[SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

jayveesea · 2011-04-09 12:41:18

ok, i understand. but for me...

sudo pacman -Syuu

...did not work. it got hung up on dependency conflicts.

unless there is another option (that has not come up here)...

sudo pacman -Syuuf

...might be someone's only option (at the risk of creating problems elsewhere).

so, in summary, to get back to gnome2 from gnome3...

1. disable [Testing] repository

2a. sudo pacman -Syuu

2b. (if 2a fails) sudo pacman -Syuuf

thanks all for the help and the knowledge!
-j

wonder · 2011-04-09 12:49:51

really, stop suggesting that stuff

downgrading to gnome 2 won't solve anything. at the end of the month gnome 3 would reach extra.

1)disabling testing
2) pacman -Suu
3) pacman -Qo /path/to/file/conflict
4) pacman -Rdd package
5) pacman -Suu and repeat 3-4 until you don't have any conflicts
6) run testdb at the end

Last edited by wonder (2011-04-09 12:50:43)

Yes · 2011-04-09 14:16:40

Just a note, I also had to delete/move ~/,pulse-cookie and the entire directory ~/.pulse, otherwise Gnome (and other WMs) would hang on startup.

I know I'll have to upgrade to Gnome3 eventually, but hopefully by then my graphics cards work with it.

e: Well, my stubbornness payed off. Apparently my graphics card works fine with Gnome3, but something in ~/.config was keeping Gnome3 from starting up. I removed a few things and now it seems to work. With all the stableness fit for something in testing...

Last edited by Yes (2011-04-09 14:57:54)

Whizard72 · 2011-04-09 18:12:00

Sounds to me like Arch is going to cram GNOME3 down my throat regardless of whether I want/like it or not... I'm sorry, but...

This is bad and just plain wrong. You're stripping people's choice from them and becoming a bit more like MICROSOFT.

Either give me the option to retain Gnome2 which works fine for me until such time that *I* (and not just some other peckerwood) decide that it's time for nome3 on *MY* systems. I would REALLY hate to have to drop Arch after only a few months of adopting it full-time on my systems.

I think that I am not alone in my resolve.

Ramses de Norre · 2011-04-09 18:21:02

Whizard72 wrote:

Sounds to me like Arch is going to cram GNOME3 down my throat regardless of whether I want/like it or not... I'm sorry, but...
This is bad and just plain wrong. You're stripping people's choice from them and becoming a bit more like MICROSOFT.
Either give me the option to retain Gnome2 which works fine for me until such time that *I* (and not just some other peckerwood) decide that it's time for nome3 on *MY* systems. I would REALLY hate to have to drop Arch after only a few months of adopting it full-time on my systems.
I think that I am not alone in my resolve.

Yeah, well, the repos are ran by *their* systems and no one forces you to run pacman -Suy on *your* systems. I bet I wont hear you complaining about them forcing 2.6.38 down your throat while they'll do that as well.

Welcome to rolling release and bleeding edge

zodmaner · 2011-04-09 18:24:11

Whizard72 wrote:

Sounds to me like Arch is going to cram GNOME3 down my throat regardless of whether I want/like it or not... I'm sorry, but...
This is bad and just plain wrong. You're stripping people's choice from them and becoming a bit more like MICROSOFT.
Either give me the option to retain Gnome2 which works fine for me until such time that *I* (and not just some other peckerwood) decide that it's time for nome3 on *MY* systems. I would REALLY hate to have to drop Arch after only a few months of adopting it full-time on my systems.
I think that I am not alone in my resolve.

The official policy of Arch is to stick with upstream as much as possible, so unless someone steps up and create unofficial Gnome 2 repository, you better of start planning which DE/DM to migrate to if you don't want to use Gnome 3 (I suggest Xfce).

wonder · 2011-04-09 18:35:10

@Whizard72 i give you the option to create your own repository and maintain yourself gnome 2 in /opt.

