How many people use Ubuntu with Gnome-shell in stead of Unity? [Archive]

Dragonbite

January 13th, 2012, 03:22 PM

I have Ubuntu 11.10 with both Unity and Gnome-shell so I can try them both out and see which one I prefer.

So far I am liking Gnome-shell slightly more than Unity, but not by much.

I like the no-limit on extra desktops instead of the 4-square only approach.
I like how I can see the status of contacts by typing their name in the ... dashboard(?).
I like the information monitor on the bottom of the screen, and the resizing of the icons in the side panel.
I used Gnome-tweak to add a minimize/maximize button on the windows.
I prefer the calendar view when clicking on the panel's clock.

Are you running Gnome-shell instead of Unity on Ubuntu (or other distributions)? What are your thoughts on it, and what are your thoughts on Gnome-shell compared to Unity?

This is not meant to be a Unity bash-fest, I am more interested in comparisons from people that have used one or both and are willing to provide constructive criticism.

I probably have to spend some more time in Unity and get more experienced to give a better reference to compare against but in time.

ratcheer

January 13th, 2012, 03:26 PM

I have switched over to using gnome-shell for the past couple of weeks. I am not a Unity hater, though. I mainly appreciate that gnome-shell is open software, whereas Unity is not. I also like the more wide open feel of the gnome-shell desktop.

Great thread topic!

Tim

ajgreeny

January 13th, 2012, 04:05 PM

saneearth

January 13th, 2012, 04:20 PM

I find Unity works for me. I have had some issues with Gnome Shell, such as "resume" issues that I don't seem to have with Unity. I try Gnome Shell from time to time, but always seem to go back to Unity. I guess I prefer Unity right now, but it is not by a long shot. Somethings just keeps me coming back there. I seem to be able to do the things I typically do quicker and it is more comfortable. Has a nice feel to it. I have to use Windows 7 at work and may have to put the panel on the left side as I keep going there to open things.

nothingspecial

January 13th, 2012, 04:23 PM

I like the no-limit on extra desktops instead of the 4-square only approach.

You can have as many workspaces as you like with unity.

I use both by the way.

mörgæs

January 13th, 2012, 04:23 PM

The poll should have an option for selecting 'I changed to another distro more similar to Gnome 2'.

aromo

January 13th, 2012, 04:30 PM

The poll should have an option for selecting 'I changed to another distro more similar to Gnome 2'.

or something like "I switched to LUBUNTU" ;0)

Copper Bezel

January 13th, 2012, 04:43 PM

I think the poll is meant in reference to just the two. It's not an arbitrary category, since they're both using the Gnome 3 stack. The poll could include an option for "I'm not using Gnome 3," but the OP is interested in the answers within Gnome 3 users about differences between the two interfaces.

It's not a general question about what DE you're using. That discussion is already going on elsewhere - usually a handful of threads at any particular time.

Dragonbite

January 13th, 2012, 04:48 PM

You can have as many workspaces as you like with unity.

I use both by the way.

Do you have any documentation on how to do that? That would be very helpful.

I've been involved in a demonstration of Ubuntu at the local computer club and said there were only 4, so I'd like to correct that.

nothingspecial

January 13th, 2012, 04:53 PM

In compizconfig-settings-manager click the general tab.

Inside that somewhere (you'll have to excuse me, I'm using Lubuntu atm) you can set both the horizontal and vertical desktop size so you can have a grid of workspaces with what ever dimensions you like.

Personally I like 4 across and 2 up/down. :)

Perfect Storm

January 13th, 2012, 05:00 PM

I use both, and like both. One does not rule out the other ;)

(I do also like KDE for that matter, but I haven't it installed atm.).

hg088

January 13th, 2012, 05:44 PM

i cant try gnome-shell because it has conflicts with my graphics card (radeon 6870) :(

BrokenKingpin

January 13th, 2012, 06:01 PM

Out of the two, I like Gnome3 more, but to be honest I really don't like either. I prefer Xfce over both of them.

ratcheer

January 13th, 2012, 06:04 PM

What makes you think that Unity is not open (source?) software?

Maybe it is technically open source, but it "feels" more as if it is very specifically a Canonical product. I certainly think it is tightly controlled by Canonical.

I am becoming very paranoid about the future of computing. I think that, in the long run, Richard Stallman is right. The government and the corporations are working to remove freedom from our computing experience. I am deeply concerned about the SOPA and PIPA legislation.

Here is an article I wish you (and everyone) would read: http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html) "Lockdown - The coming war on general purpose computing"

Tim

ratcheer

January 13th, 2012, 06:08 PM

i cant try gnome-shell because it has conflicts with my graphics card (radeon 6870) :(

I am using gnome-shell successfully with a 6770 and the fglrx current version downloaded directly from ATI. Is there some reason that won't work with your card?

Tim

Frogs Hair

January 13th, 2012, 06:10 PM

I use both and also have E17 installed . I like the way dash works in Unity and find it a little quicker for accessing applications.

qamelian

January 13th, 2012, 06:17 PM

i cant try gnome-shell because it has conflicts with my graphics card (radeon 6870) :(
Gnome-shell works fine with that graphics card. I'm using Gnome-shell on it right now with the default opensource driver on Oneiric.

hg088

January 13th, 2012, 06:19 PM

I am using gnome-shell successfully with a 6770 and the fglrx current version downloaded directly from ATI. Is there some reason that won't work with your card?

Tim

this seems to be my problem https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=116447

im currently using the gnome-session-fallback instead of unity

hg088

January 13th, 2012, 06:25 PM

Gnome-shell works fine with that graphics card. I'm using Gnome-shell on it right now with the default opensource driver on Oneiric.

im using the proprietary gflrx driver that ubuntu offered after i installed oneiric. it did not say anything about open source driver.

i remember i went through some trouble when i first installed ubuntu on this system, purple scren problem and stuff. i got it fixed by installing this propietary driver

wolfen69

January 13th, 2012, 06:30 PM

The poll should have an option for selecting 'I changed to another distro more similar to Gnome 2'.

The thread title is: "How many people use Ubuntu with Gnome-shell instead of Unity?". It has nothing to do with other DE's. ;)

BrokenKingpin

January 13th, 2012, 06:47 PM

Maybe it is technically open source, but it "feels" more as if it is very specifically a Canonical product. I certainly think it is tightly controlled by Canonical.

