GNOME 3 is a hideous bloated abomination that will drive people to Xfce in droves.

[Grimhound]

I just had to get it off my chest that I am rather... unimpressed by what I've seen of GNOME 3. It's like all concepts regarding aesthetics and efficiency were tossed out the window in favor of some failed art concept. It's almost like a modern art piece showing the excesses of the times rather than what I would come to expect from the people behind the current GNOME. I mean no offense beyond that which I do, yet I just cannot find myself ever using it, having recently attempted. I have installed and attempted with an honest desire to use the new GNOME, yet I found myself completely and utterly unable to adapt to its limited scope. With no taskbar and no means of offering programs a way to notify me of urgency, and with no dropdowns in favor of a full-screen flood-out that makes KDE seem modest, I found myself shaking my head. This is in no way an attempt to troll, but rather a method by which to express an opinion myself and several others I have spoken with honestly share.

[RichardLinx]

You know, it's still under some pretty heavy development. For all we know the current design could be completely scrapped! I really want to try it but it's a large download so I'd rather wait and see.
It's not like the current design is going to be scrapped any time soon so there's not really much to be worried or annoyed about. :)

[blackmail]

I have used Gnome, and i am quite happy with it, i won't lie i have installed KDe also, but mainly just for fun. I don't think the final version is going to look like that, and if yes you can always switch to kde, that's what it is all about in the linux comunity, you have the freedom of will.:P

[megamania]

unimpressed by what I've seen of GNOME 3. It's like all concepts regarding aesthetics and efficiency were tossed out the window in favor of some failed art concept.
This reminds me of all the people complaining about the instability of each Alpha release of Ubuntu.

[Grimhound]

This reminds me of all the people complaining about the instability of each Alpha release of Ubuntu.

Through nearly a year there has been no real introduction or expansion of features regarding GNOME 3. The most they've seemed to do is make it black and glossy. It still is a 1-button wonder GUI that puts a featureless bar on the top of the screen and exists for the sole novelty of being able to fit X00 different desktops into the screen-eating fullscreen dropdown menu that is its only feature.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_FJH0hYZmVtc/SrakNKCaw0I/AAAAAAAADHs/j3DvZopu2hw/s1600/screenshot_024%5B1%5D.png

You don't need anything as long as you have a fullscreen dropdown that shows your 8,000 desktops, amirite? It's not like we're in a period where screen real estate is a vital thing and where netbooks with 7-11 inch screens are in the mainstream. You can devote your entire screen to an arbitrary feature while sacrificing things like Compiz and the time it takes for the pretty interface to swoop down, right?

[Subban]

I was very excited by Gnome Shell initially a few months ago and hurriedly built and tried it, I very quickly realised that it was not something I would ever use and I went from excited to extreme disappointment despite wanting to like it.

Gnome has always been steadfast in its KISS approach, well I strongly thinkthat Gnome shell is going to confuse the backside off people left, right and center.. People coming from Windows are especially going to be staring at the screen like a rabbit caught in headlights (average Joe Bloggs, not enthusiasts).

As I said somewhere else, Gnome Shell looks more like a tech demo searching for a purpose, an interface should stay out of the way and let you work, no matter how I tried to like Gnome Shell it just felt in the way and unnecessary.

It seems very peculiar to jump from removing the screensaver (lets call them advanced) preferences in Gnome 2.xx because they aren't necessary, to Gnome Shell which is bucket loads of unnecessary served on a platter of useless.

I want Gnome to update and I an not averse to change in the least.

[Grimhound]

I'm not averse to change. The issue is that GNOME 3 presents way, way, way too much change for the worse. I can't see myself ever using it. It's more like a modern game console UI than a GUI shell for a computer.

[fela]

Before bashing, remember KDE 4.0.

Although, I haven't used Gnome 3 :S

[Grimhound]

Before bashing, remember KDE 4.0.

Although, I haven't used Gnome 3 :S

I've never really played with KDE enough to really understand it. Also, I have used Gnome 3. There isn't much to really use. It's a 1-button dropdown menu where you have limited selection options and the ability to spam-create a whole lot of desktops. There isn't much else to it. It isn't really usable to any degree. An art project at best.

[HappyFeet]

I can't see myself ever using it.

Then don't! Thank you for stopping by, and have a good day.

[SonicSteve]

Then don't! Thank you for stopping by, and have a good day.
What kind of silly comment is this? You may not agree but you don't have to be snarky. Do you get offended by everyone who doesn't share your opinion?

[HappyFeet]

What kind of silly comment is this? You may not agree but you don't have to be snarky. Do you get offended by everyone who doesn't share your opinion?

I was not being rude. Mind your own business. And no, I'm not offended at all. If you ask me, your comment is silly.

[Marlonsm]

I was very excited by Gnome Shell initially a few months ago and hurriedly built and tried it, I very quickly realised that it was not something I would ever use and I went from excited to extreme disappointment despite wanting to like it.

Gnome has always been steadfast in its KISS approach, well I strongly thinkthat Gnome shell is going to confuse the backside off people left, right and center.. People coming from Windows are especially going to be staring at the screen like a rabbit caught in headlights (average Joe Bloggs, not enthusiasts).

As I said somewhere else, Gnome Shell looks more like a tech demo searching for a purpose, an interface should stay out of the way and let you work, no matter how I tried to like Gnome Shell it just felt in the way and unnecessary.

It seems very peculiar to jump from removing the screensaver (lets call them advanced) preferences in Gnome 2.xx because they aren't necessary, to Gnome Shell which is bucket loads of unnecessary served on a platter of useless.

I want Gnome to update and I an not averse to change in the least.

I agree, I also got disappointed when I tried Gnome Shell myself.
The idea is not bad, but I can't see myself using it everyday.
I really hope they change it, or else I'm moving to KDE.

[SonicSteve]

I was not being rude. Mind your own business. And no, I'm not offended at all. If you ask me, your comment is silly.

Without starting a war with you, this is public forum, I fail to see how I overstepped my "business". Protecting our public interests is everyone's business.

[HappyFeet]

Without starting a war with you, this is public forum, I fail to see how I overstepped my "business". Protecting our public interests is everyone's business.

First off, I did not say anything rude. You took it the wrong way. Don't waste any more of my time.

[Rocket2DMn]

Ok, let's please keep this thread on topic, or it's going to have to be closed. Thanks in advance.

[solwic]

I'm looking for screenshots of Gnome 3. I didn't even know it was in development though heh.

Anybody know where I find screenshots?

[running_rabbit07]

Then don't! Thank you for stopping by, and have a good day.

+2

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Use what ever makes you happy.

[theZoid]

If Gnome-Shell is Gnome 3, then I can be counted out ....I've installed that Shell and quickly quit using it. It wasn't even antialiased :) I can't believe they will go with that in it's current form. Those people aren't stupid. :)

[megamania]

Then don't! Thank you for stopping by, and have a good day.

+2

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Use what ever makes you happy.
Yes, he doesn't like it and he won't be using it.

But this is a public forum and he just stated his opinion. I don't really agree with him (see my previous post), but your posts don't add much to the community.

Think for a second: is it constructive a reply like yours to every post that says "I don't like this for this reason"?

After five years in these forums, I'm pretty sure some people take this way too seriously.

[3rdalbum]

Before bashing, remember KDE 4.0.

Although, I haven't used Gnome 3 :S

KDE 4.0 doesn't rock the boat as much as Gnome Shell does. KDE 4.0 was problematic because of the bugs, not because of the design of the interface. Gnome Shell is not buggy; the real problems with it are that you need to move into a different mode in order to accomplish any tasks, and (so far) that different mode presents almost none of the functionality available in Gnome 2.x.

[SonicSteve]

I understand all those who are concerned about the changes to Gnome. I doubt that the changes seen so far will be reverted though. I've seen enough software in early development and rarely does it look much different from the release product.

Having said that the changes I've seen remind me of the menu from Mint or opensuse. I'd like the try them, is there an easy way to upgrade to version 3? My plan would be to try it in a Virtual Machine.

[3rdalbum]

If Gnome-Shell is Gnome 3, then I can be counted out ....I've installed that Shell and quickly quit using it. It wasn't even antialiased :) I can't believe they will go with that in it's current form.

No, they won't go with it in its current form - it's in development.

[3rdalbum]

I understand all those who are concerned about the changes to Gnome. I doubt that the changes seen so far will be reverted though. I've seen enough software in early development and rarely does it look much different from the release product.

Having said that the changes I've seen remind me of the menu from Mint or opensuse. I'd like the try them, is there an easy way to upgrade to version 3? My plan would be to try it in a Virtual Machine.

Gnome 3 is not a product yet. The Gnome people will take a 2.xx release of Gnome, add Gnome Shell and call it Gnome 3. They don't know which release will be Gnome 3 yet.

You can try Gnome Shell on your current installation - you just run it as though you were just starting a different window manager. You have to build Gnome Shell from source but that's easy, there are instructions on the Gnome website. I don't think you'll want to test it in a virtual machine, because it won't be 3D accelerated. However I'd be interested in seeing whether Gnome Shell can be used in a 2D environment.

[SonicSteve]

You can try Gnome Shell on your current installation - you just run it as though you were just starting a different window manager. You have to build Gnome Shell from source but that's easy, there are instructions on the Gnome website. I don't think you'll want to test it in a virtual machine, because it won't be 3D accelerated. However I'd be interested in seeing whether Gnome Shell can be used in a 2D environment.

Are you saying that the current setup of Gnome 3 relies so heavily on 3d that it is hard to use in 2d? If that's true Virtual box better get that experimental support for 3d up and running. I'll see if I can get it going in a VM.

[GodLikeCreature]

I agree this is still a long time due, and as long as Ubuntu does not add it by default, I don´t really care. If ubuntu ever decides to include it by default, then I hope it is as good as usual, and I believe it will be.

[Methuselah]

I haven't used it but I'm very, very intrigued.
I'll reserve judgement until it's released.
The concept does not bother me but I don't yet know whether the execution will work.

BTW, Open Source Software projects might need a marketing department so that users can stop whinging.
Almost every time and project makes any significant chance scores of users come out of the woodwork to dismiss it right away.

Compare that to how every new feature of windows is presented as something desirable and longed for through marketing.
By the time the OS is released, everyone is clamouring for it even if they don't know what it is.
Sometimes the hyped features don't even end up in the final release (remember WinFS etc).

