PDA

View Full Version : Who is using Gnome-Shell now?



samjh
October 17th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Just out of curiosity, who is currently running Gnome-Shell (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell)? If you are running it, do you find it reasonably reliable (ie. no need for hard-reset if it crashes, and it doesn't crash more than once a week)? And if you aren't running it, will you run it prior to Gnome 3 production release?

Eisenwinter
October 17th, 2009, 03:46 PM
Poll lacks options, such as "I don't use GNOME, and have no plans to use GNOME".

dragos240
October 17th, 2009, 03:47 PM
Or options such as. No gnome-shell for me!

samjh
October 17th, 2009, 03:48 PM
The poll is only intended for those who have an interest in the topic. If you aren't interested in Gnome-shell with the view to using it, any vote you cast is irrelevant to the discussion anyway. ;)

Also to add: most users will have to use Gnome-shell for at least a moment when Gnome 3 comes out, even if to just remove it and replace it with Gnome-panel and Metacity. (Exceptions apply for some build-it-from-the-ground-up distributions, like Arch and Gentoo, and Ubuntu users who use the Alternate installation CD.)

23meg
October 17th, 2009, 03:50 PM
I've been running only GNOME Shell on one machine for a few months with rare hiccups. Performance leaves something to be desired, but as the 2.28 release notes say, and I feel a need to paste 20 times to every thread regarding GNOME Shell:


This is still a VERY EARLY version of GNOME Shell and should not be
taken of indicative of the final user interface or performance.



Poll lacks options, such as "I don't use GNOME, and have no plans to use GNOME".

It also lacks "I don't use Ubuntu, I use Arch".

NoaHall
October 17th, 2009, 03:51 PM
Ehm, so us, the loyal gnome-userbase which are forsaken don't count? Yep, sums up what the gnome devs thinks of us.

Eisenwinter
October 17th, 2009, 03:52 PM
It also lacks "I don't use Ubuntu, I use Arch".
Yeah, that too.

samjh
October 17th, 2009, 03:54 PM
It also lacks "I don't use Ubuntu, I use Arch".


Yeah, that too.

Had to LOL at that, since I am an Arch user (see sig).

samjh
October 17th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Ehm, so us, the loyal gnome-userbase which are forsaken don't count? Yep, sums up what the gnome devs thinks of us.

If you're part of "the loyal gnome-userbase", you'd continue to use Gnome, or your loyalty isn't really loyalty. ;)

As for me, I prefer KDE, but am approaching Gnome 3 with an open mind. Gnome-shell doesn't seem too bad for me, personally. Gnome-panel and Metacity will still be available anyway, and software rendering will be available to those who do not have hardware 3D acceleration for Gnome-shell's composition features.

NoaHall
October 17th, 2009, 03:59 PM
I am part of the PAST and PRESENT loyal gnome-userbase, but if they chose to switch what they are fighting for, then I will change my loyalty.

And exactly, you're a KDE user. To me, it seems mostly KDE users who like gnome-shell. Not the gnome user-base. They are changing their target market, and therefore losing their current market.

dragos240
October 17th, 2009, 04:03 PM
I've been running only GNOME Shell on one machine for a few months with rare hiccups. Performance leaves something to be desired, but as the 2.28 release notes say, and I feel a need to paste 20 times to every thread regarding GNOME Shell:





It also lacks "I don't use Ubuntu, I use Arch".

You can get gnome-shell on arch.

samjh
October 18th, 2009, 01:35 AM
And exactly, you're a KDE user. To me, it seems mostly KDE users who like gnome-shell. Not the gnome user-base. They are changing their target market, and therefore losing their current market.

I'm only a KDE user because of Gnome 3. I previously used Gnome, then became discouraged when I saw plans for Gnome-shell.

Right now, I'm trying Gnome with Gnome-shell just so I'm not making an uninformed choice. If it's good for me, I'll switch back to Gnome, but if not, then I'll be using KDE (which I've come to like a lot). So far, Gnome-shell doesn't seem too bad, although some things really annoy me (like having to rely on alt-tab to switch between windows).

