Opinions on Gnome 3??????

[wazupwiop]

I have been researching different desktop interfaces for ubuntu, and I really like the look of Gnome 3. I thought I would ask for a few thoughts on Gnome 3 as far as performance goes.

Does Gnome 3 perform as well as Gnome 2?

What do you like about Gnome 3 in comparison to 2?

What do you not like about Gnome 3?

Give me some opinions. I am considering switching to Gnome 3 because it looks better than Gnome 2, and I haven't been impressed with unity.

[drawkcab]

I'd actually be interested in hearing whether gnome 3 is slower and heavier than say gnome 2 or unity. I have a bunch of equipment that is already laboring under gnome 2 so I suspect I will have to get in cozy with xfce, lxde and openbox in the near future.

[omelette]

To me Gnome3 seems like an effort to dumb-down computing to the next level - for the slow of mind. I was stunned to find how little configuration can actually be done from the desktop. For instance, you have to resort to the terminal to access the Network Manager dialog you normally see when you select 'Edit...' on NM. Another bizarre thing is that you can no longer Drag & Drop files to the desktop from a window. And if you copy them manually there, they are no longer visible! And lots of stuff seems busted - Bluetooth for instance can't be configured...

There seems to be as much energy being expended collectively in trying to undo these 'advances' in the form of 'Tweaks' as was put into the Desktop itself. From what I've read, a lot can be 'undone' to an extent, but there's a speed penalty. One guy went back to vanilla-Gnome3 'cos the slowdown was too severe after all the tweaks were applied...

[drawkcab]

To me Gnome3 seems like an effort to dumb-down computing to the next level - for the slow of mind. I was stunned to find how little configuration can actually be done from the desktop. For instance, you have to resort to the terminal to access the Network Manager dialog you normally see when you select 'Edit...' on NM. Another bizarre thing is that you can no longer Drag & Drop files to the desktop from a window.

Sounds like a horror show.

[cbowman57]

All I can say is that Gnome 3 shell is the DE I've waited 27 years for. I feel like a fish out of water when I go into anything else.

When I want to change my network setting I r-click the icon and click on settings.
When I want items displayed on my desktop I open Gnome tweak tools and toggle on "Let file manager handle desktop"

Gnome shell is much better than anything else out there.

[gradinaruvasile]

On topic: I personally hate gnome 3 (the shell). Reasons below.
Gnome 3 has higher requirements than 2 - it has compositing enabled by default.

The issue here that most people have to use tweaks and whatnot to make trivial stuff to work (in a way they are used to). You have to install gnome tweak and whatnot to make basic changes in order to make it WORK AS IT WAS BEFORE.

I dont know what they were thinking (the gnome devs). This is an incomplete, buggy mess (unholy according to Linus Torvalds). It changed a well working workflow to a new one that isnt bringing any real life benefits (speed or less resource usage).
It even introduced compositing by default - what the hell, gnome was good because it had worked with any video cards and had many out of the box features + it worked according to a decades old method that was polished and was working really well.
Instead of focusing on improving that (gnome had many bugs) they spent all this energy on creating something new that wasnt required by anyone.

Gnome is not Windows 7 - Microsoft HAD to come up with something new to convince people to buy it. They needed to differentiate it from Vista so they modified the taskbar and such. But they had a goal with this and they kept the core basics the same.
Gnome is not KDE - KDE is known for its visual flashyness - who wants that, just use KDE.
Gnome was good because it had a simple and well understood interface and provided tons of features. I personally see absolutely no reason for this kind of change they did in gnome 3 (shell). They should have first cleaned up+debugged gnome 2 then adding/modifying usability features step by step.
Maybe the devs had the urge to change something because Windows (with 7) and KDE (with 4) did, but this is a step back in my opinion and it is done just "because we can". And also they just abandoned gnome 2. Nice. That will help the adoption of Linux in enterprise.

I abandoned Gnome and now use Xfce (that is incomplete compared to Gnome 2 but with a few tweaks i got everything i need working with noticeable speed and resource usage improvements).

[Grenage]

I have been researching different desktop interfaces for ubuntu, and I really like the look of Gnome 3. I thought I would ask for a few thoughts on Gnome 3 as far as performance goes.

Does Gnome 3 perform as well as Gnome 2?

What do you like about Gnome 3 in comparison to 2?

What do you not like about Gnome 3?

Give me some opinions. I am considering switching to Gnome 3 because it looks better than Gnome 2, and I haven't been impressed with unity.

It's more resource-hungry; that much is a given. As for whether it's better, you'll need to try it for yourself.

[wazupwiop]

I think I will wait a while for the few bugs to get sorted out. I don't have a need to upgrade, I like Gnome 2. I will wait at least to 11.10 to upgrade to G3.