Although it is controlled by Canonical, it is still open source and anyone can modify or patch it. I think the only thing that makes Gnome feel more "open" is that it is used by a lot more than one distro.

Dragonbite

January 13th, 2012, 07:13 PM

i cant try gnome-shell because it has conflicts with my graphics card (radeon 6870) :(

I haven't been able to run Unity (3D) or Gnome-shell until I got my "new" laptop (IBM Thinkpad T42). That may be why I'm so excited about Unity and Gnome-shell.

Maybe it is technically open source, but it "feels" more as if it is very specifically a Canonical product. I certainly think it is tightly controlled by Canonical.

Unity, like UbuntuOne and the Ubuntu Software Center are Ubuntu-specific. So it "feels" more closed than something like Gnome or Firefox, but it is still open source.

Other distributions have actually been working on porting Unity over to their distribution early on. I don't know if they kept up with it, though I think they dropped it but that could also be because Unity is under such heavy, fast development it's too much to keep up with (on the side).

Conversely, Yast in SUSE is open source, but nobody else uses it.

That is one thing about Gnome-shell that I do like, that the experience would be (almost) identical if I move off of Ubuntu to, say, Fedora or openSUSE. That's kinda why I wanted to give Gnome-shell a chance and run the two comparatively.

Dragonbite

January 13th, 2012, 09:34 PM

I'm kinda surprised to see Gnome-shell (at 15) almost 2:1 over Unity (at 8)!

keithpeter

January 13th, 2012, 09:49 PM

Hello All

Nvidia GeForce 6150 graphics means that officially I'm using Unity 2d and Gnome Classic (without effects). I have managed to kludge Unity and Gnome Shell into life on this PC. Both work fine on my T60 laptop.

I'm undecided, and, in a sense, neither is a bottleneck or issue for my modest workflow. Basically, I spend most of my time in the applications and not much footling around.

I'm interested in the underlying logic of the 'new' interfaces, and I'm approaching them from the lunatic fringe (my 'normal' desktop is dwm/dmenu, a dynamic tiling window manager with dynamic application menu) anyway.

Neither Unity or Shell seem especially radical to me. Bring on Raskin's zooming interface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface) and completely abstracted file system...

"Raskin advocates an interface he calls ZoomWorld, in which the user navigates around a two-dimensional plane containing a graphical representation of every document on the computer. The user can zoom out to see all the documents, or zoom in on any specific document in order to read and edit it."

Basically my monitor is my mind map. I WANT THIS NOW :twisted:

sdowney717

January 13th, 2012, 10:38 PM

my only complaint about unity is the bar pops up whenever the mouse goes to full left, unlike gnome-shell where it responds only in the corner.

It is annoying to goto click the back arrow and have the unity bar pop up and then have to wait for it to go away. I find myself having to be extra careful with the mouse with unity.

Also an odd disconnect to have the file menu on the top panel disassociated from gedit for example. Like its head is cut off. People expect the focus to stay with whats running.

Copper Bezel

January 14th, 2012, 01:32 AM

I'd have to say that my reactions to the two UIs are entirely subjective. I don't think I could claim that one or the other is "more productive," and I don't think the minor screen space advantage in Unity or the (I think) slightly better customization options in Shell really confer a substantial benefit in that regard.

Subjectively, to me, Unity feels cramped and a little toylike; Shell feels clean, neat, and professional, and it's somehow the least claustrophobic environment I've ever seen. I like the clean little mono vector icons in the system tray, the almost-unused-ness of the panel, the hidden notification tray, and the lack of any (other) auto-hiding panels and controls (since everything is managed in the overview instead.) It's taken some theme tweaks and extensions to make it look and work the way I want it, more minimal than the default, but it's just really smooth.

And yeah, I know that Unity's workspaces can be increased in the settings, but there's no comparison between what Unity does with workspaces and what Shell does. They're the number one reason I've been stuck on Shell since trying it on a Fedora LiveCD. It's a very spatial way to work, and I love the ability to tick through the workspaces and see the full contents of each, to say nothing of launching and closing windows in the same view without "dropping back" into a workspace. I don't even know if that's a productivity advantage. It's just nice.

And to be clear, I don't dislike Unity. It doesn't think the way I do, and I don't care for the aesthetic, but it's a very complete and usable interface; I really just like the Shell.

StewartM

January 14th, 2012, 01:36 AM

Unity vs GNOME-shell? Hard choice, especially as I think GNOME-shell is likely to improve by adding back many of the components lost in the switch (if the KDE 4.0 experience is any indication). Some of the missing GNOME components of 2.3 weren't lost because the devs wanted to do away with them, they were lost just because there wasn't enough time to put them back in (like the Seahorse Clipboard encryption applet, or the indicator-applet that Unity has).

I would want both to be more configurable. I can understand their objectives, though I don't agree with some of them (that tablets and smartphones represent a 'wave of the future' over laptops and desktops, for instance). But as the participation of one's power user base is essential to software success, I think that people should be able to alter most settings to restore a traditional desktop look and feel. The big complaint about both is that by mimicking tablet/smartphone interfaces, they 'dumb down' the interface to anyone but novice users and that despite the hype, the smartphone/tablet interface is by its very nature far *clunkier* and less user-friendly than the traditional desktop (count the number of clicks/actions, guys, to get stuff done).

Right now I'm playing with KDE 4.7 and Lubuntu. I like the former's polish and customizability (at the admitted cost of it being the most resource-hungry DE I've used), while I like the latter's simplicity and speed.

StewartM

liutszho

January 14th, 2012, 02:06 AM

I have been using gnome but flash works better in unity 2d for me.

Especially full screen flash videos.

kurt18947

January 14th, 2012, 09:37 AM

............
It is annoying to goto click the back arrow and have the unity bar pop up and then have to wait for it to go away. I find myself having to be extra careful with the mouse with unity.
.............

That IS annoying, isn't it? I've come up with a couple fixes. One is to move the page back/page forward arrows to the right of the address bar. There's less mouse travel from scroll bar to back/forward arrows. It took me a few minutes to get used to that but now it's my default. A second 'trick' is a Firefox extension called "Customizable Shortcuts". I use a trackball having only 2 buttons as a pointing device and assigned my 'pause' key to function as a page back key. It's quite usable for me.