NoaHall
October 18th, 2009, 01:42 AM
Oh. I see.

djm227
October 18th, 2009, 03:01 AM
so wait....if you can't use compiz with gnome-shell....are the same kind of features included? Such as cube desktop, 3d windows, window animations, etc?

gashcr
October 27th, 2009, 09:50 PM
Well, I've been testing it for a while ( since the beta of karmic ) at it looks very promising to me. Sure, it lacks a lot of customization as it is right now, and yeah, is kind of annoying that dependance to alt-tab... but well, there's SUPER also, which happens to work pretty well for window picking, or the hot upper-left corner - expose like. I like the alt-tab implementation though, which groups the windows "a la W7 superbar". It's been very stable so far for me, just some little glitches here and there, but nothing to worry about.

One thing they absolutely need to fix is some awful flickering while working with some apps ( It happened to me while running World of Goo fullscreen ). I don't know who's fault is, but both metacity and compiz managed it well. Even though, It's easy to understand as this is no final release by far.

On the whole, I think there's nothing to worry, it's working fine for me, It has some nice eye candy and the desktop behavior, once used to it, seems to work pretty nice. Just waiting for zeitgeist to be implemented and it will definitively rock! :D

gashcr
October 27th, 2009, 09:56 PM
so wait....if you can't use compiz with gnome-shell....are the same kind of features included? Such as cube desktop, 3d windows, window animations, etc?

well... short answer: no. And I don't see cubes in the future, as it works in a very diferent way. Virtual spaces are created and deleted on demand ( Similar way as moblin ) Window animations are there, and are pretty smooth, but at the moment it is not customizable.

What I like the most about it is that it feels more thighly integrated, not a bunch of pieces working together with more or less success in comunicating as gnome is now... but a strong single interface.

It's been pretty good so far for me :)

gregh
October 28th, 2009, 03:00 AM
This is my opinion only, if you disagree, fine, but does not make your opinion any more correct.

I started using gnome-shell about 2 days ago (with an open mind - something that some folk here seem to be lacking) and I like it.

I understand it may not be for everyone, heck just do a metacity --replace if you don't like it.

I was a bit confused/overwhelmed at first, the whole concept is so different, but after sticking with it for a few hours the obvious advantages (for me) started to become apparent.

Sure it's missing features and does things a little differently but as long as you remember it is a beta and *not* feature complete it is ok in its present form.

I work with many hats on, software development, document writing, some RDP sessions for remote windows boxes, sysadmin etc and the way the different desktop works in gnome-shell are an absolute boon to me, I am more productive for sure.
I am more comfortable using these virtual desktops that the other old fashioned "alt arrow right" versions.

I am also glad to see some attempts to move away from the old fashioned 80's style cluttered menu/desktop ala MS or other window managers.
Time to move into the new age and that does not just mean putting shiny icons into the same old tired layouts.

Remember, this is FOSS, there will always be the old options for people who cannot embrace change or new ideas.


Congrats to the devs working on this project.

-G

Mateo
October 28th, 2009, 03:09 AM
I think it is aesthetically hideous.

the fix it man
October 28th, 2009, 03:33 AM
I tried it and see a big gap in difference that will have to be made over to Gnome 3 form a stable Gnome 2.

One thing that does strike me about Gnome3 is the question that it may of been visioned with touch screen in mind, as the shell seems to be perfectly laid out for the interactivity of ts.

gashcr
October 28th, 2009, 04:49 AM
I have the same feeling, touchscreens or netbooks could be a good target for this concept.

Hoping to see a lot of improvements in the coming months :D

TheLastDodo
October 28th, 2009, 05:04 AM
I've tried it and can't stand it... apparently, 20+ years of useful UI ideas ought to be chucked out the window in favor of a cross between Gnome-Do, the Windows Vista start menu, and a virtual desktop manager. This paradigm represents pretty much the opposite of good interface design, in my opinion. Here's hoping Ubuntu ditches Gnome for XFCE or another suitable replacement.

XDevHald
October 28th, 2009, 05:06 AM
It's very rugged in GUI use and management for loading. Seems to hog a huge load of memory and freezes VERY badly.I really hope they fix this by Gnome 3.

murderslastcrow
October 28th, 2009, 07:28 AM
Maybe they could do something like Kwin and just make a faster alternative to compiz?