If you are not capable, pay me for supporting that along with gnome3.

until then, i suggest to really try gnome 3 with gnome-shell or with fallback mode and only after that you can start trolling.

Whizard72 · 2011-04-09 18:49:43

Ramses de Norre wrote:

Yeah, well, the repos are ran by *their* systems and no one forces you to run pacman -Suy on *your* systems. I bet I wont hear you complaining about them forcing 2.6.38 down your throat while they'll do that as well.
Welcome to rolling release and bleeding edge

I compile my own kernels and I upgrade to each and every stable release because that is in my best interests in terms of speed and stability. What I'm talking about is controversial upgrades like GNOME3 much like KDE4 was. I'm not attempting to troll, I am raising a real concern. Gnome2 works just fine and there's absolutely no reason to upgrade.

I like rolling release and bleeding edge, I just don't happen to like GNOME3 right now.

Vamp898 · 2011-04-09 19:40:12

GNOME2 is old, legacy, deprecated. Not only its programming Code.

The difference is.

KDE 4.0 was released without beeing stable (KDE 4.2 was the first stable version) and GNOME 3.0 is clearly marked as an stable Release.

GNOME 3 is like GNOME 2 was. For people which are even to stupid to use the Keyboard but with some compromise.

GNOME2 wasn´t that straight becease it missed the technical background to do something like that without making it unusable.

GNOME3 have it now and does it.

Like Linus Torvalds said, GNOME Developers are interface nazis.

GNOME is and ever was like it is now, it just reaches its goal more with using the technical progress.

If you liked GNOME2 and not GNOME3, you completely missused GNOME like when you use an Hammer to Cut down your meal.

Just tell why Archlinux should keep an Desktop Environment which already was old and full of deprecated code when it still was maintained.

Everyone knew that GNOME2 will die and exactly that happened. Its old and older and the oldest. No reason to keep it. It was time to die.

If a person is 100 years old and dies while sleeping its maybe still said, but everyone knew that this will happen and you say they should freeze the brain until its possible to re-animate him.

Thats nonsense at all.

Last edited by Vamp898 (2011-04-09 19:51:26)

Ramses de Norre · 2011-04-09 19:57:14

Whizard72 wrote:

Ramses de Norre wrote:
Yeah, well, the repos are ran by *their* systems and no one forces you to run pacman -Suy on *your* systems. I bet I wont hear you complaining about them forcing 2.6.38 down your throat while they'll do that as well.
Welcome to rolling release and bleeding edge
I compile my own kernels and I upgrade to each and every stable release because that is in my best interests in terms of speed and stability. What I'm talking about is controversial upgrades like GNOME3 much like KDE4 was. I'm not attempting to troll, I am raising a real concern. Gnome2 works just fine and there's absolutely no reason to upgrade.
I like rolling release and bleeding edge, I just don't happen to like GNOME3 right now.

The point is, you can't have both. You can't like to have a bleeding edge and continually updated system but on the other hand come complaining about the devs upgrading a software component to the newest stable release. Either you have it bleeding edge or you don't.

So you'll either have to cope with it and maybe start using another DE if G3 isn't your mojo, or start using another distro.
The other options (maintaining a G2 repo or not updating) are completely in conflict with arch's philosophy.

Also, in the end your problem lies with the gnome devs, not with the arch devs. You don't like what the gnome devs did but you can't blame the arch devs for packaging whatever upstream does, exactly because the arch devs aren't and don't want to be part of upstream.

akb825 · 2011-04-09 20:42:47

Even though you can continue to use GNOME 2 for now, eventually it will rot as its dependencies are updated. It isn't a long term solution. GNOME 3 has a fallback mode, but that is already deprecated, and already has issues that most likely aren't going to be fixed. If you can't deal with GNOME 3, then I suggest looking for a new DE. If you don't like KDE, then I suggest Xfce. I recently switched to Xfce myself, since I didn't like the direction GNOME was going in, and I have been pretty satisfied with it.