However, in the Open Source Community where there is full disclosure and no marketing BS to pull wool over eyes the majority settle into negative preconceptions rather than supportive feedback, assistance or *gasp* patience.
Also, there seems to be this inner belief that the FOSS community cannot drive certain aspects of innovation but must tow that line of what's popular commercially.
So Microsoft and Apple aren't doing something as 'weird' as a shell so it should not be done in Gnome.

I don't buy that and I'm willing to remain open to anything.
The Moblin interface looks like a game console and it's gorgeous.
Integration with clutter opens the door to some interesting user interface ideas.
So even if I end up not using the Shell, I look forward to the possibilities inherent in the technological advance Gnome3 will represent.

[alex.rayu]

It's not a discussion whether Gnome 3 is a product. The discussion is that the topic starter is concerned with what he sees to be the trend where Gnome goes. And I fully agree.

Gnome is currently a very stable system, that comprises ease of use (that of comparable to Mac) and minimalism. The changes that users like me want from Gnome is for that kind of success to be improved upon. And they have that in their roadmap - GTK 3 having effects, transparencies, etc. Also, a huge revamp to be done on GTK.

Now, Gnome devs have been in stale mate for more than a year unable to decide what to do. And now, they have made what appear to be hasty decisions. They decided to include questionable software in Gnome. What? They don't even have time to really improve on the given, and they are including software, where heavy openGL processes will be ran just to reach some usual functions. To resize the desktops to just get to the search, or the start button, are you serious??

So yes, there is a justified concern. If Gnome 3 does become a product with the way it works now, there will be an exodus from Gnome, like there was from KDE4, and what they said they would try to avoid.

[Methuselah]

If you have hardware acceleration 3D functions are very efficient.
We can't expect Gnome or KDE to stagnate forever as a 1990s era Desktop.
Projects in such a state would certainly lose volunteer developer interest and as a consequence, users.

[3rdalbum]

Are you saying that the current setup of Gnome 3 relies so heavily on 3d that it is hard to use in 2d? If that's true Virtual box better get that experimental support for 3d up and running. I'll see if I can get it going in a VM.

It's perfectly safe to use in your ordinary, everyday account; it runs from within your home directory and it doesn't touch your existing Gnome settings.

I've only ever seen it working in 3D. Clutter is the backend toolkit (I think?) which works extremely sluggishly if there's no 3D acceleration. I don't know if Gnome Shell will run in any sort of 2D mode when you don't have acceleration; I must try it some time as you've got me all interested now :-)

Gnome Shell is reasonably usable if you have a dock. I'm using Gnome Shell now with AWN, and I have some launchers, a calendar, the Main Menu, Places and the Logout applets replicating the functionality of the old Gnome top panel.

[Subban]

I haven't used it but I'm very, very intrigued.

I would like to point out that if you read back over what I and a others have said, we all started from a point of intrigued or downright excitement, I like others am keen to see Gnome updated.... but not to Gnome Shell, the excitement pre-use very fast gives way to disappointment and very real concern.

I'll reserve judgement until it's released.
The concept does not bother me but I don't yet know whether the execution will work.

Download it, build it and try, Its an interesting concept but its operation has issues which I cannot see how they will get around.

BTW, Open Source Software projects might need a marketing department so that users can stop whinging.
Almost every time and project makes any significant chance scores of users come out of the woodwork to dismiss it right away.

Compare that to how every new feature of windows is presented as something desirable and longed for through marketing.
By the time the OS is released, everyone is clamouring for it even if they don't know what it is.
Sometimes the hyped features don't even end up in the final release (remember WinFS etc).

Good projects succeed, a bad idea will fail regardless of anything, including Market... Windows ME anyone, or arguably Vista (say what you want of Vista's "success" but MS themselves brought Win7 forward *years*, that speaks volumes imo)

So Microsoft and Apple aren't doing something as 'weird' as a shell so it should not be done in Gnome.

Nobody said that, they did say though that Shell is horrible :]

I don't buy that and I'm willing to remain open to anything.
The Moblin interface looks like a game console and it's gorgeous.
Integration with clutter opens the door to some interesting user interface ideas.
So even if I end up not using the Shell, I look forward to the possibilities inherent in the technological advance Gnome3 will represent.

I am as open to a new Gnome as any man, nobody has said "OMGZ! Don't change Gnome!!".. Gnome is long overdue a bit of an overhaul, but Gnome Shell doesn't just represent an overhaul, it is an entire change to any other desktop interface that I know of anywhere, and I suspect it is going to stand alone in its uniqueness, some people seem to like it and thats great, variety is everything in life, but if this becomes the default face of Gnome then I rather suspect that many more people are going to think that is a jolly big mistake.

Put another way, has everybody seen that image macro of the forks lined up, and one has all bent and mangled prongs on it, the text underneath says "Just because you are unique, doesn't mean you are useful"... thats Gnome Shell ;)

For the record, I am really looking forward to Zeitgeist that should be airing in Gnome3 or thereabouts., thats going to be an excellent as an alternative method of finding files by the looks of things, I've not tried it yet, but I am hopeful.

[hantechbl]

Gnome is a good UI and it runs very well on my 512mb 1.8ghz computer and it works perfectly

[running_rabbit07]

Yes, he doesn't like it and he won't be using it.

But this is a public forum and he just stated his opinion. I don't really agree with him (see my previous post), but your posts don't add much to the community.

Think for a second: is it constructive a reply like yours to every post that says "I don't like this for this reason"?

After five years in these forums, I'm pretty sure some people take this way too seriously.

Can someone really say they don't like how something runs when it is still being developed?

[Methuselah]

Good projects succeed, a bad idea will fail regardless of anything, including Market... Windows ME anyone, or arguably Vista (say what you want of Vista's "success" but MS themselves brought Win7 forward *years*, that speaks volumes imo)


Desktop Linux would love to have the degree of failure of those hyped, marketed, and arguably poor products you mentioned.


Nobody said that, they did say though that Shell is horrible :]


Maybe you didn't but I wouldn't say nobody did.
There is a faction that simply wants us to ape whatever Apple and Microsoft are doing.
I'm not part of that school.


I am as open to a new Gnome as any man, nobody has said "OMGZ! Don't change Gnome!!".. Gnome is long overdue a bit of an overhaul, but Gnome Shell doesn't just represent an overhaul, it is an entire change to any other desktop interface that I know of anywhere, and I suspect it is going to stand alone in its uniqueness, some people seem to like it and thats great, variety is everything in life, but if this becomes the default face of Gnome then I rather suspect that many more people are going to think that is a jolly big mistake.

Put another way, has everybody seen that image macro of the forks lined up, and one has all bent and mangled prongs on it, the text underneath says "Just because you are unique, doesn't mean you are useful"... thats Gnome Shell ;)

For the record, I am really looking forward to Zeitgeist that should be airing in Gnome3 or thereabouts., thats going to be an excellent as an alternative method of finding files by the looks of things, I've not tried it yet, but I am hopeful.

Once again, "Nobody" is a powerful generalisation.
I didn't choose to write a long post about attitudes "nobody" has.
However, I take it you are more open-minded than most so maybe by 'nobody' you mean 'not me'.
I'll read it as such.

Anyway, the fact that it is a big change does not scare me.
The graphical interface/desktop was a big change and it has existed virtual unchanged for a very long time now.
It is familiar but I don't even know if it's the most efficient way of using screen real estate.

Why display tiny menus over a big, empty, high-resolution desktop that is showing a non-functional image?
Why not minimize the desktop space to allow more task items to be shown on screen when that is primarily what the user is interacting with?
Why not allow small, customisable applications to stay resident on the desktop to make the space more useful and functional?
These are questions worth asking and ideas worth experimenting with.

We must not believe that everything will come out cooked to perfection at the first attempt and it might even be prudent to continue using the stable versions for a while.
But to me, the risk of making a mistake, to be later corrected, is preferable to stagnating indefinitely in conventions that are familiar though not necessarily optimal.

So I'm very happy a big project is trying something bold that we can learn from, whether it succeeds or fails.
Failure is not the worst thing that can happen as each failure further illuminates the road to success.

[Subban]

Lots of great points.

I think we are both in agreement that we are OK with change and we can both agree it is very often a good thing.

The shell is a brave plan, but it is my opinion that its misguided to make it such a centre piece to Gnome3 that I am of the impression it is to be.

Time will tell, and perhaps as it progresses they really do have ideas that will make it work, I would love to find that the case.

[gdonwallace]

For those that are interested in trying gnome-shell; get the most recent alpha (6) or the new beta and its included as a command line started desktop. Got to /usr/bin and type ./gnome-shell --replace and it will replace the current gnome desktop with the new shell. When you are ready to shut down the shell do a CTRL-C in the xterm that you used to start gnome-shell and it goes away.

I have tried it a couple times. Like most I found things I liked and didn't like. But I am in agreement with most on this thread, that Gnome is ready for a face lift; gnome-shell may be it (last I read several weeks ago was that it will be default in 10.10 -- May change but won't know until that release) As it is in development; I hope they get some of the major bugs (as I see them) worked out. If not; they may loose me and from the sounds of it many others to KDE of xFCE. Its just a waiting game at this point.

[cb951303]

The current state of the gnome shell is useless for me too and considering that they only have 6 months fro GNOME 3, I would say a lot of people will be disappointed.

[RiceMonster]

I'm starting to get sick of the word "bloated"

Before bashing, remember KDE 4.0.

Although, I haven't used Gnome 3 :S

+1

[orlox]

I've had my ups and downs with the gnome-shell. When I first heard about it a long time ago, I build it and tried it, and found it interesting. Months later, when people started hating it with their souls, I kind of followed up, and started reconsidering, without giving it a serious evaluation. I started checking for future alternatives to replace gnome...

However, I decided to give the shell another shot, so I've been using it as my default desktop for a while now, and I'm really liking it. The most noticeable things I like being:

The zoomed out view can be summoned by pressing the activities button, hovering the mouse to the upper-left corner, or pressing the super key. The animation is fast and smooth (with some small issues though, but nothing important), and I don't think it's a massive time waster.
I rarely use launchers or menus, I prefer and find faster to use gnome-do to launch programs. The shell is truly oriented to this, so that's a plus for me.
I dislike window lists. I've been using the scale plugin and dockbarx to manage window switching for some time, but I've always disliked the fact that it didn't showed minimized windows. The shell defaults to a scale-like window selection, including minimized windows.
Launchers listed under applications on the zoomed-out view also work as window selectors. Right clicking on them also filters the windows shown to those that belong only to that group.