Still, although it looks nice, it's sure to turn off users coming from different OS camps. And I wouldn't use it, for one simple reason- it's putting more steps between me and getting things done. Compiz is very fast and efficient already, and most people get it working at one time or another. I think Gnome-Shell should be a non-compositing alternative in case they can't run a composited environment. Otherwise, it seems to be simplifying something that was simple in the first place, thus making it remarkably more complicated than it should be. Why click on a menu to get to favorite programs when they can be on the task bar?

I know they're trying to innovate, and change is good, but not all the time. I'm glad it's not the final version, and I expect to see major improvements in the months ahead.

the fix it man
October 29th, 2009, 05:45 PM
Maybe they could do something like Kwin and just make a faster alternative to compiz?

Still, although it looks nice, it's sure to turn off users coming from different OS camps. And I wouldn't use it, for one simple reason- it's putting more steps between me and getting things done. Compiz is very fast and efficient already, and most people get it working at one time or another. I think Gnome-Shell should be a non-compositing alternative in case they can't run a composited environment. Otherwise, it seems to be simplifying something that was simple in the first place, thus making it remarkably more complicated than it should be. Why click on a menu to get to favorite programs when they can be on the task bar?

I know they're trying to innovate, and change is good, but not all the time. I'm glad it's not the final version, and I expect to see major improvements in the months ahead.


A WM that is genuinely integrated that came with only a drop

shadow as default.

gnomeuser
October 29th, 2009, 07:46 PM
The poll lacks the "Over my cold dead body" option.

mahdif62
November 1st, 2009, 05:02 PM
This is the bad thing about linux. Whenever we reach stability,we begin breaking it by radical changes.Gnome 2.28 is just mature, stable and fast.

[h2o]
November 2nd, 2009, 09:04 AM
I'm a bit surprised over the amount of "freezes badly" reports. I have tried the development builds on and off for a few months and I have never had such problems.

As for usability I think it is on par with current Gnome 2. Sure, it is different and sometimes I get confused for a few seconds because things are not behaving as I am used to. But hey, that was the whole point wasn't it? And I have noticed that this becomes less and less of a problem the more I use it.
The new ALT-TAB that groups application windows is pure genious and I think it might actually be quicker to choose a window that way than using the bottom panel.
Overlay still needs a bit of work though.

Keyper7
November 2nd, 2009, 01:32 PM
Gnome-Shell is very, very close to how I use my computer now (Compiz's scale and expo plugins + hot corners + Gnome-Do + minimal panel), so I like the overall concept. I am worried about some things, though:

1) Compositing required, without even a fallback mode.

I hope I am wrong on this, but from what I could see from mailing lists, this has already been decided. Of course the hardware requirements wouldn't be as high as Vista's, but even Vista had a non-compositing fallback mode. KWin has one as well (and one that even allows software compositing).

2) Regressions in accessibility.

Most, if not all, innovations in Gnome-Shell do not look like they have a graceful transition for the usage by disabled people. Gnome has always prided itself in having a good and complete accessibility suite, so I'm worried.

3) Lack of panel applets.

This has not been decided yet, but devs are thinking in abolishing panel applets altogether. Doing this AND trying to reduce the clutter in the notification area sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

That said, I do look forward to the cleaner and shinier GTK3.

TomtheWombat
November 8th, 2009, 02:58 PM
I am using gnome-shell occasionally. It is stable, but sometimes non-gnome windows get 'lost' (Matlab.) I need to keep AWN running on the bottom.

Whoever decided that gnome-shell should include its own panel is an absolute idiot. Gnome-shell should replace functionality of the panel applets, but not the panel itself! Just add an activities button to the panel and call it gnome-activities-manager. If I knew anything about Gnome/GUI programming, then I would start my own fork. Let us keep our panel and configure it the way that we like!

These guys are ******* their time away coding a new panel that is worse than the old one. They should be concentrating on user interface and core functionality. Windows should zoom in when you mouseover their icons, clicking the username in the upper right should bring up a widget desktop with shutdown options, etc....