BigSilly

January 14th, 2012, 11:41 AM

I'm kinda surprised to see Gnome-shell (at 15) almost 2:1 over Unity (at 8)!

Yeah the results so far are pretty surprising here for me, considering there's Unity and now Cinnamon out to replace the Gnome Shell!

I like Unity a great deal. But I do find I end up returning to Gnome Shell. It is just extremely quick and easy to use, and I just love using it. So for me it's very close but Shell pips it.

hhh

January 14th, 2012, 02:19 PM

Nvidia GeForce 6150 graphics means that officially I'm using Unity 2d and Gnome Classic (without effects).
I have the LE version of this card and gnome-shell runs fine on it with the nVidia propietary driver. I'm running gnome-shell 3.2.1 on Debian, I don't know if that makes a difference.

I tried Unity from an Ubuntu Live CD and didn't care for it. I CANNOT get used to that one-bar-at-the-top-and-one-on-the-side layout, that screams bad design at me. Those cartoon Faenza icons don't help, either.

shuttleworthwannabe

January 14th, 2012, 04:01 PM

Gnome Shell all the way!

I am testing it out on 12.04 LTS alpha. I am liking it so far. I do switch to Unity sometimes, but have been in GS for major part.

Kingnothing412

January 14th, 2012, 05:03 PM

I Preffer unity. I Don't like Gnome 3.2 but linux mint looks awesome :) its still different from ubuntu though. In ubuntu i preffer unity.

keithpeter

January 14th, 2012, 08:17 PM

I have the LE version of this card and gnome-shell runs fine on it with the nVidia propietary driver. I'm running gnome-shell 3.2.1 on Debian, I don't know if that makes a difference

Hello hhh

Yes, mutter seems to struggle into life on the integrated graphics on this Asus Pundit. lspci identifies it as

VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation C51PV [GeForce 6150] (rev a2)

However, I get artifacts when scrolling in Firefox.

I 'grok' the logic of the overview and I like the 'tap windows key and type' invocation for files and folders. I'm on 12.04 with 290.10 nvidia driver.

Simian Man

January 14th, 2012, 11:14 PM

I'm going to bookmark this thread next time someone says that most users like Unity and the people who don't are a vocal minority. That clearly isn't true, even among Ubuntu users.

ratcheer

January 15th, 2012, 12:06 AM

I'm going to bookmark this thread next time someone says that most users like Unity and the people who don't are a vocal minority. That clearly isn't true, even among Ubuntu users.

I am thinking the way this thread is titled may attract more gnome-shell users than Unity users.

Tim

Docaltmed

January 15th, 2012, 12:25 AM

malspa

January 15th, 2012, 12:38 AM

I'm going to bookmark this thread next time someone says that most users like Unity and the people who don't are a vocal minority. That clearly isn't true, even among Ubuntu users.

This poll doesn't say anything about not liking Unity. I like Unity but I prefer GNOME Shell. The dynamic workspaces feature tips the scales for me.

Copper Bezel

January 15th, 2012, 12:48 AM

No, it doesn't, but I think Simian Man's argument is that even within Gnome users in Ubuntu, Unity isn't the popular choice. If that's the case, then yes, it would be relevant to bring up to deflate claims that Unity is actually quite popular.

However, I agree with ratcheer that the thread title creates a built-in bias. It's not presented as Unity vs. Shell; it asks specifically for Shell users to share their experience. Further, even if people who hang out here at the UF cafe were an even split, we're a unique demographic within the Ubuntu userbase. (Frankly, not only more likely to be aware of our options, but also more likely to be contrarians with a bias against defaults.)

Edit: The current general "Which desktop?" thread in Recurring, as usual, still has Unity and Shell at a dead heat.

Greg Merchan

January 15th, 2012, 12:50 AM

I prefer Unity, but will reconsider Gnome Shell if somebody makes an extension that puts the menu bar where it belongs—at the top of the screen.

Copper Bezel

January 15th, 2012, 12:56 AM

TheNessus

January 15th, 2012, 01:23 AM

Once I got around to making title-bars disappear in maximized windows, and installed the global menu plugin, I now have the best features of Unity inside the greatness of Gnome-Shell.

foska

January 15th, 2012, 02:04 AM

I am going to stick with Unity for the moment but I am mindful that others are preferring to use the gnome-shell

malspa

January 15th, 2012, 03:13 AM

I really think either one is fine. I'm using Unity in 11.04 and GNOME Shell in Fedora 16. When I get 12.04 installed here, I'll probably go back and forth, using Unity one day, GNOME Shell another. Never met a desktop I didn't like.

3Miro

January 15th, 2012, 04:09 AM

I have been gone for a while, but it is good to know we are all still productively discussing this issue.

Copper Bezel

January 15th, 2012, 05:24 AM

I have been gone for a while, but it is good to know we are all still productively discussing this issue.
I know, right? If you stop arguing about your DE of choice for a few days, your internets might disappear.

jasonrisenburg

January 15th, 2012, 05:28 AM

I had tried to install Gnome on a dell inpiron 1545. It only let me used classic desktop. So I switched to Unity.

Dragonbite

January 15th, 2012, 05:36 AM

I had tried to install Gnome on a dell inpiron 1545. It only let me used classic desktop. So I switched to Unity.

Between the current fall-backs, Unity 2D wins for me hands-down. Coming soon (Fedora 17) Gnome-shell is supposed to work with non-accelerated hardware too. I suspect it may be something like Unity 2D handling when Unity (3D) isn't available.

I prefer Unity, but will reconsider Gnome Shell if somebody makes an extension that puts the menu bar where it belongs—at the top of the screen.

I like the space saving aspect of it, but am still undecided whether I prefer the Global Menu or not.

drawkcab

January 15th, 2012, 06:16 AM

Gnome Shell > Unity

I really wanted to like Unity but I just don't. Gnome Shell has a long way to go but I think it's headed in the right direction.

Perfect Storm

January 15th, 2012, 06:28 AM

I'm going to bookmark this thread next time someone says that most users like Unity and the people who don't are a vocal minority. That clearly isn't true, even among Ubuntu users.

Usually it's 'geeks' and people with tech-knowledge that hangs out in community Café and many of them aren't using Ubuntu at all. You won't see many average Joe's here.