[nomko]

You want my opinion? To me, Gnome3 goes down the same ridiculous lane as Unity. With Unity, a desktop really looks like some cheap, overvalued netbook and looking at the latest screenshots of Gnome3 it looks like that Gnome3 is a very poor copy of Unity. I really dislike those childish, sesametreet desktops. It has to improve the user-friendliness of the desktop but to me it looks like that those developers were thinking that we are a bunch of computer morons knowing nothing! I don't want my desktop to be looking like some cheep netbook with some ridiculous, childish buttons to activate some programs. What's wrong with clicking on Applications, go to Internet and then select FF (as example). No.... we're all morons! There's your big ugly button on your desktop to start FF..... well, is that convenient or not? NO, it is not! It makes me feel like some idiot who can't handle my own computer! I'll stick to 10.04 and when the support for 10.04 is ended and Ubuntu is still using that kindergarten button menu, i switch to Debian completly as long as they don't implement "i-am-stupid" desktop.

[kokoshmusun]

I've tried Gnome3 with Fedora 15 just a bit, they say that's its best implementation. I liked it better than Unity, it feels more coherent and consistent as a whole (Unity to me feels more patched up). On the whole, Unity and Gnome3 are very similar. Even though I like Gnome3 and think it looks pretty, I agree with some of the comments above that this "i-am-stupid" DE movement is really a bad move. I prefer Gnome2, but I understand it won't be supported anymore, what a shame. I will have to either take the insult and adopt Gnome3 or Unity, or find another DE, probably XFCE or KDE which are still proper DEs (but I really haven't warmed up to anything other than Gnome2 in my 2 years of linux).

[qamelian]

It's more resource-hungry; that much is a given. As for whether it's better, you'll need to try it for yourself.
Not necessarily a given, at all. Gnome 3 runs measurably lighter on both my netbook and my desktop. On both machines, G2 uses 5-15% more RAM and CPU. On my 6 year old Compaq laptop, the difference is less noticable.

[wazupwiop]

I think I will wait for 11.10 before I upgrade. My reasoning is that ubuntu isn't always predictable when I upgrade stuff. I don't want to upgrade to it and then decide that I don't like it. I'd much rather wait for some of the kinks to be worked out of the system and then upgrade to it in the next release of ubuntu when Gnome 2 won't be supported.

[Grenage]

Not necessarily a given, at all. Gnome 3 runs measurably lighter on both my netbook and my desktop. On both machines, G2 uses 5-15% more RAM and CPU. On my 6 year old Compaq laptop, the difference is less noticable.

Is the G2 install older, per chance? I've not seen a G3 install (it's not like I've seen that many) that was lighter than a G2 install.

[BigSilly]

All I can say is that Gnome 3 shell is the DE I've waited 27 years for. I feel like a fish out of water when I go into anything else...

Gnome shell is much better than anything else out there.

Yep, my feelings too. I run both Windows 7 and PCLinuxOS 2011 with KDE4 on the same PC with openSUSE 11.4 and Gnome 3, and without a shadow of a doubt the Gnome 3 install is by far my favourite and the one I use the most. It's just easy to use, attractive (Gnome attractive??!!), and makes sense to me. I've been running it for about three months+ now, and I would not want to move to anything else. I like Unity, a lot, but it's just not as nice as Gnome 3.

I hear a lot of ranting on the net, but I'm sure that'll die down once more distros incorporate it by default and the extensions become more widely available. As for resource usage, well it uses much less than Gnome 2 with Compiz ever needed. Not had any problems on that score at all.

[sanderd17]

G3 uses compositing, so if your graphical card isn't supported, than G3 is nothing for you. But if you have a well-supported graphical card, than G3 uses less RAM, less CPU and feels a lot lighter (compared to G2 with Compiz).

The main difference between GS and Unity is that GS is made to be extended while Unity is made to be used the way the developers created it.

In GS you have extensions for everything. You can install docks, alternative menus, other applets ... The Shell is written in a combination of JavaScript and CSS (weird enough, it's still fast), so little adaptations (like changing the color of some text or background) are easy to make and this method attracts the huge amount of web developers (who have a good eye for beautiful themes).

So GS is not dumbed down because the developers think the users want this. It is very minimal because now other people can build upon it easily.

Note that the Gnome team isn't an OS maker. But OS makers can make a fantastic GS environment for very little work. And if users want to configure it themselves (like in do-it-your-self distros as Arch), they can do it too.

Waiting for Oneiric can be advised though, because it takes time to write good extensions, and the longer you wait, the better the extensions will get.