I really like these features, and I don't think there's any tragic design specs...of course, we can agree to disagree, and I bet a lot of us have their regular gnomes working in very productive ways that don't fit with the shell.

However, negative points I can mention are:

Putting the focused window name in the top panel is idiotic and repetitive. A much more useful thing would be to put the menu bar for the focused application there
"Activities" wastes too much space. It could be perfectly replaced by an icon.
The clock doesn't show the date, nor does it allow to see a calendar.
The panel should be configurable to hide itself (I really love my screen space maximized)
Icons listed under applications show their names with text that rarely is complete (ends with "..."). Using just the icons and showing the app name on hover in a bubble like notification would be smarter.
The window filtering mentioned above would be more useful if it could be activated only on hover, after a small timeout.
Icons listed under applications are now always the same size
It would be nice if there was a key-binding that allows to switch form the scale-like view to expo-like view in the zoomed out view, so window positioning when moving windows through workspaces can be done inmediately
There should be an option to let the side-menu on the zoomed out view to auto-hide, so that the desktop showing the open windows could use more space. In netbooks I think this would be very important.
I miss a couple of compiz plugins. Most important one, desktop zoom (not that my sight is bad, but I found myself using zoom quite often...). Also, I expect them to create some nice animations besides the default ones. Not to mention the fact that I'm addicted to the completely useless woobly windows...

Well, and the last negative point, which I think is very important: Gnome-Shell requires 3d hardware acceleration. Well, I guess that will definetely drive many people towards xfce or lxde...

Those are my 2 cents...dunno if anyone will take the time to read it all :P...maybe I could put this on a gnome devel mailing list and see what they think...

[hoppipolla]

I'm actually using Gnome Shell at the moment as well... I find it reasonably usable and enjoyable... as people know I'm not the biggest fan of the Gnome project so my analysis will be different, but I too think they need to reconsider how focused around that Activities menu the whole thing is. Why do we need to pan the whole desktop back just to see the "Start" menu?

It's great to see polished Compiz-like effects worked into Gnome though just like they are into KDE with Kwin, but I would also like to see some development on GTK, as I do fall into the camp that believes Qt is a far more powerful and modern toolkit.

Time will tell, but yes I hope for their sake they give it another overhaul, because as it is anyone who favours simplicity, raw functionality, or has no 3D acceleration will be driven away quite fast.

[theZoid]

I'm up for a big, bold makeover of gnome. Whatever they come up with, I'll give it a chance. If in the end I don't like it much, then for me it would be Xfce I guess.

[samjh]

It's about time Gnome was overhauled. Gnome-Shell is quite a big change, for sure. But that is not to say it will necessarily be bad. It's innovative, and may influence desktop environment design for the better.

I don't like it personally, but I'm all for a major project pushing the desktop into a bold new direction.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

I like Gnome 2.x. The only problem that I have with it is that it lacks a good default set of art (themes, icons, etc.). I don't want it to change a lot. I just want them to make it look better.

I'll give shell a chance, but I honestly don't think I'll like it. The current generation of Gnome is my favorite DE period. This includes MacOS, Win 7, and KDE. I haven't found anything that's as fast, feature filled, and convenient as Gnome.

[CharmyBee]

GNOME lovers - Like GNOME 2.x while you still can. In a few years it'll be obsoleted like KDE 3.5x and you'll have no choice but to use a convoluted interface which is supposedly the evolutionary progression of your favored UI. You could say "Linux is not Windows", but at least Windows had sensible and consistent UI design over the past 15 years and never felt a sudden need to alienate the user for the sake of trying something unproven in design. Same goes for Mac. The only huge notable difference between OS X's interface and the first MacOS is the dock.

I don't like either Gnome 3 or KDE4. I **have** to use Xfce.

[Methuselah]

I think we are both in agreement that we are OK with change and we can both agree it is very often a good thing.

The shell is a brave plan, but it is my opinion that its misguided to make it such a centre piece to Gnome3 that I am of the impression it is to be.

Time will tell, and perhaps as it progresses they really do have ideas that will make it work, I would love to find that the case.

Fair enough.
Like you, I can't say for sure how seemless and how convenient it will be but I'm rooting for it.
I just felt that some in the community had fallen into the habit of stubbornly despising any big change without giving it sufficient time to achieve its vision.
I was reminded of the KDE4 fiasco and I think its a really poor evolution of a community that was built on problem solving and experimentation (ie hacking).

For those who say they doubt Gnome3 will be 'good enough' in 6 months I can almost guarantee that it will not be.
That's why Gnome2 will continue to be supported for a while just as KDE3 support continued after KDE4 was released.
However, Gnome3 will be available for use to use and critique with a view to making it better.
Dismissing it without consideration will not be productive.

[Regenweald]

3.0 is what it is but also look two releases past that. The shell is a new, clean foundation. Both front and back, so i think i will wait and see.

[RichardLinx]

Does it really matter that much? By the time GNOME 3 is released the majority of computer users will have moved on and embraced the future, that is KDE4.

http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.3.2.php (4.3.2 has been released!)

[Jimleko211]

Does it really matter that much? By the time GNOME 3 is released the majority of computer users will have moved on and embraced the future, that is KDE4.

http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.3.2.php (4.3.2 has been released!)
+1

Gnome, when configured by your OS (like Ubuntu) is wonderful. I loved it, and whenever I have to fiddle around on my friend's comp to fix her iPod or something, Gnome is very, very fast.

However, there is something to be said for KDE. Something about it's look...it's on par with Windows 7 and Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Gnome reminds me of Windows XP in its look, and KDE 4.3.2 is like...BEYOND what we have in our commercial offerings now.

It's just totally and completely pleasing to the eye, and as you get used to what the lingo means, and where the options are, it's a LOT more customizable than Gnome.

KDE 4.3.2 is a great release, and I can't wait until the day when people go back to KDE (probably after the Gnome Shell is released?)! I was not in the Linux world back during KDE's "glory days" of 3.5, but 4.4 will at the very least put those glory days back in sight.

[hoppipolla]

Does it really matter that much? By the time GNOME 3 is released the majority of computer users will have moved on and embraced the future, that is KDE4.

http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.3.2.php (4.3.2 has been released!)

I think there are certainly elements of truth in that (although it WILL get a LOT of opposition over the coming posts lol) but I would offer a variation and say I predict that KDE will soon be the primary OPEN SOURCE desktop. I think it will be closer integrated into most mainstream distributions, and I think Qt will be the primary open source toolkit.

I also think that a REASONABLE number of ex-Gnome users will move to KDE, but I also think a lot will stay on Gnome or move to other options like XFCE.

Lastly... I think that KDE will pull a lot of people onto Linux :) It is very powerful and aesthetically pleasing, and does provide an environment that often matches or exceeds commercial alternatives... I think it will continue to do this and also quickly pick up pace with subsequent releases.

KDE4 is something rather special IMO :)

[jonian_g]

I understand all those who are concerned about the changes to Gnome. I doubt that the changes seen so far will be reverted though. I've seen enough software in early development and rarely does it look much different from the release product.

Having said that the changes I've seen remind me of the menu from Mint or opensuse. I'd like the try them, is there an easy way to upgrade to version 3? My plan would be to try it in a Virtual Machine.

Best solution is to get Karmic beta. Gnome shell is in karmic repos.

[Exodist]

First off, I did not say anything rude. You took it the wrong way. Don't waste any more of my time.

You did sound rude, but it may have not been your intention. Please remember its the Internet and hard to know someones true nature toward as post. :(

Back On Topic

I been using Gnome since 1.x and KDE as well. I really think something has happened to the Gnome team. Aliens must have abducted them and replaced them with the Sega developers. I really seen this menu crap and started looking for my game controller so I could play Need for Speed or something. The GnomeShell is a novelty at best. I dont mind if its a little nice option for some smackhead wanting to use it. But for gods sake dont take my normal menuing system away or prevent anyone from running Compiz. I really wonder what Novell is thinking right now, they are prob scratching their head in confusion over all the hard work their team as put forth with Compiz Fusion only to see the Gnome devs give them a one fingered salute. /sigh


- Exo

[scottuss]

It may be that they have a lot of changes to make. I just hope they don't do what the KDE team did and launch the equivalent of KDE 4 then leave it kinda in limbo until KDE 4.3

[Mornedhel]

Are you saying that the current setup of Gnome 3 relies so heavily on 3d that it is hard to use in 2d? If that's true Virtual box better get that experimental support for 3d up and running. I'll see if I can get it going in a VM.

Mutter (Metacity and Clutter), the new compositing window manager, will be necessary to be able to use all the features of gnome-shell. So, no hardware acceleration, no new gnome-shell features. Also no possibility of using third-party window managers (this is what makes me unhappy with Gnome 3).

However, I find it premature to declare that Gnome 3 will drive people to KDE 4 or XFCE exclusively. Among the dissatisfied, those who use Gnome and like eye-candy (why, yes, KDE fans, it's possible to have eye-candy in Gnome) will probably switch to KDE, or why not Enlightenment 17. Those who use Gnome because it's lighter than KDE will either stay with the 2.x branch for as long as possible, or switch to a lighter environment, which may or may not be XFCE.

I'm more concerned about new users who will try future distributions with Gnome 3 installed by default and be even more lost than they were with Gnome 2, the difference with Windows being greater.

[Grimhound]

I'm more concerned about new users who will try future distributions with Gnome 3 installed by default and be even more lost than they were with Gnome 2, the difference with Windows being greater.

Wow. This topic certainly exploded out. Yet about this, I feel that Kubuntu or Xubuntu will become the launch & release version of mainstream Ubuntu before Gnome-Shell is ever introduced as a mainstay.

[Subban]

I'm more concerned about new users who will try future distributions with Gnome 3 installed by default and be even more lost than they were with Gnome 2, the difference with Windows being greater.

An opinion I think I voiced earlier in this thread, or another on the subject of Gnome Shell. In the last year or two many governments and region districts have switched over hundreds of thousands of desktops to linux, while I don't have any figures it would be my bet that they are using Gnome primarily (it seems the most sensible assumption). I can't imagine Gnome Shell being a hit where the hardware isn't going to be favourable running that kind of environment (ie configured for a 3d desktop)

I can only assume that the Gnome dev's have considered the great many corporate desktops and my concern is without base...But, I'm just not so sure that is the case. I hope I am wrong.