Seq

January 15th, 2012, 07:19 AM

I voted Gnome-Shell. I used Unity for the 11.04 release, and a few weeks of 11.10. I switched to gnome-shell afterwards and won't look back.

Maybe it is technically open source, but it "feels" more as if it is very specifically a Canonical product. I certainly think it is tightly controlled by Canonical.

Unity, like UbuntuOne and the Ubuntu Software Center are Ubuntu-specific. So it "feels" more closed than something like Gnome or Firefox, but it is still open source.

Also, to get patches included in Unity, upstart, or any other Canonical-driven project used to require copyright assignment. Canonical changed that part of the contributor agreement to only require an open-ended license. So you retain copyright of your patch, but you give Canonical rights to use it under any license they want (potentially including non-open).

Even if you trust Canonical today, can you say that you will trust them in five years?

Other distributions have actually been working on porting Unity over to their distribution early on. I don't know if they kept up with it, though I think they dropped it but that could also be because Unity is under such heavy, fast development it's too much to keep up with (on the side).

I know Suse had some level of unity support. One problem for distributions is that for Unity to shine, you need the unified menus, and indicators. Those require either modules that modify behaviour of GTK+ (menus), or that modify behaviour of programs (indicators). Both have caused ubuntu-specific bugs and problems.

That is one thing about Gnome-shell that I do like, that the experience would be (almost) identical if I move off of Ubuntu to, say, Fedora or openSUSE. That's kinda why I wanted to give Gnome-shell a chance and run the two comparatively.

Which is why I'm now finally considering a jump to Fedora. I've been a gnome user since ~2000, and made the jump to Ubuntu seven years ago (holycrap) as it tracked upstream very closely (almost the same release cycle). However, as I'm using fewer ubuntu-specific features (and actually have a metapackage to remove them), the effort of learning RPM is now not a significant challenge preventing a distro switch.

Seq

January 15th, 2012, 07:25 AM

Between the current fall-backs, Unity 2D wins for me hands-down. Coming soon (Fedora 17) Gnome-shell is supposed to work with non-accelerated hardware too. I suspect it may be something like Unity 2D handling when Unity (3D) isn't available.

gnome-shell will be relying on LLVMPipe, running via CPU. That means with supported hardware or not, gnome-shell will have a single codebase for their interface, rather than two parallel implementations.

I like the space saving aspect of it, but am still undecided whether I prefer the Global Menu or not.

Gnome's design goals are to change how menus work. There will be a program-level menu in the title bar (Right now it only has 'quit'), and a window-level menu button in the window itself (think of a single-button, similar to how firefox consolidated the menu. But window and task specific)

ubiquitin.jf

January 15th, 2012, 01:16 PM

I would but lolATI.

keithpeter

January 15th, 2012, 04:20 PM

gnome-shell will be relying on LLVMPipe, running via CPU. That means with supported hardware or not, gnome-shell will have a single codebase for their interface, rather than two parallel implementations.

Hello Seq

Fascinating...

A quick google pulled this (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMjI) up

"When allowing the Fedora Rawhide guest to only access one CPU core and 1GB of system memory, the performance of GNOME Shell over LLVMpipe was choppy and not as fluid as the GNOME3 panel fall-back or obviously when taking advantage of GPU hardware acceleration on bare metal. When allowing the virtual machine to take advantage of two CPU cores, the experience was much better, with still only 1GB of RAM. Red Hat has reported that using SPICE also improves the experience for GNOME Shell on this Gallium3D-based software driver."

There must, surely, be some kind of loss running from CPU compared with GPU?

Copper Bezel

January 15th, 2012, 04:23 PM

Does that mean that (our) existing Gnome Shell systems will perform less smoothly after the switchover?

Simian Man

January 15th, 2012, 08:33 PM

Usually it's 'geeks' and people with tech-knowledge that hangs out in community Café and many of them aren't using Ubuntu at all. You won't see many average Joe's here.

To be honest, you won't see many "average Joes" using Linux at all.

Seq

January 15th, 2012, 09:04 PM

Hello Seq

Fascinating...

A quick google pulled this (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMjI) up

There must, surely, be some kind of loss running from CPU compared with GPU?

Yes, software rendering will always be slower via CPU than GPU, simply because the GPU was actually designed to do graphics operations fast. gnome-shell via LLVMPipe will not be as smooth, but it will be a single codebase and much easier to support.

Does that mean that (our) existing Gnome Shell systems will perform less smoothly after the switchover?

Are you referring to the LLVMPipe switchover? No, your existing systems will not perform any differently. The software-based opengl renderer will only take effect if you don't have hardware support. X.org actually already has a software OpenGL renderer, it just doesn't support a few things that Gnome-Shell and Unity need.

Copper Bezel

January 15th, 2012, 09:37 PM

Oh, very cool. So, if I'm understanding you, the same graphics code is running both ways, but it's still hardware-accelerated when possible and done through the CPU when necessary, so there's no need for a "fallback mode," and having a supported graphics card just brings performance up to normal. Very cool.

BigSilly

January 15th, 2012, 09:50 PM

To be honest, you won't see many "average Joes" using Linux at all.

Very average Joe here. ):P

:D

Greg Merchan

January 15th, 2012, 10:35 PM

You mean the application menubar, as in Unity (and Mac)? There was actually an extension at one point that put the individual application's menubar inside the "Appmenu," the little button with the name of the application next to the Activities button, but it stopped working.

If you mean the Gnome-2-style main menu, like a Start button, there are, like, eight extensions for that.

I mean like Unity and Mac OS. I saw the defunct appmenu button and it looked like it would be a great pain to use, besides being a smaller target than the whole top of the screen. It's also important to be able to scrub across between a top-left corner menu and a top-right corner menu.

Copper Bezel

January 16th, 2012, 12:02 AM

Yeah, I agree. The extension is pretty terrible. I used it until it stopped working, but I don't miss it, so I'm a little glad it went away. A nice, neat global menu wouldn't be unwelcome, particularly if optional, and double-plus particularly if, like OSX's, it didn't auto-hide. I don't think a global menu is necessary, and I like the neat, clean, and ultimately superfluous panel, but I'd ultimately rather have the menu there than in the application window.