Whizard72 · 2011-04-09 21:04:32

Points taken, suggestions considered.

Thanks guys...

I'm not leaving Arch, too much work put into it now... Plus you get what you want and none of the crap someone decided was a great idea. (Ubuntu) Arch 8-9W idle power usage on my laptop which is awesome since Win7 can barely do 11W.

My quarrel with GNOME3 is mostly about controls, themes, etc that will be fixed in time no doubt. Funny thing is, KDE was my first DE I ever used. lol.

I might go back to KDE, or I might go with XFCE until GNOME3 grows on me like GNOME2 did before I switched to it. History repeats itself after all.

This is why choice and alternatives are nice to have, no?

Last edited by Whizard72 (2011-04-09 21:08:47)

el_zoona · 2011-04-10 00:12:24

Vamp898 wrote:

GNOME2 is old, legacy, deprecated. Not only its programming Code.
GNOME 3 is like GNOME 2 was. For people which are even to stupid to use the Keyboard but with some compromise.

Maybe, and just maybe, there are better ways to describe Gnome users. Just saying.

Sawk · 2011-04-10 10:39:33

Vamp898 wrote:

GNOME2 is old, legacy, deprecated. Not only its programming Code.
GNOME 3 is like GNOME 2 was. For people which are even to stupid to use the Keyboard but with some compromise.

no, it's not. Use fallback for some days and you will see with your eyes how much unstable and bugged it is.
And gnome2 is not old or deprecated. It's just a stable desktop which is really usefull on works and developing. Also it's easy to customize, support 100% compiz (and then all the apps you can use with it) and all the others graphics library (from qt to java with gtk+ interface).

what i say it's just that gnome3 is not already developed as well to get it as default desktop. It needs more time to be stable and 100% compatible with all the other apps.

mythus · 2011-04-10 11:52:37

Sawk wrote:

It needs more time to be stable and 100% compatible with all the other apps.

Which will never happen if not used by the masses and them making bug reports. Or have we forgotten that in an open source world, we are the bug testers?

BTW- GNOME Shell isn't near as buggy as GNOME Fallback, at least on my system. GNOME Shell in fact hasn't proven buggy at all for me. Perhaps there is a reason for it? Oh yeah.... GNOME developers hate have the choice of fallback and don't plan on keeping it around very long... basically using it only as a stopgap "until GNOME Shell is able to be used by most".

Vamp898 wrote:

GNOME 3 is like GNOME 2 was. For people which are even to stupid to use the Keyboard but with some compromise.

You know, there are other reasons besides the lack of intelligence that prevents full keyboard use "without compromise" right?

Vamp898 · 2011-04-10 12:10:13

What i meant with "with some compromise" is that GNOME also gives the ability to use the Keyboard instead the mouse, but there are better ways to do that. You can clearly see that GNOMEs main point is """usability""" which is a very elastic word.

Easy in Archlinux is not the same "easy" than in Ubuntu.

Ubuntu threads easy with "You dont have to learn or read anything, it just works when you clicking around with the mouse" (which doesnt work always for sure).

GNOME threads "usabilty" and "easy" the same way Ubuntu does. It should be self explaned and work without doing much things.

That can have 2 results.

1. Everything is preconfigured
2. There isn´t much to configure

The first point is about Ubuntu and the second about GNOME

And if you want/need that customisations things that is hidden for the default user, you have to use things like dconf-editor which just shows me one big point.

"The User dont know what he does, so hide everything what he can use to destroy or misconfigure something"

and that tells me that the target-user for GNOME is someone who is to stupid to read/configure his DE and so maybe configures something wrong and so makes his DE unuseable.

It also can mean that the target-users are people which dont want to configure anything and it just should work.

Whoever the target user of GNOME are, we´re here using Archlinux. The target-group of Archlinux are people who are willing to read documentation and configure what they want instead of using pre-configured stuff.