[qamelian]

Does it really matter that much? By the time GNOME 3 is released the majority of computer users will have moved on and embraced the future, that is KDE4.

http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.3.2.php (4.3.2 has been released!)
I know I won't be one of them. I hate the feel of KDE 4.X. I've been running Gnome-shell aas my default desktop for a while and I can't wait for the finished product. In my opinion, for most things I do, Gnome-shell is far more efficient than either the existing Gnome or KDE environments. It also runs significantly faster and cooler than KDE 4.3 on my laptop.

[Boom!!!]

Realistically Gnome3 could lead to a folk.

[Boom!!!]

:guitar: Seriously I'm too good for all this Gnome vs KDE rubbish.

[TheLastDodo]

GNOME lovers - Like GNOME 2.x while you still can. In a few years it'll be obsoleted like KDE 3.5x and you'll have no choice but to use a convoluted interface which is supposedly the evolutionary progression of your favored UI. You could say "Linux is not Windows", but at least Windows had sensible and consistent UI design over the past 15 years and never felt a sudden need to alienate the user for the sake of trying something unproven in design. Same goes for Mac. The only huge notable difference between OS X's interface and the first MacOS is the dock.

I don't like either Gnome 3 or KDE4. I **have** to use Xfce.

While you're right about the two major Linux DEs kinda going off the deep end, I disagree that Windows and the Mac OS haven't had their own problems over the years. The Vista/Win 7 menu is a giant pain in the *** (except for the search box) and isn't in any way an improvement over the old cascading style menu, which on average took fewer clicks to reach what you wanted to launch. The same can be said for the awful tabbed UI introduced in Office 2007, which wouldn't have been such a bad idea if not for its clunky defaults and lack of customization.

As for OS X, when it first came out it was a UI clusterf*ck. The designers basically threw out some 15 years of good UI ideas that had been built upon in classic, and replaced them with a gimped Finder and semi-functional dock. As is, these are still problems for OS X, although some very good features have also been added in the meantime (Expose, for example). But they just had to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In addition to XFCE, I'd also give LXDE a try if I were you, or perhaps combine something like Openbox with Thunar...

[23meg]

The current state of the gnome shell is useless for me too and considering that they only have 6 months fro GNOME 3, I would say a lot of people will be disappointed.

GNOME 3 may still be deferred to GNOME 2.32. 2.30 was the draft plan, but in the actual plan laid out by the release team (http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/Plan), deferral was stated as an option.

I'm starting to get sick of the word "bloated"

It's even more sickening in the context of people-mistaking-GNOME-Shell-for-GNOME-3, given that one of the major goals for GNOME 3 is streamlining of the platform (http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/Plan), which involves getting rid of lots of old libraries and rotting code.

[Grimhound]

It's even more sickening in the context of people-mistaking-GNOME-Shell-for-GNOME-3, given that one of the major goals for GNOME 3 is streamlining of the platform (http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/Plan), which involves getting rid of lots of old libraries and rotting code.

Will we see a revamped Wanda gifted with super powers from the Earth's yellow sun so that she can fire off kinetic wifi blasts to instantly BSoD machines running Windows?

[kaicrr77]

I just rebuilt Gnome Shell today and it's much faster than before. I really don't see what all of the whinning is about.

First of all it's probably the only solution that actually makes a good use of multiple desktops. Before it was a feature that few used. Gnome Shell makes the multiple desktop feature more integrated into the desktop experience. "The cube" of compiz made it cool to get to the next desktop but didn't do much in terms of managing the process, or increasing real usability. Gnome Shell actually addresses that issue.

Second GS makes it easier to get to the program or file you are looking for. Yes Gnome 2.x was easy, but that's because it was using a usability design which was older than dirt. That doesn't mean that it couldn't use improvement.

Third, all of the composited taskbar solutions still work, like AWN, etc. So the overall usability is the same, really with the way GS works it's even easier.

The only complaint, is the current inability to change that ugly font the taskbar uses. Other than that it's probably the only OS that really makes it easier to get to the program you are looking for without a complete OS redesign like KDE 4.0 was. Right now GS is waaaaaay more stable than KDE was because there's a lot fundamentally that hasn't really changed yet. Overall I'm very pleased.

[23meg]

Will we see a revamped Wanda gifted with super powers from the Earth's yellow sun so that she can fire off kinetic wifi blasts to instantly BSoD machines running Windows?

No.

[starcannon]

Gnome 3 is still in the planning phase; exactly how did one get an install of something that doesn't even exist yet?

[AllRadioisDead]

Gnome 3 is still in the planning phase; exactly how did one get an install of something that doesn't even exist yet?
Good one, Aristotle.

[starcannon]

Good one, Aristotle.
Oh there's more where that came from; indeed I'm so full of it my eyes are brown.
Thanks for the reply Plato.

[AllRadioisDead]

Oh there's more where that came from; indeed I'm so full of it my eyes are brown.
Thanks for the reply Plato.
Try reading this, and then telling everyone that it's still in "planning".
http://webupd8.blogspot.com/2009/09/easy-way-to-install-gnome-shell.html

[starcannon]

Try reading this, and then telling everyone that it's still in "planning".
http://webupd8.blogspot.com/2009/09/easy-way-to-install-gnome-shell.html

Thats one piece of it, not the entirety, its just gnome-shell. I did the stupid thing, I know, I went straight to the source before making my statement: http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero, the gnome team says they are still planning. Who you gonna believe, the Gnome developers, or a website that is reporting on the Gnome developers? It's a coin toss, but I'll go with the developers, when its ready, they will let us know. Your link was not even reporting on Gnome 3.0, it was a gnome-shell install tutorial.

Further, if you look here: http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven you will see that 3.0 is not even on the horizon yet; it indeed is still little more than an idea of an idea in my opinion. Feel free to flame all you desire, it won't change the facts though.

P.S.
I have homemade bread pudding :P

[hoppipolla]

I honestly just hope that either the Gnome project puts out something ASTOUNDING, with a new toolkit, a thoroughly revamped look, new usability features and all-in-all something which really rivals Windows 7's and OSX's interfaces, or we just switch onto KDE. I am just so tired of hearing about this phantom desktop that may or may not be as good as KDE 4.x ._.

I feel like unless they actually move things along instead of just releasing periodic hints and roadmaps of a desktop yet to come, they might just be holding us back... does that make sense?

[starcannon]

I honestly just hope that either the Gnome project puts out something ASTOUNDING, with a new toolkit, a thoroughly revamped look, new usability features and all-in-all something which really rivals Windows 7's and OSX's interfaces, or we just switch onto KDE. I am just so tired of hearing about this phantom desktop that may or may not be as good as KDE 4.x ._.

I feel like unless they actually move things along instead of just releasing periodic hints and roadmaps of a desktop yet to come, they might just be holding us back... does that make sense?
Thats the beauty of it all! You don't have to wait around for it, you can get on with KDE 4.x now, and when Gnome 3.0 eventually arrives, you can try it and switch back if you like it better. This is not a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can even have both the latest Gnome, and the latest KDE, and use the one you like best! Gnome 3 is a long way off by the looks of it though, I wouldn't go staying up late tonight waiting for it.

[hoppipolla]

Thats the beauty of it all! You don't have to wait around for it, you can get on with KDE 4.x now, and when Gnome 3.0 eventually arrives, you can try it and switch back if you like it better. This is not a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can even have both the latest Gnome, and the latest KDE, and use the one you like best! Gnome 3 is a long way off by the looks of it though, I wouldn't go staying up late tonight waiting for it.

I don't mean just for me though. I mean as the main choice of major distributions such as Ubuntu, the one that is better integrated and supported by the best user-friendly tools. At the moment that one, is Gnome.

OpenSUSE of course chooses KDE, but OpenSUSE has problems of it's own and also don't get me wrong I think it will still be another release or 2 (up to 4.4 or 4.5) before KDE is strong enough to really take over.

[starcannon]

I don't mean just for me though. I mean as the main choice of major distributions such as Ubuntu, the one that is better integrated and supported by the best user-friendly tools. At the moment that one, is Gnome.

OpenSUSE of course chooses KDE, but OpenSUSE has problems of it's own and also don't get me wrong I think it will still be another release or 2 (up to 4.4 or 4.5) before KDE is strong enough to really take over.

I'm still seeing nothing but positives here; there are many great distro's to choose from. If OpenSUSE supports one's needs better, then OpenSUSE it shall be. If Ubuntu suits ones needs better than Ubuntu it shall be. Or, if your just stuck in indecision, dual boot them side by side. Make a nifty little "bridge" partition to share files from one to the other, and presto, magico, you get to eat your cake and have it to!

Compromise is something I try to avoid :) Generally speaking one can have it all (within the scope of the Distro/DE discussion).

GL and HF

[hoppipolla]

I'm still seeing nothing but positives here; there are many great distro's to choose from. If OpenSUSE supports one's needs better, then OpenSUSE it shall be. If Ubuntu suits ones needs better than Ubuntu it shall be. Or, if your just stuck in indecision, dual boot them side by side. Make a nifty little "bridge" partition to share files from one to the other, and presto, magico, you get to eat your cake and have it to!

Compromise is something I try to avoid :) Generally speaking one can have it all (within the scope of the Distro/DE discussion).

GL and HF

But we're still sitting here using a collection of desktop Operating Systems with comfortably less than 3% of the market ._.

I am one of those people who kinda cares about the future of the OS, and wants to see it grow in it's share of the market ^_^

[Tipped OuT]

When GNOME 3 is released, I'll be on KDE. I don't like xfce, feels like a run down version of GNOME.

[sammcj]

I just had to get it off my chest that I am rather... unimpressed by what I've seen of GNOME 3. It's like all concepts regarding aesthetics and efficiency were tossed out the window in favor of some failed art concept.


ohhhh thank god someone finally said it!

I would like to see XFCE really take off..

[starcannon]

ohhhh thank god someone finally said it!

I would like to see XFCE really take off..
Somebody said they could not stand a non existent piece of software; yep, me too, I'm happy someone finally said that. Good grief, wait for it to even happen before deciding whether its a success or not. Gnome is not even out to 2.8 yet; 3.0 is not even on the map for 2010. Someone tries one of the pieces that is being considered for 3.0, just one of the parts mind you, and has the full knowledge to condemn the entire project. Am I on a Linux forum??? *looks around for open minds*

[samjh]

Somebody said they could not stand a non existent piece of software; yep, me too, I'm happy someone finally said that. Good grief, wait for it to even happen before deciding whether its a success or not. Gnome is not even out to 2.8 yet; 3.0 is not even on the map for 2010. Someone tries one of the pieces that is being considered for 3.0, just one of the parts mind you, and has the full knowledge to condemn the entire project. Am I on a Linux forum??? *looks around for open minds*

It happened with KDE 4 as well, when it was in early stages of development.