I'm hoping that gNatty get's followed by Gubuntu 11.10 :D

[omelette]

Another oddity I noticed today when trying to configure an NFS share. Open the NFS Configuration dialog and hit 'Add', now try and move the child-dialog box that pops-up - not only is it 'modal' and sits slap-dab in the middle of the parent, obscuring everything under it, attempting to drag it out of the way results in both dialogs moving in tandem!

This type of thing I thought ended with Windows 3.1...

[nomko]

This type of thing I thought ended with Windows 3.1...

Don't tell me that Gnome is based on that old-skool style desktop of Windows 3.1.... :popcorn:

[wazupwiop]

I may end up trying it just to see how it interacts with my system. I have had no issues with Ubuntu not getting along with my graphics card, so I should be okay. I will install Gnome 3 when I get some time to test it for a few hours.

[cbowman57]

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=199432&d=1312712292

[wazupwiop]

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=199432&d=1312712292
That is pretty amazing. What system are you running ubuntu on???

[cbowman57]

Just an MSI motherboard with a dual core Intel E6500 & a rather basic Nvidia GT9500 video card.

[fqowehf]

Dont try GNOME 3 until 11.10 (since it will have unity on top of GNOME 3), since GNOME 3 is very unstable in Ubuntu.

[wazupwiop]

I just attempted to upgrade to gnome 3..... I don't think it worked. Gnome Shell doesn't appear in the desktop options after I select my username, and the minimize, maximize, close buttons have dissappeared from all my windows........

This is seriously messed up.

[wazupwiop]

reverting back to gnome 2 now.........

[wpurcell]

So, how would one revert back to Gnome 2? I'm having issues with gnome-panel eating upwards of 100% of my cpu.

[N1GHTS]

Ubuntu demonstrates the inherent flaw in democracy: The more people in the voting audience, the higher the chance that popular opinion gets closer to 50% on every possible subject.

Unity is great for people who care more about the programs than system administration. Its purely a machine to simplify application immersion.

Gnome 3 is great for that same kind of Unity audience, but with a little more emphasis for design and administration. Its not considered "limited" to those types of people, its "cozy".

Gnome 2.x and pretty much everything else out there is all about administration, and caters to users who like to monitor and adjust the gears of the system with relative ease. I happen to be in this category.

I personally find Unity and Gnome 3 appalling, but I am strangely excited at the thought of introducing it to my Girlfriend who is not as technically inclined: 90% of the time she is on a web browser, 10% of the time checking out her downloads, pictures, and movies. This is the audience Linux desperately needs to finally become mainstream, and its not hard to please this audience as evidenced in Unity and Gnome 3, with an honourable mention to Apple and their philosophy of "simple is better".

By the way, I must give some credit to Microsoft for finding a middle ground in Windows 7. Its not easy to stay the president of the free world: the strategy is to stay as close to 50% as possible.

[Infantaria]

Gnome 3 sucks for "Mouse users".

[makitso]

N1GHTS, really this is the first clear description of the Unity G2/3 differences -- I like it. I also tend to enjoy the power of administering the system via menus CLI, etc. However, my personal 10.04 desktop uses AWN and the App launcher which I am very happy with. Even though I may be a geek, I like a sharp sexy desktop.

With all the FUD over Unity and G3, I went out and tried other options, Mint 11, Xubunty (too primitive for a Gnome user) and Chrome OS (ugh). Actually, Mint 11 was pretty nice. But, I found I could run AWN with Unity shuffled out to the left on my 11.04 laptop. So, unless 11.10 screws things up, I will probably stay with Ubuntu. I say probably since the next LTS release would be 12.04 and one never knows what that will bring.

[mintpenguin20]

I think gnome 3 is not very good , but it could improve and I hope they make a way so you can use the classic layout of gnome if they do that It will be all good by me . I am just not into fancy desktops , they need to quit trying to look like mac and windows , linux is different and thats what I always liked about it .

[mintpenguin20]

Ubuntu demonstrates the inherent flaw in democracy: The more people in the voting audience, the higher the chance that popular opinion gets closer to 50% on every possible subject.

Unity is great for people who care more about the programs than system administration. Its purely a machine to simplify application immersion.

Gnome 3 is great for that same kind of Unity audience, but with a little more emphasis for design and administration. Its not considered "limited" to those types of people, its "cozy".

Gnome 2.x and pretty much everything else out there is all about administration, and caters to users who like to monitor and adjust the gears of the system with relative ease. I happen to be in this category.

I personally find Unity and Gnome 3 appalling, but I am strangely excited at the thought of introducing it to my Girlfriend who is not as technically inclined: 90% of the time she is on a web browser, 10% of the time checking out her downloads, pictures, and movies. This is the audience Linux desperately needs to finally become mainstream, and its not hard to please this audience as evidenced in Unity and Gnome 3, with an honourable mention to Apple and their philosophy of "simple is better".