So i think that an Archlinux User always have to take an compromise when using GNOME.

The difference from GNOME2 to GNOME3 is that GNOME2 leaked the technical background to force the user to use it how GNOME was designed and so you could also be comfortable with it beeing an Archlinux user.

GNOME3 have the technical background and uses it. Thats why GNOME-Shell is a interface for dummies right now which hopefully will be changed in the future because otherwise GNOME will lose a lot of users.

GNOMEs target-group is using Ubuntu which will use Unity instead of of GNOME-Shell in future releases of Ubuntu. So GNOME have to make the compromise to create also an usable DE for people who want to configure stuff

Last edited by Vamp898 (2011-04-10 12:10:45)

dandellion · 2011-05-09 19:40:33

I'll take your word for Gnome3 having the tech background. But it's interface is unacceptable for so many users (myself included) and that's the problem here. And upgrading is done windows way. I just started my computer (upgraded in previous session) just to discover that it's a completely strange machine. One thing that makes Linux really hot is that no matter how many computers and distros I changed, no matter if I upgrade or do a clean install, once my /home is in the place I'm home. Literally. Everything's in the place, all the shortcuts are where my fingers expect them, all the menus are populated just like they should be. I'm talking about a span of several years, three completely different boxes and at least three different distros.

Now, I have completely new DE and the biggest improvements of the new version (according to the videos on Gnome3 site) are possibility to maximize a window by dragging it to he top of the screen (much more useful than doubleclicking of the bar) and starting apps by clicking the icon and then typing name until autocomplete (quite faster than clicking the icon I put on the system bar or browsing well-configured menu). Dammit, when I want to type the apps name, I use the console.

Anyway, it would be reasonable to expect background and UI separated.... that was the Linux way as I remember. That way each user will be able decide which way of maximizing the window is suitable to him/her

Hope you don't see this as ranting,, it's really not written in bad intention.

Now I'm off to search for new DE.

triplesquarednine · 2011-05-10 14:13:23

akb825 wrote:

Even though you can continue to use GNOME 2 for now, eventually it will rot as its dependencies are updated. It isn't a long term solution. GNOME 3 has a fallback mode, but that is already deprecated, and already has issues that most likely aren't going to be fixed. If you can't deal with GNOME 3, then I suggest looking for a new DE. If you don't like KDE, then I suggest Xfce. I recently switched to Xfce myself, since I didn't like the direction GNOME was going in, and I have been pretty satisfied with it.

As far as gnome-fallback is concerned ~ gnome-devs discourage using it, but it isn't deprecated. in fact, a few days ago on the gnome-shell list, they said it would probably be supported throughout gnome 3 cycle.

Fallback mode is far less buggy than Gnome2. the only issues one bumps into, are functions that are not implemented that were in Gnome2 - but depending on what you are doing....not a big deal. and also can't really be considered bugs, as gnome3 isn't gnome 2, and the design goals and tools provided are much different.

I'm using Fallback with Compiz - and i am starting to like it better than Gnome2. G3 is faster, much lighter and aside from having to learn a few new things/switching some settings around is much better to work with than Gnome2.

TheRoadNinja · 2011-07-03 19:55:35

Ok, so I just created an account for this post.

I accidentally did a full upgrade while trying to install openssh (mirror problems) last night and today when I woke up and booted my arch partition I am now greeted with this shittastic gnome3 disaster. Its making gay sounds at me and bitching at me about my graphics drivers and generally being exactly like Ubuntu's new window manager, which was the sole reason I switched to arch in the first place.

I don't care why people thought a working window manager had to be completely reinvented. I understand there are some people who think if you like gnome2 you are doing it wrong, or maybe we should only use the keyboard with our window managers, or other useless opinions, and all of those people can go to hell.