I'm glad that the appmenu isn't much used yet, because I have it turned off (so my panel is just Activities, clock, system tray.) I like the idea behind an app-level and a document-level menu, which is where Gnome is tentatively heading, but it's unrealistic, because it's never going to become standard across applications, which means that all the UX advantages are lost. That, and it still has no advantage over Apple's single menubar with the first menu devoted to global features of the application, followed by the menus pertaining to the document.

tjeremiah

January 16th, 2012, 04:03 AM

I still cant get into Gnome-Shell. Unity to me will always be better.

cgroza

January 16th, 2012, 04:21 AM

I have tried Gnome-Shell several times, but Unity is the DE that fits me the best.

corrytonapple

January 16th, 2012, 04:32 AM

GNOME-SHELL on Debian Wheezy is epic

Benchrest

January 17th, 2012, 06:07 AM

I found this thread because I don't like Unity on 11.04. I tired it for acouple of weeks and it only slowed mt down. It is pretty but not as intuitive and productive for my use as gnome 2, the classic view. I hear only bad things about gnome 3. I'm taking my time about updating later this year as my system works well for me the way I have it set up. but I am seeing some good reviews on cinnamon. Mint is Ubuntu basically and will give another option over Unity and Gnome 3. I am leaning towards giving it a try with the next Mint release 13. Not sure when that is but in no hurry. I will continue to follow this thread for pros and cons.

BigSilly

January 17th, 2012, 09:31 AM

Thing is though, this type of poll/thread pops up all the time and the results are always contrary to the last one. You can't put too much stock in poll results, and people's opinions change all the time. I myself voted Gnome shell here, but on another day I might vote for Unity depending on what I've been using and whether or not I've had any sleep. ;) :D

I would say, if you're using Unity on 11.04, give a thought to upgrading to 11.10. It's much improved, and quite lovely.

Dragonbite

January 17th, 2012, 08:14 PM

Yes, the poll (and opinion) between the 2 (Unity and Gnome-shell) can be very fickle.

I just popped back into Unity to give it some time and there are some definite benefits to it, in my case.

You don't have to open the entire Dash as often. May icons are available in the menu bar, and to look at your work spaces, the icon is readily available.

The Global Menu does save some space and I like the additional pull-down features available in the panel.

Sometimes being able to open the sidebar by going anywhere on the side is nice, other times it is a royal pain (especially since the min/max/close buttons are right over there). Overshoot them and it takes a few seconds for a second try.

I think Unity would score more points with me if it were a little lighter/faster/responsive (compared to Gnome-shell).

Though development is still young, and a LOT can happen by the time 12.04 LTS comes out. I'm just not ready to abandon Unity or Ubuntu to Gnome-shell and Fedora or openSUSE just yet.

lz1dsb

January 17th, 2012, 09:50 PM

I've been using Unity for about a month now and I could say that in general I'm quite satisfied with it. I was able to grasp it quite quickly and now I'm thinking "how the hell I was working previously without it" ;)
It has few drawbacks I've noticed so far:
1. It lags a little bit.
2. Maybe because of that the programs open a bit slow. Not that I care about this so much ;)
3. And I experienced a few strange lags recently. Once my keyboard was blocked. On other occasion the Unity panel stopped showing itself when I had a window maximized. When I closed all windows it was visible again, but the Dash button wouldn't work. It was all resolved after a restart ;) (that Windows syndrome is unavoidable I guess :P) Has anyone come across something similar?
Other than that I'm really hoping Unity to improve gradually in time. I believe that as it's the main tool you use to actually access the OS a lot of efforts should be put in stability. The only way people to like it and stick with it is to be rock solid!
When I have time I might install Gnome Shell... I've read quite interesting comments about it in this thread.

Cheers,
Boyan

cotcot

January 17th, 2012, 10:20 PM

I voted gnome-shell. I have nothing against Unity.
I do not like the pop up of the left menu bar any time I touch any place on the screen left border in Untity. In Gnome shell it is only the upper left corner (the unity dash area).
Gnome-shell is better documented.
Unity and Gnome shell still hate my GS 7300 video card. Only an older version of the nvidia driver (173) allows me to use Unity or Gnome shell.

Dragonbite

January 17th, 2012, 10:36 PM

angry_johnnie

January 18th, 2012, 04:01 AM

I find them both very similar. The only reason i prefer gnome-shell over unity is that the alt+f2 run prompt in gnome-shell has tab completion, whereas unity's doesn't, or at least it didn't when i first installed it. Other than that, i don't particularly like either one of them. I'd rather have gnome 2. But, then again, i'm a dinosaur, and i'd rather have kde 3.5. The way this is going, i think i'll end up going to xfce, or icewm, or some box, or maybe i'll stick to gnome-shell, and just keep whining until i get used to it. :p

mips

January 18th, 2012, 08:08 AM

Oh yeah, one thing I don't like is that my laptop does not have a Windows key, which brings up the Dash/whatever without having to move my mouse to the left side/corner. Anybody know how to get around this?

Try http://askubuntu.com/questions/21934/how-to-change-the-binding-of-windows-key-which-runs-unitys-dash

JonUK76

January 18th, 2012, 11:20 AM

Out of the two, Unity for me, but there's not much in it. I think Unity looks better, but they are close in functionality. I find Unity is much improved in Oneric compared to the version supplied with 11.04. The "suggested downloads" feature needs work as it seems quite random, but in general I can find what I want quickly. Both lack the timeless simplicity of Gnome 2. But with the recent changes I took the opportunity to re-discover KDE (on OpenSuse) and it's growing on me. There's also MATE which is an option for Gnome 2 fans..

Dragonbite

January 19th, 2012, 06:48 PM

Last night I installed Gimp and opened it first in Unity. Unfortunately my 14" non-Widescreen was too short to fit all of the menu items in the Global Menu part of the panel! Yikes!

It cut off half of the "Script" item and I know there are at least 1 or 2 menu items to the right of that.

I switched over to Gnome-shell because I know the menu items are on the window and not the panel. I could full-screen the window and have the entire length instead of having the system icons (on the right) cutting out space.

Shell: +1
Unity: -1

1roxtar

January 20th, 2012, 04:14 PM

Dragonbite

January 20th, 2012, 04:25 PM

On Ubuntu, I have gotten used to Unity and working from my left. Even before Unity landed in 11.04, I was already using a dock on the left side. I am one who is happy having many different desktop environments. That's the strength of Linux. Nevertheless, I prefer using Unity.