You have to expect resistance. The greater the magnitude of change, the greater the resistance from established users. An important part of change management is to manage the resistance, which KDE did poorly and Gnome is currently doing no better.

One of the reasons for resistance is that the design rationale of the new system is yet unclear, and even seems contradictory to good HCI (Human Computer Interaction) practices. I'm not talking about the rationale behind consolidation of Gnome's back-end systems. I'm talking about the front-end, which is what most Gnome users care about. If Gnome developers are better able to "sell" their rationale to users, there would be less resistance. Unfortunately, there has been minimal - if at all - attempt to communicate the rationale in any easily understandable way.

[Exodist]

Somebody said they could not stand a non existent piece of software; yep, me too, I'm happy someone finally said that. Good grief, wait for it to even happen before deciding whether its a success or not. Gnome is not even out to 2.8 yet; 3.0 is not even on the map for 2010. Someone tries one of the pieces that is being considered for 3.0, just one of the parts mind you, and has the full knowledge to condemn the entire project. Am I on a Linux forum??? *looks around for open minds*

Your not up on your Gnome info. They are not going to go 2.8, they are trying to move to 3.0 by 2.30. But they may hold that back again until 2.32. Wich will go down in 2010. 2.30(Spring), 2.32(Fall). All odd numbers are development releases.


On another spiffy Note. I was dabbling again with XFCE. This is a very very nice and extremely fast DE. I feel I am almost at a toss up between XFCE 4.6 and KDE 4.3.2.

[Subban]

Somebody said they could not stand a non existent piece of software; yep, me too, I'm happy someone finally said that. Good grief, wait for it to even happen before deciding whether its a success or not. Gnome is not even out to 2.8 yet; 3.0 is not even on the map for 2010. Someone tries one of the pieces that is being considered for 3.0, just one of the parts mind you, and has the full knowledge to condemn the entire project. Am I on a Linux forum??? *looks around for open minds*

I think you are talking about Gnome 3.0, whereas the thread has been more about Gnome Shell as it is the actual visible portion, which many people have built, tried, and despite wanting to like have failed.

The original thread title is misleading, remove the 3 and replace it with "shell", then I think replace "bloated" with erm.. something else. It might not be bloated, but it feels... big (maybe)

[Grimhound]

Further, if you look here: http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven you will see that 3.0 is not even on the horizon yet; it indeed is still little more than an idea of an idea in my opinion. Feel free to flame all you desire, it won't change the facts though.

P.S.
I have homemade bread pudding :P
From what I understand they're going to cheat with naming convention and make 2.3 the designated Gnome 3.0.

[hoppipolla]

Sorry I went off on one on Gnome a bit... lol

Thing is i DO like the Gnome Shell, I mean I'm using it right now and enjoying it! I just really hope that Gnome 3 either lives up to or exceeds the standards set by KDE 4.

[zekopeko]

It happened with KDE 4 as well, when it was in early stages of development.

You have to expect resistance. The greater the magnitude of change, the greater the resistance from established users. An important part of change management is to manage the resistance, which KDE did poorly and Gnome is currently doing no better.

One of the reasons for resistance is that the design rationale of the new system is yet unclear, and even seems contradictory to good HCI (Human Computer Interaction) practices. I'm not talking about the rationale behind consolidation of Gnome's back-end systems. I'm talking about the front-end, which is what most Gnome users care about. If Gnome developers are better able to "sell" their rationale to users, there would be less resistance. Unfortunately, there has been minimal - if at all - attempt to communicate the rationale in any easily understandable way.

@all

You know what would be great? If somebody from Gnome-Shell team could explain the rationale to me(us). I'm not seeing it or understanding it.
"We are going from 2 to 3 (yey for basic math skills) and therefor have to create something "new" that the users can see" isn't a rationale.

[gjoellee]

I just had to get it off my chest that I am rather... unimpressed by what I've seen of GNOME 3. It's like all concepts regarding aesthetics and efficiency were tossed out the window in favor of some failed art concept. It's almost like a modern art piece showing the excesses of the times rather than what I would come to expect from the people behind the current GNOME. I mean no offense beyond that which I do, yet I just cannot find myself ever using it, having recently attempted. I have installed and attempted with an honest desire to use the new GNOME, yet I found myself completely and utterly unable to adapt to its limited scope. With no taskbar and no means of offering programs a way to notify me of urgency, and with no dropdowns in favor of a full-screen flood-out that makes KDE seem modest, I found myself shaking my head. This is in no way an attempt to troll, but rather a method by which to express an opinion myself and several others I have spoken with honestly share.

If you cur you text into paragraphs/sections it would be easier to read. Sorry, but I am not reading that...

[TheLastDodo]

It happened with KDE 4 as well, when it was in early stages of development.


And guess what? Its detractors were right, at least when it came to the UI, functionality and resource usage. Having run both KDE 3.5.10 and 4.3 on a couple of my machines, I can tell you that the former runs circles around the latter, and is more feature-rich.

[Grimhound]

And guess what? Its detractors were right, at least when it came to the UI, functionality and resource usage. Having run both KDE 3.5.10 and 4.3 on a couple of my machines, I can tell you that the former runs circles around the latter, and is more feature-rich.

I have attempted to use KDE4 only to end up smacking my forehead and going to get a drink before coming back to reset to Gnome. I find that it suffers from the issue of having too much kit with too little substance. By that I mean it attempts to make some spiffy keen gloss, yet it suffers from a lack of feature and option. There is no base setting to disable touchpad clicking, and I found myself tripping over it in the simplest attempts to make use of the environment. It tries to add a great deal of widgets, yet it sacrifices the functionality of important ones. The closest I could get to my location with the weather widget was some 200 miles away, for instance.

[hoppipolla]

And guess what? Its detractors were right, at least when it came to the UI, functionality and resource usage. Having run both KDE 3.5.10 and 4.3 on a couple of my machines, I can tell you that the former runs circles around the latter, and is more feature-rich.

I have attempted to use KDE4 only to end up smacking my forehead and going to get a drink before coming back to reset to Gnome. I find that it suffers from the issue of having too much kit with too little substance. By that I mean it attempts to make some spiffy keen gloss, yet it suffers from a lack of feature and option. There is no base setting to disable touchpad clicking, and I found myself tripping over it in the simplest attempts to make use of the environment. It tries to add a great deal of widgets, yet it sacrifices the functionality of important ones. The closest I could get to my location with the weather widget was some 200 miles away, for instance.

This is silly though, KDE4 is only lacking in these things because it hasn't caught up to the level of maturity that 3.x had... surely you can see this?

[Grimhound]

This is silly though, KDE4 is only lacking in these things because it hasn't caught up to the level of maturity that 3.x had... surely you can see this?

If it is lacking maturity, it shouldn't have been released as anything X.0. I understand by nature of empathy the vast difficulty in creating something like a shell, yet still I stick by what I say. KDE4 uses both a bar style and GTK. It's like Frankenstein's shell.

[hoppipolla]

If it is lacking maturity, it shouldn't have been released as anything X.0.

I partly agree. I think the biggest mistake the KDE team makes is declaring things as finished and stable before they actually are. To be fair though, the results are often very good in the long run and KDE 4.x is maturing fast.

[Grimhound]

I partly agree. I think the biggest mistake the KDE team makes is declaring things as finished and stable before they actually are. To be fair though, the results are often very good in the long run and KDE 4.x is maturing fast.

Just as I am not a fan of Gnome Shell through experience, so too am I not a fan of KDE4 by experience. It would be tragic indeed if Linux dies not due to any vector of attack or adoption of something superior, but due to a lack of viable GUIs to be used by the general public. Gnome 2 is currently the only viable GUI with full features to match a commercial product.

I am a fan of clean and sleek design with uniformity and tight structuring.

[Keyper7]

I partly agree. I think the biggest mistake the KDE team makes is declaring things as finished and stable before they actually are.

Except that they never declared 4.0 as finished and stable. The point zero release meant API freezing. Changelogs and release notes made very clear that feature-parity with 3.5 and stability were both lacking at that point.

Unlike several detractors of KDE 4.0 state, there's no such thing as a formal and ultimate definition of "point zero release".

[GerryB]

After reading a few posts, I had a look at Gnome Shell on Youtube. Fascinating! I can't wait. Thanks for advertising it guys.

[hoppipolla]

Just as I am not a fan of Gnome Shell through experience, so too am I not a fan of KDE4 by experience. It would be tragic indeed if Linux dies not due to any vector of attack or adoption of something superior, but due to a lack of viable GUIs to be used by the general public. Gnome 2 is currently the only viable GUI with full features to match a commercial product.

That's not really true, I mean I started out on KDE 3 and was very happy. KDE 4 is also amazingly close, and when it is finished will be far closer to a commercial GUI than Gnome 2.

I am a fan of clean and sleek design with uniformity and tight structuring.

That's good, but not everyone has the same values for a desktop.

[hoppipolla]

Except that they never declared 4.0 as finished and stable. The point zero release meant API freezing. Changelogs and release notes made very clear that feature-parity with 3.5 and stability were both lacking at that point.

Unlike several detractors of KDE 4.0 state, there's no such thing as a formal and ultimate definition of "point zero release".

Hmm, fair point :)

I think marking it as a proper release and not an alpha, beta or RC did imply it was at least stable though, which it wasn't.

Thing is though, you can't argue with results and that's exactly what KDE 4.3 has given us. It's not FINISHED, but it's serious results.

[ian920]

I just had to get it off my chest that I am rather... unimpressed by what I've seen of GNOME 3. It's like all concepts regarding aesthetics and efficiency were tossed out the window in favor of some failed art concept. It's almost like a modern art piece showing the excesses of the times rather than what I would come to expect from the people behind the current GNOME. I mean no offense beyond that which I do, yet I just cannot find myself ever using it, having recently attempted. I have installed and attempted with an honest desire to use the new GNOME, yet I found myself completely and utterly unable to adapt to its limited scope. With no taskbar and no means of offering programs a way to notify me of urgency, and with no dropdowns in favor of a full-screen flood-out that makes KDE seem modest, I found myself shaking my head. This is in no way an attempt to troll, but rather a method by which to express an opinion myself and several others I have spoken with honestly share.

That's one hell of a rant there! I've made the mistake of trying out software that are in the developement stages; i don't plan on trying gnome 3 out anytime soon. I just started using 2!