By the way, I must give some credit to Microsoft for finding a middle ground in Windows 7. Its not easy to stay the president of the free world: the strategy is to stay as close to 50% as possible.

Completely agree with you , what I do not understand is why ubuntu is removing the option to use gnome classic it is really not the right thing to do , I have been using ubuntu since 4.10 on and off but with them removing classic gnome and ditching the people who put ubuntu on the map , Mint is the answer for me at least I am done with ubuntu for the time being unless they really go all out for the people who made ubuntu what it is by including gnome classic as a option , I know you can install what ever environment you want and I understand that but it is still wrong and I dont need to stick with a distro that forgets the people who made it great trying to get more market share by dumbing ubuntu down is not the answer they should give you a option during the install to either use classic gnome or unity HOW EASY is that to DO ? I do not understand the way ubuntu is doing this , MINT is catching up with ubuntus market share and I really think they might just become more popular , MINT could become its own OS and ditch UBUNTU all together if they wanted to they have the skill and effort and listen to there community . That said I still like the Ubuntu community and the people who make it but I really think they need to start listing a little more to the people who put them on the top of the other DISTROS .

This sort of reminds me of what happened to digg.com , they changed the site all up and guess what happend they all left for something else with the more classic look . Ubuntu is really making the wrong moves right now and they will have to get there stuff together if they want to stay on top but I think they are going to loose more users than they gain with Unity .

[KBD47]

I really dislike gnome 3. I'm a fan of Mint, but I think they will be stuck with that awful desktop in the next release or two. That is why I installed Ubuntu on my netbook, I figured I could get used to unity desktop easier than gnome 3.
KBD47

[Enigmapond]

Tried it on a LiveCD and disliked it very much. Can't really tell which I don't like more...Gnome3 or Unity....probably the latter. I will be with Lucid and Gnome2 until I can't any longer...both are part of "The Great Dummy-Down" that's currently in play...for reasons I am not clear of.

[KBD47]

It is sad that we are left to choose which desktop we hate least. I take some comfort in the fact that my old desktop computer has Mepis with kde on it. I think Linus' idea of a fork for gnome 2 was a great idea, but probably only wishful thinking.
KBD47

[mintpenguin20]

Tried it on a LiveCD and disliked it very much. Can't really tell which I don't like more...Gnome3 or Unity....probably the latter. I will be with Lucid and Gnome2 until I can't any longer...both are part of "The Great Dummy-Down" that's currently in play...for reasons I am not clear of.

Mint is the answer for now , unless ubuntu changes there mind , but then again mint is not for everyone it does not really look much like gnome classic , but it sure beats unity and gnome 3 .

[Sleven7]

I've had Gnome3 installed and running on Mint 11 32bit for about 6 weeks now. Over the past weekend I installed Ubuntu 11.04 and the first thing I did was upgrade to G3. By far the best DE I've used so far.

I hated it for a few hours to start with, then warmed to it the more I used it the first day, now can not imagine going back to G2 or any other DE for that matter. It feels, "Zippy" flying between apps.

To start with I didn't like the fact that it wasn't as customizable out of the box, I couldn't easily add panel apps. Then I did a bit of research and found out how to use, extensions. Extensions have the potential to be as versatile if not more so than panel apps in G2. So far I have an extension for weather, and shortcut menu on the panel. I've moved the time to the side, have a permanent, "Power Off" (no having to press Alt to restart). Also have a hot zone in the upper right for switching.

Gnome-tweak-tool will now install extensions, yea!!!

Gsettings is also nice after you understand how to use it.

Overall great DE.

[Atomic-Fanboy]

Gnome 3 is horrible. I use 11.04 and I liked Gnome 2.32.1 a great deal (Not as much as KDE 4.5 though...). I recently tried Gnome 3, expecting it would be similar to Gnome 2.32.1 but improved. Ten minutes later, I removed it - which was an experience in itself.

I actually cannot tell the difference between Gnome 3.0 and Unity.

[sanderd17]

Ten minutes later, I removed it - which was an experience in itself.

In ten minutes, you can't understand the philosophy of G3.

In G3, you start with a very minimal, bare-bones interface, but it is made to be extended. There are already lots of extensions, and the number will only grow.

People are able to mimic the look and feel of G2 completely.

[cbowman57]

@sanderd17, my sentiments exactly. I spent over a month with Unity before deciding it wasn't for me. When I started playing with Gnome shell it was with the attitude "what can it be made to do", fortunately it was about the same time that a few programmers were coming up with a few extensions & themes. I was hooked within a few days, now I won't use anything else. :)