Gnome Shell makes me feel like I am playing Tic-Tac-Toe...Activities button - left corner, Dash-left side, pull window up to maximize, click on right for workspaces, pull window down to un-maximize, click right hand corner of window to minimize. I am all over the place.

For me, and I say "For me", having everything on the left side makes things more fluid and consistent. But that's just "me". Slowly but surely, I am working on getting better with keyboard shortcuts too.

Linux FTW :guitar:

That's a good way to describe it. I never put it into words, but I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And so much is relying on the dashboard (or whatever it's called when you click the Activities button).

Thanks for the description!

Oh, and I have to laugh at when my wife first started getting on her new Windows laptop, after using Ubuntu 10.04 for almost a couple of years, I saw her immediately move to the left to close a window!

craig10x

January 20th, 2012, 05:22 PM

Linye

January 20th, 2012, 06:00 PM

Back on November I installed Gnome-Shell because of this problem on Unity:

http://askubuntu.com/questions/43096/unity-lenses-missing-files-folders-applications

At the time I didn't want to mess with that so I just used Gnome-Shell. My first impression was whoa! Nice animations, sleek look on the calendar, the messages popping up and the extensions. I enjoyed using for a few weeks but since last month I couldn't wait to fix Unity.

What I didn't like about the Shell is that it keeps you looking all over the place. Chat popping down, notifications down right, applets and info up right, apps up left. With Unity I only have to look left or up right. Other that that, Shell is pretty good but with Unity I feel more in control.

peebly

January 20th, 2012, 07:33 PM

3Miro

January 20th, 2012, 07:39 PM

peebly

January 20th, 2012, 08:05 PM

You can move the dock to the bottom if you install Ubuntu-tweaks:

http://ubuntu-tweak.com/

Thanks for the link but after installing I'am unable to find any option in the application to move the launcher.

bonfire89

January 20th, 2012, 08:16 PM

Neither, my own custom session with awn or cairo

3Miro

January 20th, 2012, 08:31 PM

Thanks for the link but after installing I'am unable to find any option in the application to move the launcher.

I thought it was in Ubuntu-tweaks. You can check this one here:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/how-to-customise-unity-like-never-before/

I know there is a way to move the launchers, it is just that I haven't done it and I was going by what other people have posted. I should have researched better.

peebly

January 20th, 2012, 08:34 PM

I thought it was in Ubuntu-tweaks. You can check this one here:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/how-to-customise-unity-like-never-before/

I know there is a way to move the launchers, it is just that I haven't done it and I was going by what other people have posted. I should have researched better.

Ive looked into it myself and found you also have to install a compiz plug-in. May have a look into but the last time I installed compiz I broke ubuntu.

cbanakis

January 20th, 2012, 08:39 PM

I strongly prefer gnome-shell.

Unity is cool, but I don't like having it rammed down my throat.
It would make a great optional add-on dock though.

Or maybe at install, you can choose if you want gnome-shell, or unity.

Or better yet, "Ubuntu Ultimate Edition"

At install, you can choose...

1. Install Unity Desktop (Default)
2. Install Gnome-Shell Desktop
3. Install Net-Book Remix
4. Install Command Line Interface Only

I think that would be the end all be all of distros.

If any pro's out there have the time and desire to accomplish that, I'd love a copy. :)

Maybe I'm alone with the Net-Book Remix option though?

I'm still running 10.04 NRB on mine, and my wives netbooks, and we LOVE IT.

Greatest Net-Book Distro EVER!!! (in our opinion)

BigSilly

January 20th, 2012, 08:58 PM

Gnome Shell makes me feel like I am playing Tic-Tac-Toe...Activities button - left corner, Dash-left side, pull window up to maximize, click on right for workspaces, pull window down to un-maximize, click right hand corner of window to minimize. I am all over the place.

For me, and I say "For me", having everything on the left side makes things more fluid and consistent. But that's just "me". Slowly but surely, I am working on getting better with keyboard shortcuts too.

Linux FTW :guitar:

Back on November I installed Gnome-Shell because of this problem on Unity:

http://askubuntu.com/questions/43096/unity-lenses-missing-files-folders-applications

At the time I didn't want to mess with that so I just used Gnome-Shell. My first impression was whoa! Nice animations, sleek look on the calendar, the messages popping up and the extensions. I enjoyed using for a few weeks but since last month I couldn't wait to fix Unity.

What I didn't like about the Shell is that it keeps you looking all over the place. Chat popping down, notifications down right, applets and info up right, apps up left. With Unity I only have to look left or up right. Other that that, Shell is pretty good but with Unity I feel more in control.

Good points. I'm a massive Gnome Shell fan, but I can understand how some might find it too different. It is a little whooshy, and you find that you make lots of swinging mouse movements. However, for me, it's a very intuitive way to use a desktop, and intuitive is a word that's often bandied around without real consideration for its meaning. Gnome Shell has proved genuinely intuitive for me.

However, I'm really pleased to see people warming to Unity here, and the crazy overreaction dying down. Unity does nothing wrong imho, and is a very beautiful and functional desktop. I love the dock launcher and the global menu, and I'm really looking forward to seeing where it goes next.

Dragonbite

January 20th, 2012, 08:59 PM

I downloaded a few diferent linux distros both gnome/kde to see which I liked the best before coming back to ubuntu. Even though I've see a few negative threads about unity on my web forum travels I actually liked it.

My only wish is to be able to move it to the bottom rather then the left hand side, I keep making it pop up when I click the back button in firefox.

I also think it would look better there IMO.

Description of how to do it can be found here : How To Move Unity Launcher To The Bottom Of The Screen [Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot] (http://www.webupd8.org/2011/10/how-to-move-unity-launcher-to-bottom-of.html).

Mark Shuttleworth, though, has other ideas according to OMG! Ubuntu which you can read at Ubuntu Unity launcher won’t be ‘moveable’ (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/12/ubuntu-unity-launcher-wont-be-moveable/). The crux of it is the statement from Mark:
I’m afraid the location of the Unity launcher is fixed by design. We want the launcher always close to the Ubuntu button.