[Subban]

That's one hell of a rant there! I've made the mistake of trying out software that are in the developement stages; i don't plan on trying gnome 3 out anytime soon. I just started using 2!

You won't use Gnome 3 anytime soon, when people in this thread are talking of using Gnome 3, they actually are refering to Gnome Shell. Folks need to be more careful on that.

Other than the shell (the pretty bit many of us tried) under the hood is going to be an evolution from 2.2x, not a big change. Gnome is not going to do a KDE, its not that big a change from what I know of it, other than the shell. We get some new apps and things, like Zeitgeist (sp?) which looks useful though I will have to go back to using tracker i think.

Gnome is going to undergo a streamlining as pointed out earlier, not a massive re-write which I think is more what KDE did, sadly at this point Gnome is going to be changing the desktop UI which having tried, I am not a fan of. I haven't tried it again for a while, I will do on karmic's launch (I had terrible problems building it previously)

Please bear in mind the difference between Gnome Shell and Gnome 3 when you comment. And someone correct me if I have got my facts wrong please.

[Grimhound]

@Subban: I had gotten Gnome Shell mixed up with Gnome 3 due to my first introduction to it having come from a news site calling it such.

[Boom!!!]

If it is lacking maturity, it shouldn't have been released as anything X.0. I understand by nature of empathy the vast difficulty in creating something like a shell, yet still I stick by what I say. KDE4 uses both a bar style and GTK. It's like Frankenstein's shell.


By releasing kde4.0 to the community it greatly speeded up the development process.

Surely that's obvious. #-o

[hoppipolla]

By releasing kde4.0 to the community it greatly speeded up the development process.

Surely that's obvious. #-o

Oo that's an interesting observation I guess there might be some truth in that! I mean, couldn't they have released them as like "development" releases though and kept us on KDE 3 in the mean time? Although I guess that would have still slowed development as more people would have been on 3... who knows :)

It's just, everyone moving to Gnome didn't do the KDE project much good either!

[bshosey]

It is very early to really make a judgement on the shell. But I think it is a good concept and will be great in the long run. I think it will be good for net books and hand held devices. Not as it is now but it will mature to be so.

[Mornedhel]

It is very early to really make a judgement on the shell. But I think it is a good concept and will be great in the long run. I think it will be good for net books and hand held devices. Not as it is now but it will mature to be so.

This could be true if you didn't need compositing to be able to even use gnome-shell.

[bshosey]

That is a good point. But mobile devices are evolving as well. Video hardware is improving for mobile devices.

[TheLastDodo]

This is silly though, KDE4 is only lacking in these things because it hasn't caught up to the level of maturity that 3.x had... surely you can see this?

Yes I do. So I ask you, why did they release it and encourage distros to abandon 3.5.x in favor of a replacement that's STILL not ready? When a new version of something comes out, I generally expect it to be MORE useful, not less. (this is hardly a problem unique to open-source projects, either... Mac OS X's original UI and Office 2007 come to mind) :(

[bshosey]

Lots of time projects and or companies do this to manage resources. Sometimes they think it would be better to drop or slack support on the old to go with the new. I am not saying that is a good technique.

[orlox]

This could be true if you didn't need compositing to be able to even use gnome-shell.

Doesn't a great majority of the netbooks come with integrated video cards that allow 3d hardware acceletarion?? I'm not sure if PIDs have lesser hardware without that capability. In any case, I don't know for how long those devices will be out there in the market (don't think they'll last much longer).

[hoppipolla]

Yes I do. So I ask you, why did they release it and encourage distros to abandon 3.5.x in favor of a replacement that's STILL not ready? When a new version of something comes out, I generally expect it to be MORE useful, not less. (this is hardly a problem unique to open-source projects, either... Mac OS X's original UI and Office 2007 come to mind) :(

I know, and that was a mistake. But let's face it, it's a VERY impressive desktop and a few small features aside it's far and away the best open source desktop around at the moment :)

As I said before, you can't argue with results, and in my eyes Gnome 3 has a lot to live up to!

[sammcj]

But let's face it, it's a VERY impressive desktop and a few small features aside it's far and away the best open source desktop around at the moment :)


preaching opinion as fact?

I don't like gnome, I dislike KDE even more...
It's bloated, tacky looking and inefficient for streamlined desktop use.

[hoppipolla]

preaching opinion as fact?

I don't like gnome, I dislike KDE even more...
It's bloated, tacky looking and inefficient for streamlined desktop use.

haha sorry I guess I got a bit carried away in that post lol

It is my opinion though yeah :)

[doomsword2001]

google:
http://www.gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-pre1/65610-1.jpg

lol

[sammcj]

google:
http://www.gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-pre1/65610-1.jpg

lol

dear god... *my eyes!*

[Tipped OuT]

dear god... *my eyes!*

What's so bad about it? Looks good (at least from the screenshot) to me. A little transparency with some alpha blur... it's all gooooooood. 8)

[hoppipolla]

What's so bad about it? Looks good (at least from the screenshot) to me. A little transparency with some alpha blur... it's all gooooooood. 8)

heh, he was probably being sarcastic :)

It looks cool! The smooth transparencies are an improvement, but I hope they don't completely ditch the 3 dropdowns as I quite like them :)

[Penguin Guy]

Doesn't look so bad to me. Looks like it's slowly becoming more and more like KDE, that is to say, better.

[Grimhound]

Doesn't look so bad to me. Looks like it's slowly becoming more and more like KDE, that is to say, better.

That actually already exists. It's called the GnoMenu, IIRC. Was in earlier versions of Ubuntu. Not sure why it was taken out. I've always seen Gnome as having the potential to be the medium-weight multitool.

[hoppipolla]

That actually already exists. It's called the GnoMenu, IIRC. Was in earlier versions of Ubuntu. Not sure why it was taken out. I've always seen Gnome as having the potential to be the medium-weight multitool.

They really could achieve a lot with Gnome. I mean, as much of a KDE guy as I am, Gnome is kinda sleeker and more refined, they just need to really start moving it on.

I think that if Gnome ensures it modernizes and innovates a bit with it's transition into 3.x, and KDE matures it's 4.x branch, we could end up with 2 excellent, modern and complete desktops :)

[sertse]

No opinion. (I love xfce, I don't care :P), I just use the OP's hyperbolic expressive title. It makes me giggle.

[hoppipolla]

No opinion. (I love xfce, I don't care :P), I just use the OP's hyperbolic expressive title. It makes me giggle.

yeah ditto lol :)

[the fix it man]

Gnome-shell = Gnome 3

Gnome website
The plan for GNOME Shell is to be the desktop for GNOME 3.0.

Given Gnome's development speed Gnome 3 should be released around the year 2050.

[hoppipolla]

Gnome-shell = Gnome 3



Given Gnome's development speed Gnome 3 should be released around the year 2050.

ROFL!

I am really hoping that it picks up due to the fact it is being backed by Ubuntu, but other than that I totally agree. I have been using Gnome on and off for about 4 years and at least to the untrained eye it's 99% identical o.O

Gnome Shell was compared to that time a MASSIVE leap in development! lol

Although I don't agree that Gnome-Shell = Gnome 3 I mean, surely they intend to give GTK3 and that an overhaul as well and smooth out problems with Gnome Shell... I mean who knows they might even revise it's approach entirely :)

[GeneralZod]

GNOME's development speed is actually pretty damn good, nowadays (at least in terms of the number of commits). It's actually had more commits in a month than KDE a couple of times - contrast to 6 months or so ago when KDE routinely had more than double the commit activity of GNOME.

[hoppipolla]

GNOME's development speed is actually pretty damn good, nowadays (at least in terms of the number of commits). It's actually had more commits in a month than KDE a couple of times - contrast to 6 months or so ago when KDE routinely had more than double the commit activity of GNOME.

you must admit though KDE's development speed has been stellar. I mean in the same 4 years KDE has just revolutionised itself and is improving at an amazing speed.

[samjh]

you must admit though KDE's development speed has been stellar. I mean in the same 4 years KDE has just revolutionised itself and is improving at an amazing speed.

It's a little deceiving.

KDE 3.5 was relatively stagnant. The KDE devs were working on KDE 4 from 2006 onward. I think the changes were just more noticeable because KDE 4.0 and 4.1 were so poor.

GNOME 3 has been progressing quite well. Gnome-shell looked horrible just 6 months ago. Now, it's better. By the time of its release, it should be more usable than KDE 4.0 (or 4.1) was.

[kaicrr77]

It's a little deceiving.

KDE 3.5 was relatively stagnant. The KDE devs were working on KDE 4 from 2006 onward. I think the changes were just more noticeable because KDE 4.0 and 4.1 were so poor.

GNOME 3 has been progressing quite well. Gnome-shell looked horrible just 6 months ago. Now, it's better. By the time of its release, it should be more usable than KDE 4.0 (or 4.1) was.

I have to agree. I have been using Gnome Shell in 9.10 and 9.04 and right now the stability of it is far greater than 4.0 was when it came out. 4.1 basically allowed you to stay in the OS longer before stuff started crashing and the WM began eating itself.

I am very pleased with the concept that is Gnome Shell. It's different, and if you are a person who truly multitasks it makes that alot easier , especially if you know the key commands (like Super) which can get you to the menu and to the program you are looking for far quicker than looking for it in a menu.

[hoppipolla]

It's a little deceiving.

KDE 3.5 was relatively stagnant. The KDE devs were working on KDE 4 from 2006 onward. I think the changes were just more noticeable because KDE 4.0 and 4.1 were so poor.

GNOME 3 has been progressing quite well. Gnome-shell looked horrible just 6 months ago. Now, it's better. By the time of its release, it should be more usable than KDE 4.0 (or 4.1) was.

and I have to disagree! lol

The KDE guys have been working so hard for years to make the amazing desktop we have now on 4.3. In contrast, the Gnome project has changed for the FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN when they started work on Gnome Shell. Now, maybe I'm just not observant, but... me and my friend actually laugh at Gnome because it looks exactly the same now as it did when we first played around with it all those years ago. The single, single change I have seen is Gnome Shell which has surfaced very recently.

[samjh]

and I have to disagree! lol

The KDE guys have been working so hard for years to make the amazing desktop we have now on 4.3. In contrast, the Gnome project has changed for the FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN when they started work on Gnome Shell. Now, maybe I'm just not observant, but... me and my friend actually laugh at Gnome because it looks exactly the same now as it did when we first played around with it all those years ago. The single, single change I have seen is Gnome Shell which has surfaced very recently.

You're being too one-sided.