I didn't actually like gnome2, but I'd prefer to get it back, and without fucking up my system (going off the reservation and installing it in /opt, etc). I am willing to set up my own repository or gnome2 branch, however I can't do this on my own; I don't have time to get ass deep in code and package management every time the developers of something I use get a hardon for reinventing shit. I think I've already wasted 2 hours on this problem, and I haven't even done anything besides install XFCE.

So: if you also didn't hate gnome2, enough so that you would like to collaborate on a fork and a repository, please send me an email.

TheRoadNinja · 2011-07-03 23:03:11

Scratch my last post; XFCE turned out to be awesome. It also starts out a lot like gnome2. Here are some pointers for getting the rest back:

1) To get ctrl+alt+backspace back, put the following in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/90-zap.conf :

Section "InputClass"
Identifier "Keyboard Defaults"
MatchIsKeyboard "yes"
Option "XkbOptions" "terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp"
EndSection

2) to setup Ctrl+Alt+A to open a terminal, edit

./.config/xfce4/xfconf/xfce-perchannel-xml/xfce4-keyboard-shortcuts.xml

find this section:

and add:

<property name="<Control><Alt>a" type="string" value="exo-open --launch TerminalEmulator"/>

3) reclaim ctrl+alt+shift to move window to next workspace with you:

Applications Menu -- Settings -- Window Manager
Double click on "Move window to {upper,bottom,left,right} workspace"
Then you have to actually press the keys, but its not too bad.

4) when you have everything set up the way you like it, use the "log out" think instead of ctrl+alt+backspace, because it waits until then to save your settings (??)

Allan · 2011-07-03 23:22:45

TheRoadNinja wrote:

2) to setup Ctrl+Alt+A to open a terminal, edit
./.config/xfce4/xfconf/xfce-perchannel-xml/xfce4-keyboard-shortcuts.xml
find this section:
<property name="custom" type="empty">
and add:
<property name="<Control><Alt>a" type="string" value="exo-open --launch TerminalEmulator"/>

You can set up shortcuts in xfce4-keyboard-settings.

sand_man · 2011-07-04 01:21:49

TheRoadNinja, you might be interested in this https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=121162

bwat47 · 2011-07-04 05:41:54

Whizard72 wrote:

Sounds to me like Arch is going to cram GNOME3 down my throat regardless of whether I want/like it or not... I'm sorry, but...
This is bad and just plain wrong. You're stripping people's choice from them and becoming a bit more like MICROSOFT.
Either give me the option to retain Gnome2 which works fine for me until such time that *I* (and not just some other peckerwood) decide that it's time for nome3 on *MY* systems. I would REALLY hate to have to drop Arch after only a few months of adopting it full-time on my systems.
I think that I am not alone in my resolve.

I know this thead is a bit old but...

Arch is a bleeding edge distro. You knew damn well when you installed it that gnome would be updated to the newest version just like everything else. They are just updating gnome as expected, not trying to cram anything down your throat.

Arch is not the type of distro to waste time maintaining EOL software..

Arch Linux

#26 2011-04-09 12:41:18

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#27 2011-04-09 12:49:51

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#28 2011-04-09 14:16:40

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#29 2011-04-09 18:12:00

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#30 2011-04-09 18:21:02

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#31 2011-04-09 18:24:11

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#32 2011-04-09 18:35:10

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#33 2011-04-09 18:49:43

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#34 2011-04-09 19:40:12

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#35 2011-04-09 19:57:14

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#36 2011-04-09 20:42:47

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#37 2011-04-09 21:04:32

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#38 2011-04-10 00:12:24

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#39 2011-04-10 10:39:33

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#40 2011-04-10 11:52:37

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#41 2011-04-10 12:10:13

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#42 2011-05-09 19:40:33

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#43 2011-05-10 14:13:23

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#44 2011-07-03 19:55:35

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#45 2011-07-03 23:03:11

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#46 2011-07-03 23:22:45

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#47 2011-07-04 01:21:49

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

#48 2011-07-04 05:41:54

Re: [SOLVED] getting back to gnome2 from gnome3

Board footer