Copper Bezel

January 20th, 2012, 09:24 PM

Yeah, but that was only relevant when the Ubuntu button wasn't a part of the Launcher itself. = )

That's a good way to describe it. I never put it into words, but I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And so much is relying on the dashboard (or whatever it's called when you click the Activities button).
Yeah, it's just a different strategy. With Shell, any and all window management happens in the Overview, so you hit that first, then go from there. In Unity, everything's on the Launcher instead, so you get to handle everything in one place, but usually with an extra step or smaller click targets. (I don't use the hot corner much - hitting the Super key became a reflex fairly early on.)

Oh, and I have to laugh at when my wife first started getting on her new Windows laptop, after using Ubuntu 10.04 for almost a couple of years, I saw her immediately move to the left to close a window!
Nice. = ) Needless to say, I do this all the damned time when I have to use a Windows machine. (The first setting I changed in Shell was to put the close button back on the left. Leaving it on the right on an Ubuntu machine just seemed wrong somehow.)

plurworldinc

January 22nd, 2012, 04:00 PM

In my personal and professional life I have found that Gnome Shell just works better for me. I love the way the interface looks and feels on my desktops and laptops. I would love to see Gnome Shell as a boot option when I fire up 12.04, but i have no problem with just installing it from the Ubuntu Software Center or Synaptic Package Manager which I prefer for me.

Both Unity and Gnome Shell are amazing in there own ways and has come along way in a short amount of time. When I install Ubuntu on a new system for myself or clients I automatically install Gnome Shell as an option because I thank they are both heading in the right direction.

73ckn797

January 22nd, 2012, 04:44 PM

I prefer Gnome shell in Classic mode using 11.10. I was able to completely remove Unity. Here is what I followed: http://linux-software-news-tutorials.blogspot.com/2011/10/ubuntu-1110-oneiric-remove-unity-and.html

hazelnut

January 22nd, 2012, 06:32 PM

I like the no-limit on extra desktops instead of the 4-square only approach.

Done in Unity with compiz. No issues. No compiz in gnome shell. bummer.

I like how I can see the status of contacts by typing their name in the ... dashboard(?).

I don't use IM, but the messaging app is there in unity. I especially like the integration with Thunderbird.

I like the information monitor on the bottom of the screen, and the resizing of the icons in the side panel.

Don't know about info monitor, but the launcher icons in unity can be resized with gnome-tweak-tool

I used Gnome-tweak to add a minimize/maximize button on the windows.

You had to add that?

I prefer the calendar view when clicking on the panel's clock.

There's a nice calendar on unity's panel clock. Are you saying gnome shell's calendar looks nicer?

I tried unity for half a day and didn;t like it. I switched to gnome shell for a day, and quickly switched back to unity.

My main issue with gnome shell is no compiz.

My main issue with unity is the global menu. But once I discovered I could get rid of the global menu and go back to normal menus, I switched back so I could have my compiz with desktop cube and fancy window shade on double click of title bar :P

I'm also only 3 days into this experiment, but so far unity isn't looking so bad.

Duncan J Murray

January 22nd, 2012, 09:39 PM

Interesting thread.

I didn't add to the poll as I'm sticking with 10.04, however, my wife uses fedora 16 and we also have 11.10 on an X series thinkpad for comparison, so I've been able to compare them...

Pros unity
-easy access to 'places'
-sensible mounting of devices on the left

Cons unity
-I don't like the pop-out taskbar (though I've heard you can change this)
-seems a bit slower (although not a fair test as on two different computers!)
-finding applications is a nightmare!

Pros gnome-shell
-seems pretty fast
-particularly with regards to pressing the 'special' key, typing an application and going to it
-sensible way to access applications

Cons gnome-shell
-cannot get to 'places' easily
-workspaces is really fiddly to navigate
-I don't like the default clock without the date
-managing windows can get really messy

Copper Bezel

January 22nd, 2012, 11:31 PM

-workspaces is really fiddly to navigate

I highly recommend the Workplace Navigator Extension, which makes the Up and Down keys in the Overview tick through the workspaces. I love the workspace management in Shell on the whole, with the easy dragging and dropping and a chance to see the contents of each workspace as I tick through them, but the actual switching is a bit slow. Ctrl+Alt+Up/Down is extremely awkward, and I don't like that it doesn't pass through the overview. Using the Workspace Navigator, you get the faster switching and the chance to see the contents of each workspace at the same time.

hhh

January 23rd, 2012, 02:28 AM

Re: gnome shell, I'm surprised most of you are going to the Overview to launch applications. I launch the terminal, Nautilus and my browser via keyboard shortcuts and usually launch other apps from the Run dialog (type in the first few letters and then Tab to autocomplete). I also use keyboard shortcuts to minimize and close Windows, the shell makes them so easy to configure.

Copper Bezel

January 23rd, 2012, 03:34 AM

I don't really see that. Keyboard shortcuts and run dialogs are available in any shell and generally just as easy to configure and use. They take more care than search-based launching because you have to remember more, and they're not any faster.

I don't see the advantage of Ctrl+Alt+T if I can hit Super, T, Enter and get the same effect. Likewise, any windowed application I could launch from Alt+F2 can be launched in the same way from the Overview (hit Super instead of Alt-F2, type a bit of the name, and hit Enter when it comes up instead of Tab, Enter.)

I do use the Favorites bar, as well, though I have the Dash Click Fix extension enabled. Odds are I'm launching another window in a running application, anyway, and the extension means I don't have to use drag and drop to do that. It's probably faster than using the keyboard for the top few apps I use, and in any case, it's sloppier.

I certainly never click Applications in the Overview - I think the big unfiltered list is there more just to be comforting or something than to actually be used. The same is true in Unity.

hhh

January 23rd, 2012, 03:44 AM

@Copper, I guess we just think differently or have different habits. If I'm on a workspace, F1 launches a terminal, F4 launches Nautilus and F5 launches Iceweasel (I run Debian testing). To me, that is much easier then mouse gesturing to open the Overview and then clicking an icon. I close windows with Ctrl+Q and minimize with Ctrl+E, again easier than searching for a button with a mouse (though I have the buttons enabled for those times when the mouse is already in my hand). Ctrl+r is the run dialog, again easier to my mind then opening the Overview, typing a few letters and then waiting for the damn lag I experience before the search results show up. I use to be strictly a mouse person but it took very little time to get used to the shortcuts instead. Your mileage may vary.