KDE 3.5 didn't morph itself from a caterpillar to a butterfly during its time. It looked... the same from 3.5.0 to 3.5.10. In fact, even KDE 3.4.x and 3.5.x looked identical in almost aspect. Even the visual changes from 3.1 to 3.4 were only different theme-wise. Most of the changes in KDE were applications and back-end developments, not appearance. People seem to be forgetting that before KDE 4 was a stagnant KDE 3.

Gnome 2, believe it or not, has changed during its time. I can only see from 2.10 onward, but there were two major GTK theme changes (2.12 and 2.20), an icon theme change in 2.16, more substantial changes in the back-end and much more among Gnome's application suite: Tomboy, Ekiga, Epiphany, Evolution, Deskbar, GStreamer, Cheese, Empathy, international clock, remote desktop, etc.

When Gnome 3 is released, people will soon forget about Gnome 2.

Looks are only skin-deep. You need to look past mere appearance when judging how much work has been put into a desktop environment. Otherwise, you might as well laugh at XFCE which has hardly changed a whisker from 4.0 to 4.6 during its 6-year period of development.

[nu2this]

When that happens, OH BOY!!!! are you guys in this forum going to get bombarded with stuff like:
Gnome 3 SUKS! what was wrong wit' 2.2 anyway?
Why doesn't (app name here) work like it did in 2?
This Gnome 3 isn't ready for prime time why did they throw it on us now?
I used to love Gnome now I'll have to use KDE or XFCE at least they're not doing this to us!
I absoulutely HATE THIS CRAP! I'm going to (insert other Linux distro here).

I post this to both prepare you & warn you this WILL happen & it WILL happen here. The reason why Ubuntu will get the worst of it is because of its association with Gnome. In much the same way OpenSuSe is associated with KDE.
The statements & inquiries I listed were a boil down of the general themes that happened to us at the Opensuse forums.
GOOD LUCK UBUNTU USERS!

[hoppipolla]

You're being too one-sided.

KDE 3.5 didn't morph itself from a caterpillar to a butterfly during its time. It looked... the same from 3.5.0 to 3.5.10. In fact, even KDE 3.4.x and 3.5.x looked identical in almost aspect. Even the visual changes from 3.1 to 3.4 were only different theme-wise. Most of the changes in KDE were applications and back-end developments, not appearance. People seem to be forgetting that before KDE 4 was a stagnant KDE 3.

Gnome 2, believe it or not, has changed during its time. I can only see from 2.10 onward, but there were two major GTK theme changes (2.12 and 2.20), an icon theme change in 2.16, more substantial changes in the back-end and much more among Gnome's application suite: Tomboy, Ekiga, Epiphany, Evolution, Deskbar, GStreamer, Cheese, Empathy, international clock, remote desktop, etc.

When Gnome 3 is released, people will soon forget about Gnome 2.

Looks are only skin-deep. You need to look past mere appearance when judging how much work has been put into a desktop environment. Otherwise, you might as well laugh at XFCE which has hardly changed a whisker from 4.0 to 4.6 during its 6-year period of development.

Let's see what they pull out for Gnome 3.

[Tibuda]

Looks are only skin-deep. You need to look past mere appearance when judging how much work has been put into a desktop environment. Otherwise, you might as well laugh at XFCE which has hardly changed a whisker from 4.0 to 4.6 during its 6-year period of development.

Quoted for truth

[Tipped OuT]

Looks are only skin-deep. You need to look past mere appearance when judging how much work has been put into a desktop environment. Otherwise, you might as well laugh at XFCE which has hardly changed a whisker from 4.0 to 4.6 during its 6-year period of development.
Quoted for truth

No, just no.

The appearance of a desktop environment is just as important as it's functionality.

If you only have functionality, well that's a fail (who wants an ugly desktop?).
If you only have good looks, well that's fail too.

You combine them together, and you get, what I like to call, WIN!

[Tibuda]

No, just no.

The appearance of a desktop environment is just as important as it's functionality.

If you only have functionality, well that's a fail (who wants an ugly desktop?).
If you only have good looks, well that's fail too.

You combine them together, and you get, what I like to call, WIN!

Yes, you are right, but this don't make samjh statement false. He/she was not saying looks are not important. Just because a software appearence have not changed, it don't mean it have not changed at all.

[Tristam Green]

No, just no.

The appearance of a desktop environment is just as important as it's functionality.

If you only have functionality, well that's a fail (who wants an ugly desktop?).
If you only have good looks, well that's fail too.

You combine them together, and you get, what I like to call, WIN!

You seriously apply liberal use of the words "fail" and "win".

Appearance is important. Yes.

However, there's an old saying: "gold-plated s**t is still s**t". Your DE needs to be functional, and functionally changing with the needs of users, in order to be considered whole.

[Tipped OuT]

Yes, you are right, but this don't make samjh statement false. He/she was not saying looks are not important. Just because a software appearence have not changed, it don't mean it have not changed at all.

Oh, I see.

[Roasted]

and I have to disagree! lol

The KDE guys have been working so hard for years to make the amazing desktop we have now on 4.3. In contrast, the Gnome project has changed for the FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN when they started work on Gnome Shell. Now, maybe I'm just not observant, but... me and my friend actually laugh at Gnome because it looks exactly the same now as it did when we first played around with it all those years ago. The single, single change I have seen is Gnome Shell which has surfaced very recently.

Simple point being:

KDE sucked. Them making an improvement = obvious. That's why you noticed a difference in KDE, but not with Gnome. Gnome wasn't in as bad of shape as KDE was. Laughing it up can be done all day but at the end of the day, that's how things were.

In the time I've tinkered with Ubuntu, Gnome has always had the more solid desktop from day 1, in my opinion. And it may not have changed as much as KDE over the years, but it also wasn't as bad as KDE 4 years ago.

KDE's improvement from "suck" to "solid" doesn't mean they're any better/worse than Gnome's "relatively solid" to "solid" state when compared in the same time frame.

Regardless, today, right now, both (IMO) KDE and Gnome are solid desktop choices, no matter what kind of road they were on before or time they put in. They're both a good desktop choice.

[Tipped OuT]

You seriously apply liberal use of the words "fail" and "win".

Appearance is important. Yes.

However, there's an old saying: "gold-plated s**t is still s**t". Your DE needs to be functional, and functionally changing with the needs of users, in order to be considered whole.

Please re-read what I said. I said both functionality and appearance matter.

[hoppipolla]

Simple point being:

KDE sucked. Them making an improvement = obvious. That's why you noticed a difference in KDE, but not with Gnome. Gnome wasn't in as bad of shape as KDE was. Laughing it up can be done all day but at the end of the day, that's how things were.

In the time I've tinkered with Ubuntu, Gnome has always had the more solid desktop from day 1, in my opinion. And it may not have changed as much as KDE over the years, but it also wasn't as bad as KDE 4 years ago.

KDE's improvement from "suck" to "solid" doesn't mean they're any better/worse than Gnome's "relatively solid" to "solid" state when compared in the same time frame.

Regardless, today, right now, both (IMO) KDE and Gnome are solid desktop choices, no matter what kind of road they were on before or time they put in. They're both a good desktop choice.

This is a very silly claim that KDE 3 sucked - I absolutely loved it and so did lots of people. It was used very widely and was capable of many things that Gnome was not, just like the reverse was true. It has some amazing applications and tools, and allowed a very high level of customization. It also adopted a different approach to Gnome, and so someone's choice is more down to what they actually want from a desktop. I used both extensively and never quite decided which I preferred.

[gjoellee]

You should not judge concepts, you may start judging at Beta.

[Roasted]

This is a very silly claim that KDE 3 sucked - I absolutely loved it and so did lots of people. It was used very widely and was capable of many things that Gnome was not, just like the reverse was true. It has some amazing applications and tools, and allowed a very high level of customization. It also adopted a different approach to Gnome, and so someone's choice is more down to what they actually want from a desktop. I used both extensively and never quite decided which I preferred.

And THAT'S what makes Linux so great. We're not stuck with a start button and a task bar. We have the power to choose. And especially now that's even better because I feel as though KDE and Gnome are both VERY solid choices.

A computer is a tool to get a job done. What's on the computer is entirely up to the user and their needs, whether it be OSX, XP, 7, Ubuntu, openSUSE, and breaking things down further - KDE, Gnome, etc.

Personally - I prefer Gnome. I like the way things are laid out. I like having two small taskbars instead of 1 fat one at the bottom. I think things can be spaced out nicer. At least, that's why I tend to prefer it. On my top Gnome task bar, I added my system monitor along with HDD activity/network activity/overall load. Since I have scheduled backups that run in my system, it's nice to see what's going on. This past Saturday I got nailed with the flu and lost track of time sitting at my computer while almost in a sinus coma, and I noticed my system had VERY SLIGHT lag when I opened Firefox. I looked up and saw my HDD activity was going nuts. Wait, what? The time = 4:00 PM - when one of my two backups run.

I'm sure you could do this in KDE too, but I like the way my desktop looks with Gnome. Functionality wise, they both do what I like, so I have to pick and choose based on SOMETHING... and I chose looks. :)

[hoppipolla]

And THAT'S what makes Linux so great. We're not stuck with a start button and a task bar. We have the power to choose. And especially now that's even better because I feel as though KDE and Gnome are both VERY solid choices.

A computer is a tool to get a job done. What's on the computer is entirely up to the user and their needs, whether it be OSX, XP, 7, Ubuntu, openSUSE, and breaking things down further - KDE, Gnome, etc.

Personally - I prefer Gnome. I like the way things are laid out. I like having two small taskbars instead of 1 fat one at the bottom. I think things can be spaced out nicer. At least, that's why I tend to prefer it. On my top Gnome task bar, I added my system monitor along with HDD activity/network activity/overall load. Since I have scheduled backups that run in my system, it's nice to see what's going on. This past Saturday I got nailed with the flu and lost track of time sitting at my computer while almost in a sinus coma, and I noticed my system had VERY SLIGHT lag when I opened Firefox. I looked up and saw my HDD activity was going nuts. Wait, what? The time = 4:00 PM - when one of my two backups run.

I'm sure you could do this in KDE too, but I like the way my desktop looks with Gnome. Functionality wise, they both do what I like, so I have to pick and choose based on SOMETHING... and I chose looks. :)

heh, yeah a case could have been made fairly comfortably that Gnome 2 looks better than KDE 3 :) I don't think it applies to every element of the desktop by any stretch (for example, I think that Kwin on 3 looks better than metacity), but overall I see what you mean.

