the amount of visual clutter, allowing you to focus on just the task at hand. In a sense, Gnome3 is almost as minimalist as some standaone WMs -- of course there's a lot of "bloat" when it comes to the amount of processes it launches and so on, but the UI paradigm is somewhat similar which is something I really like.

That being said, the UI was just to sluggish in some aspects to be usable on my hardware. Most of the time it ran really smooth, but some things took ages -- startup, for example, was almost ridiculously slow, as was searching for apps. I will probably try out 3.2 once it's released, and hopefully the UI has been somewhat optimized. Seing as I'll be getting a new computer soon, I'll probably end up using Gnome3 anyway.

eldragon · 2011-09-24 13:16:40

if it requires more clicks..you are not using it right.

most stuff can be done with keyboard / mouse combos.

i did hate it at first. but i tried it anyways just to see if it was just because it was something new ..the polish in gnome3 is unprecedented next to whatever alternative...

some stuff i didnt like (automatic virtual desktops) i disabled.

i added some shortcuts to switch from desktop 1 to 4. and to move windows to each desktop and done (alt-1 ~ 4 switch to desktops, ctrl-alt 1 ~ 4) move active window to the desktop. and thats all i needed.

only thing i dont like is that my hardware doesnt perform as well when i have an extended desktop (extra monitor). but thats understandable. (4 year old notebook).

cesura · 2011-09-27 03:19:14

I take back everything (well, most everything) that I've ever said about GNOME 3, I love it! Point-and-click make Brad happy-haps. vYWpxZQ

RichAustin · 2011-09-27 08:06:20

I use Gnome3 all the time and have done for quite a while. Prior to this I used, and still do sometimes, Unity on Ubuntu 11.10. I agree that with both systems there are issues but I have found that they can mostly be dealt with fairly easily. I configure Gnome3 under Arch with the following:

1) Docky - there is a Gnome Dock extension but to be honest it's rubbish. I also found the "Go to Activities / Find the program you want / launch it" method was a total no go for me. So I initially tried Gnome-Do which was ok but not perfect. Then I thought "What about a left hand dock like on Unity?" and tried Docky. It works brilliantly for me. I set it up with all the app's I use all the time and I honestly find it faster and more efficient than I ever did on Gnome2 / KDE etc. My main system is a widescreen laptop so I set Docky on the left side and always visible. Brilliant.

2) I install all the Gnome3 extensions, except the dock extension - trust me, you don't want to bother with it - which are available at http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra … xtensions/
I particularly like the auto move windows extension because I can set individual applications to load on specific desktops. So, for example, Thunderbird loads on desktop 6, Chromium on 1, Filezilla and RapidSVN on 3, Netbeans on 2 etc.

The extension uses gsettings. There isn't, as far as I know, a gui or cli app' to handle the setup but the format is failry straightforward. I put the string in a mini script and just run the script whenever I make a change. A small snippet of the string as an example is this:

gsettings set org.gnome.shell.extensions.auto-move-windows application-list "['chromium.desktop:1','filezilla.desktop:2','firefox.desktop:2'"]

The Places Menu extension can be useful. It gives you a Places dropdown menu in the system tray. I don't tend to use it but I would imagine a lot of people would.

Once I have it setup, which doesn't take long, I really find Gnome3 works really well. Docky, for me at least, is the big key to making it work though. Eventually there will be a ton of extensions out there and all the issues will be solved. For me there are no issues, since I can honestly say that in 3 months or more of using it I don't think "I wish it had....".

Rich

Last edited by RichAustin (2011-09-27 08:07:41)

karol · 2011-09-27 09:31:43

@itsbrad212
Who are you and what happened to Brad?

Arch Linux

#1 2011-09-13 13:21:35

What do you think of Gnome3?

#2 2011-09-13 13:35:05

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#3 2011-09-13 14:14:20

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#4 2011-09-13 14:30:06

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#5 2011-09-13 14:47:10

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#6 2011-09-13 14:48:13

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#7 2011-09-13 15:45:21

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#8 2011-09-13 17:45:59

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#9 2011-09-22 03:30:26

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#10 2011-09-22 14:36:02

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#11 2011-09-22 17:05:08

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#12 2011-09-22 19:17:15

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#13 2011-09-22 19:25:22

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#14 2011-09-23 13:24:43

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#15 2011-09-23 14:07:58

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#16 2011-09-23 14:34:18

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#17 2011-09-23 15:31:15

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#18 2011-09-23 16:49:03

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#19 2011-09-23 20:34:49

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#20 2011-09-23 22:31:20

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#21 2011-09-24 12:05:38

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#22 2011-09-24 13:16:40

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#23 2011-09-27 03:19:14

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#24 2011-09-27 08:06:20

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

#25 2011-09-27 09:31:43

Re: What do you think of Gnome3?

Board footer