Ubuntu Gnome edition

[markbl]

I installed Ubuntu Gnome from the 7/1 daily build, and it worked perfectly from the get-go. Installing regular Ubuntu and then adding GS from the repos certainly works, but then you have all sorts of Unity cruft hanging around. I only want simple Gnome Shell, not Unity, Compiz, what have you.

All you save is a bit of disk space. In this era of humongous disk sizes, who cares about that? Adding gnome 3/shell via a simple "apt-get install gnome-shell" to a regular ubuntu install gives you the option of selecting either Ubuntu (Unity) or GNOME (GNOME Shell) at the login screen. NOTE: if you log in using GNOME then you do not start any Unity or Compiz software at all, and vice-versa logging in with Unity. People seem confused about this. I personally have never seen the point of the Ubuntu GNOME ISO as all it gives you is NO option to log in and use Unity. I prefer GNOME Shell, but like trying Unity occasionally. My terabyte disk can afford the extra few megabytes to hold the Unity/Compiz files!

[Chanath]

I installed Ubuntu Gnome from the 7/1 daily build, and it worked perfectly from the get-go. Installing regular Ubuntu and then adding GS from the repos certainly works, but then you have all sorts of Unity cruft hanging around. I only want simple Gnome Shell, not Unity, Compiz, what have you.

The whole idea of Ubuntu is to have Unity, so it is better to have the GS experience additionally together with Unity. The Gnome classic session works better in Ubuntu, rather than in the Ubuntu Gnome edition. You can see what I get in the Gnome-Edition in the screenshot. We have the same repos for all Ubuntu derivatives, but the stock Ubuntu with other sessions installed works much better and give us more choice. In the Unity DE, all I want is an ability to autohide the top panel. As it cannot be hidden and I need the extra space, I move to GS or Gnome classic mode for the given application. In full screen applications, Unity is no bother.

I have installed Unity Next--I can only check it out--and awaiting its launch, then the fascination with GS would drop.

[Harry33]

The whole idea of Ubuntu is to have Unity, so it is better to have the GS experience additionally together with Unity. ...

This is surely a matter of an opinion, not a general truth, not at all.
I see the idea of Ubuntu to be much else.
We have had Ubuntu distro a long time before anyone had ever heard about Unity DE.
Unity is simply put only a modified Gnome DE, nothing else.

Installing Unity packages does not make Gnome-Shell work any better nor the Flashback either.
If the Flashback does not work well on some setups, something else is wrong.

[Chanath]

This is surely a matter of an opinion, not a general truth, not at all.
I see the idea of Ubuntu to be much else.
We have had Ubuntu distro a long time before anyone had ever heard about Unity DE.
Unity is simply put only a modified Gnome DE, nothing else.

Installing Unity packages does not make Gnome-Shell work any better nor the Flashback either.
If the Flashback does not work well on some setups, something else is wrong.

Ubuntu was there with all the DEs, and one day Ubuntu introduced Unity, and it had come to stay with Ubuntu, the default distro of Ubuntu. All others are derivatives. The next Unity probably would be Unity Next. The idea of Ubuntu is to give a distro to millions, and they had succeeded in introducing the Unity DE. The people, who actually use Unity don't even complain. Anyway, I was better off in installing Gnome shell and Gnome panel from the repos in Ubuntu, than having an installed version of Ubuntu Gnome edition. Gnome 3 and Compiz is under Ubuntu, and the DE is Unity. When you apt-get install gnome-shell, you get a dual distro. When you apt-get install gnome-panel, you get a triple distro. And, no hitches at all.

[Stinger]

The Ubuntu brainwash campaign seems to work. the more times You keep repeating terms like Unity, the more people think that's the universal truth and what Ubuntu is all about.
Ps.
I don't know what Unity exactly is but I know for sure it's not a DE, Unity is just another shell on top of the GNOME app's, like Gnome-shell and Cinnamon, .
Just try to remove all the GNOME applications and see what's left. Just another empty shell ( maybe that's exactly what Unity is ).

[sgage]

Ubuntu was there with all the DEs, and one day Ubuntu introduced Unity, and it had come to stay with Ubuntu, the default distro of Ubuntu. All others are derivatives. The next Unity probably would be Unity Next. The idea of Ubuntu is to give a distro to millions, and they had succeeded in introducing the Unity DE. The people, who actually use Unity don't even complain. Anyway, I was better off in installing Gnome shell and Gnome panel from the repos in Ubuntu, than having an installed version of Ubuntu Gnome edition. Gnome 3 and Compiz is under Ubuntu, and the DE is Unity. When you apt-get install gnome-shell, you get a dual distro. When you apt-get install gnome-panel, you get a triple distro. And, no hitches at all.

I simply do not like Unity, Compiz, the whole paradigm of Unity. I like Gnome Shell. I use Ubuntu because of the ease of installation and the up-to-date and comprehensive repos. Ubuntu Gnome is the perfect solution for creating the system that I want.

As far as adding GS to stock Ubuntu and having it run better than GS in Ubuntu Gnome, I simply don't buy it. Something else was going on there...

[pulpo69]

i like the gnome-shell. it's fullfilling all my needs on the desktop and gives me a good workflow. i tried unity, but i didn't like it. maybe unity is fine on a tablet, but on a "traditional" pc gs is perfect for me.

[xeizo]

I simply do not like Unity, Compiz, the whole paradigm of Unity. I like Gnome Shell. I use Ubuntu because of the ease of installation and the up-to-date and comprehensive repos. Ubuntu Gnome is the perfect solution for creating the system that I want.

As far as adding GS to stock Ubuntu and having it run better than GS in Ubuntu Gnome, I simply don't buy it. Something else was going on there...

Well, vanilla Ubuntu probably has much more QA than Ubuntu Gnome which may explain why it is a more stable base even for installing gnome-shell on it. That is as of now, the quality of Ubuntu Gnome will much likely improve upon time .... I've tried gnome-shell in current Debian, it was very buggy I think Saucy + gnome-shell is much more polished even if it is alpha-software

[sgage]

Well, vanilla Ubuntu probably has much more QA than Ubuntu Gnome which may explain why it is a more stable base even for installing gnome-shell on it. That is as of now, the quality of Ubuntu Gnome will much likely improve upon time .... I've tried gnome-shell in current Debian, it was very buggy I think Saucy + gnome-shell is much more polished even if it is alpha-software

Not sure how QA has anything to do with it, since Ubuntu Gnome is basically a metapackage using nothing but the same exact packages as Ubuntu uses.

As far as current Debian, I am running GS in it right now, and it works beautifully. Debian stable is like that. No surprises, no bugs, no conflicts, no problems. Just slightly older software if that sort of thing is critical to you.

To say that Saucy+GS is much more polished strikes me as absurd.

[Cavsfan]

For the half day I had that Gnome edition installed. I noticed it was like no Ubuntu I have ever seen before. Everything about it was different.

I tried to customize the grub menu and lost grub altogether. It booted straight into WIndows 7. Had to mount a live cd and recovery that way.