Thanks for not slagging off KDE 3 anymore though lol, I really think that to claim it's poor or it sucked is to fly in the face of SO many people who used to use it before the rather bumpy transition to 4.0. 3.5.10 as the last 3.x release wasn't as nice as 4.3+, but it was a very reasonable and enjoyable to use little desktop that I liked for years and years! :)

[PC_load_letter]

Your not up on your Gnome info. They are not going to go 2.8, they are trying to move to 3.0 by 2.30. But they may hold that back again until 2.32. Wich will go down in 2010. 2.30(Spring), 2.32(Fall). All odd numbers are development releases.


On another spiffy Note. I was dabbling again with XFCE. This is a very very nice and extremely fast DE. I feel I am almost at a toss up between XFCE 4.6 and KDE 4.3.2.

I have been a Gnome (through Ubuntu) user for quite some time. A few months ago I tried Xubuntu 9.04 which comes with Xfce 4.6. It is really nice and I'd say that Xfce is much closer in 'feel' and features to Gnome than KDE is.

The only 'negative' experience w/ Xfce is that they changed the way to implement the main menu (no xml file), so it is very hard to manually edit the menu entries. It's a well-known situation and future releases will hopefully take care of that. Other than that, and coupled w/ Gnome-do, it is awesome!

[Roasted]

heh, yeah a case could have been made fairly comfortably that Gnome 2 looks better than KDE 3 :) I don't think it applies to every element of the desktop by any stretch (for example, I think that Kwin on 3 looks better than metacity), but overall I see what you mean.

Thanks for not slagging off KDE 3 anymore though lol, I really think that to claim it's poor or it sucked is to fly in the face of SO many people who used to use it before the rather bumpy transition to 4.0. 3.5.10 as the last 3.x release wasn't as nice as 4.3+, but it was a very reasonable and enjoyable to use little desktop that I liked for years and years! :)

It's not that I personally had anything against KDE. It was just a very blunt statement to get my point across. The reality is, Gnome had the reputation of stability where KDE lacked in that department in previous years. It was just obvious years ago, regardless of how good KDE may have been to some people, it just wasn't where it should have been. That's why I dogged it when comparing it to Gnome when the topic came up that KDE had made improvements where Gnome hadn't - when the reality was, where KDE made a lot of their improvements Gnome didn't NEED to.

[hoppipolla]

It's not that I personally had anything against KDE. It was just a very blunt statement to get my point across. The reality is, Gnome had the reputation of stability where KDE lacked in that department in previous years. It was just obvious years ago, regardless of how good KDE may have been to some people, it just wasn't where it should have been. That's why I dogged it when comparing it to Gnome when the topic came up that KDE had made improvements where Gnome hadn't - when the reality was, where KDE made a lot of their improvements Gnome didn't NEED to.

KDE 3 had a lot of advantages over Gnome as well though. Whatever man, I'm very curious now about how Gnome 3 and KDE 4 will compare! :)

[TheLastDodo]

And THAT'S what makes Linux so great. We're not stuck with a start button and a task bar. We have the power to choose.

Well, yes and no. Unless you're a dev with a lot of free time, a group of devs, or a rich person/corporation that can go out there and hire someone to tweak your software and/or UI for you, you're pretty much stuck with what people are putting out there, just as the users of proprietary systems are (for the record, Windows has about 10 or so alternate shells, most quite usable). Now this is fine if your wants and needs are already being catered to by an existing project, but if they're not, or the devs decide to go in a different direction (as with Gnome and KDE lately), you're often out of luck. The 'choice' you mention is certainly there for some, and it's still more of a choice than you'll get using proprietary software, but it's not universal.

[Roasted]

Well, yes and no. Unless you're a dev with a lot of free time, a group of devs, or a rich person/corporation that can go out there and hire someone to tweak your software and/or UI for you, you're pretty much stuck with what people are putting out there, just as the users of proprietary systems are (for the record, Windows has about 10 or so alternate shells, most quite usable). Now this is fine if your wants and needs are already being catered to by an existing project, but if they're not, or the devs decide to go in a different direction (as with Gnome and KDE lately), you're often out of luck. The 'choice' you mention is certainly there for some, and it's still more of a choice than you'll get using proprietary software, but it's not universal.

So in reality my point still remains... with Windows you can do X and Y, while Linux you can typically do ABCDE X and Y. There's an obvious difference there that remains regardless of what unsupported window managers you use with Windows, which is interesting to me being a long time Windows user who has yet to see a different window manager besides the regular start button/task bar/blah theme every XP box has that I've ever laid eyes on.

But even still, the expandability of open source software in itself is limitless. Whether you are a developer or not, changes are still made much more promptly and efficiently than closed source counterparts. That's why there's such a strong community behind a ton of open source projects.

[MrDictionary]

You combine them together, and you get, what I like to call...XFCE! ;)

I don't like the look of GNOME Shell one bit, I don't think it's necessary. Furthermore, I don't like Gnome 3's goals. To facetiously paraphrase, now that they're getting somewhere in making a familiar and predictable interface for the modern Linux desktop, they're going to use that momentum to make it completely unfamiliar.

Gnome! It's not broke! Don't fix it! Fix something else! There's plenty of other things to fix!

You should not judge concepts, you may start judging at Beta.There's nothing wrong with judging concepts. If you're able to justify a critique of a concept, then the argument that folks should perhaps alter or completely abandon the concept gains credence.

Consider this exaggerated scenario: In 2011, the entire distribution of Ubuntu as we know it is replaced with 'Smellbuntu', with its own completely olfactory interface Smell Environment (Smell-E). Updates for Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu and the supporting specialisation packages are closed. But that's okay, because Smellbuntu is still actively maintained.

Smell-E presents a novel user interface: You smell your way around the 'sockdrawer', instead of the desktop. Every application has its own smell. The keyboard and mouse are deprecated.

That's clearly idiotic. Don't even try to develop that, you can't 'fix' that. It's not broken, it's wrong.

That doesn't make for a complete argument though, so you might want to use assertions like: 'Most systems don't have smell accelerator cards.' 'Time cost to learn the new system is prohibitive.' 'Compatibility with existing applications is diminished.' 'Common tasks take considerably longer in the new system.' 'Common tasks are prone to error in the new system.' (Do a GOMS analysis of Smell-E, if you want.).

Take the Gnome analogues of these, and you can very much judge a concept. Some of them require some kind of deeper modelling than simply 'thinking about it', but that's fine: if you can't talk your way through your concept with conviction and consistency, you don't have a 'concept'. You've barely got an 'idea'.

Folks are understandably a little concerned because, in my experience, apps under Linux tend to not be a simple install and forget. Of course, they're not entitled to these, but folks have come to expect some measure of updates over time, so anyone hoping that Gnome 2.x++ will have features X and Y will be upset that Gnome 3 will have X and Y but you have to turn your head inside-out to get to it.

As long as there's options to switch it all back to a sane interface, I'll be pleased.

OPTIONS, I say.

Yeah, that goes against both the GNOME and Ubuntu goals. Perhaps "it's not for me" (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/24/)? (I didn't mean that seriously, but I believe its useful to consider the opinions of those that you're not aiming at. They might not use it directly, but they might be helping the people who help the people who do. Or buying it. Or maintaining it.)

[pookiebear]

I want faster and smaller.

[EnGorDiaz]

Through nearly a year there has been no real introduction or expansion of features regarding GNOME 3. The most they've seemed to do is make it black and glossy. It still is a 1-button wonder GUI that puts a featureless bar on the top of the screen and exists for the sole novelty of being able to fit X00 different desktops into the screen-eating fullscreen dropdown menu that is its only feature.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_FJH0hYZmVtc/SrakNKCaw0I/AAAAAAAADHs/j3DvZopu2hw/s1600/screenshot_024%5B1%5D.png

You don't need anything as long as you have a fullscreen dropdown that shows your 8,000 desktops, amirite? It's not like we're in a period where screen real estate is a vital thing and where netbooks with 7-11 inch screens are in the mainstream. You can devote your entire screen to an arbitrary feature while sacrificing things like Compiz and the time it takes for the pretty interface to swoop down, right?

ewwwwww windows like start bar

[EnGorDiaz]

I want faster and smaller.

faster and smaller isnt something you can ask for anymore

as technology is advancing with cpus such as i5 and usb3.0 coming out(which will leave firewire800 in dust) we will see more stupid eye candy and useless development on glossy effects instead of the simplicity of what gnome was before this is why i use fluxbox

not only is it fast (too fast for my system as im getting a i5 processor and 6 gig of ram) its simple and i like things simple even though its "hard" to configure i still have a vice to say that i like the simplicity the right click menu gives you

[fela]

Can someone really say they don't like how something runs when it is still being developed?

Was that a joke?

[XubuRoxMySox]

I want faster and smaller.

Not long ago I would have recommended LXDE for very small size and quick speed. But after months of trying to iron out a series of annoying, persistent bugs, I just can't recommend it on Ubuntu or any Ubuntu variant.

I can tell you that Xubuntu Karmic - though not as lightweight as it originally was aiming for - runs very fast on my 5-year-old celeron/512-RAM Dell. I think the developers have done something very effective in answer to complaints about bloat in previous versions of Xubuntu. It's definitely worth giving a shot. The Karmic version is gorgeous as well as fast.

-Robin

[zagz]

I want faster and smaller.


That's what my partner keeps telling me!

[hoppipolla]

faster and smaller isnt something you can ask for anymore

as technology is advancing with cpus such as i5 and usb3.0 coming out(which will leave firewire800 in dust) we will see more stupid eye candy and useless development on glossy effects instead of the simplicity of what gnome was before this is why i use fluxbox

not only is it fast (too fast for my system as im getting a i5 processor and 6 gig of ram) its simple and i like things simple even though its "hard" to configure i still have a vice to say that i like the simplicity the right click menu gives you

it's each to their own man. I mean I love KDE but I'm also aware that's probably the largest open source desktop out there. But I love that stuff - I love the aesthetics and having tons of features, a user-friendly but powerful interface, plasmoids and all that stuff... sure it's tougher on my machine but it's a trade-off isn't it that's down to personal preference :)

There are more than enough DEs on Linux to suit every person's tastes! :)

[Exodist]

I been looking hard at XFCE 4.6, It is IMHO a great Gnome 2x replacement. I am going to switch to XFCE after the release of Debian Squeeze.

[JBAlaska]

Who woke up this darn thread? well ok then.
GNOME 3 aka Gnome shell is a hideous bloated abomination

+1