Cheers.

Copper Bezel

January 23rd, 2012, 03:55 AM

Yeah, I edited my response for clarity a bit there, but if you're using one- and two-key shortcuts, I could see how that would speed things up a bit.

The Overview also doesn't lag for me except on the first search in a login session (when it fetches the icons), so there's no benefit to using the run dialog, and Super is still just one key instead of a keystroke. Since I think of the Overview as one of the real advantages to Shell, I appreciate that that's also the same key used in window switching and that I can see everything I'm doing in the process. I'd see less benefit to using Shell if the Overview wasn't such a one-stop shop.

I don't use minimize, either - Shell isn't really built around it, and I just keep shelved windows on the first workspace.

Edit: One of the drawbacks to Shell, too, is that it really relies on having both hands on the keyboard and one on the mouse at all times. That's easy on a netbook and impossible on a desktop. Since I'm used to that, though, I don't use the hot corner much, whether for switching windows, accessing the Favorites bar, or certainly for launching apps from search.

Edit again: I'm not saying that your method there is inefficient - just that I don't think it's "surprising," as you said, that other people use different features - especially when they're using features as intended. = ) Admittedly, I have a lot of little tweaks in there, too, just in different directions, and I'm certainly surprised whenever someone's using it at pure defaults. = )

neu5eeCh

January 23rd, 2012, 05:59 AM

malspa

January 23rd, 2012, 08:56 AM

I've just recently adopted a third option, which is to run neither Unity nor G3. I use the Unity session but uncheck the Unity Plugin in CCSM, after installing fusion-icon & emerald. (I need to remove the indicator-appmenu because of the "nautilus menu-bar bug".) After that, I have all the benefits (as I see them) of "ubuntu/gnome" without Unity or G3. I use AWN with a dash of Cairo dock- makes for the ideal DE. If I have to have a panel, I can always install XFCE's panel, but I find that I don't need it.

Before I tried Unity and GNOME Shell, I figured that if I didn't like them, I'd just install Xfce or Openbox and use one of those instead. No big deal. But as it turns out, I like both Unity and GNOME Shell, too, so in the end I simply have two additional options that are good for me.

neu5eeCh

January 23rd, 2012, 02:07 PM

Before I tried Unity and GNOME Shell, I figured that if I didn't like them, I'd just install Xfce or Openbox and use one of those instead. No big deal. But as it turns out, I like both Unity and GNOME Shell, too, so in the end I simply have two additional options that are good for me.

Still, I'd like to see a third session option -- just call it compiz. That's essentially what I've done but still. Could also call it blank slate - something to build ones own DE on with whatever spare parts are available. The Cairo Dock Session is a good third way, somewhat like that, but I discovered I couldn't use emerald in the Cairo Session.

tombott

January 23rd, 2012, 02:16 PM

I use Gnome-Shell on my laptop, this is in use all day everyday as its one of my main work machines.
My w/s runs Gnome Classic, it's got an ATI graphics card so Shell isnt an option.
On the rest of my work machines they are all using XFCE.
Home kit is a mix of XFCE for my mythtv machines and Shell on others.
I've tried Unity time and time again, but just cannot stand it.
Gnome-Shell still isn't perfect, but it's getting there.

Copper Bezel

January 23rd, 2012, 04:29 PM

Still, I'd like to see a third session option -- just call it compiz. That's essentially what I've done but still. Could also call it blank slate - something to build ones own DE on with whatever spare parts are available. The Cairo Dock Session is a good third way, somewhat like that, but I discovered I couldn't use emerald in the Cairo Session.
Yeah, I'm just glad it's still possible to hack it that way. It doesn't need to be easy to do so, as long as the option's there. I don't feel the need with Gnome 3, but on 2, I used Emerald and Compiz and replaced the panel with AWN and DockBarX. It's nice to have the option of making use of these third-party tools and not having to work around the existing interface.

TheNessus

January 24th, 2012, 12:13 AM

Everyone keeps talking about a Compiz session...

What about a session of pure Mutter?
Is that possible? I much prefer it over Compiz

hhh

January 26th, 2012, 09:14 AM

What about a session of pure Mutter?
Is that possible? I much prefer it over Compiz

It looks like it's possible...
http://packages.ubuntu.com/oneiric/mutter

Just install it with --no-install-recommends so it doesn't pull in gnome-session.

CarpKing

January 26th, 2012, 07:30 PM

I use Gnome-shell because I didn't like Unity, with the caveat that I have a number of extensions, as well as AWN, that makes it work almost the same as my Gnome2 session.

Dragonbite

January 26th, 2012, 07:33 PM

If I could go back, I think I might have added Cinnamon. At first I wasn't impressed by it but recently it has been looking more and more interesting.

Has anybody tried installing Gnome-shell and Cinnamon so you have 3 Gnome shells to choose from?

Eddie Wilson

January 26th, 2012, 08:56 PM

I use Unity and like it very much. I do heavily customize it tho. I also have Gnome Shell installed. It's very nice but Unity seems quicker and easier to use. It's really good to see these software projects evolving instead of laying around looking like Win98. :mrgreen:

forrestcupp

January 30th, 2012, 11:27 PM

I finally got around to upgrading to 11.10. I tried out Unity in 11.04 and didn't really like it, so I installed Mint. So when I upgraded to 11.10, I was hoping that everyone was right about Unity being much better. My only thought was, why would I choose to boot into this instead of Windows 7.

Then I installed GNOME Shell, and all I can say is Wow! I really like GNOME Shell a lot. It makes me actually want to use Ubuntu. I know it's pure preference and opinion, but Gnome Shell feels so much better to me than Unity. I'm pretty stoked about showing it to my wife later. I'm even liking this quite a bit better than Gnome 2. Can't wait to check out the plugins that people keep talking about.

Oxyris

January 31st, 2012, 12:24 AM

Fedz

January 31st, 2012, 01:55 AM

Voted: I prefer Unity over Gnome-shell. (option-1)

Just upgraded & done a fresh install of 11.10

Wasn't sure about Unity at first but, only after a few hours playing I gotta admit I'm getting quite used too it ... Not bad Whoop!:-)

Copper Bezel

January 31st, 2012, 06:55 AM

I've only used Unity but I must say gnome shell looks nice. I've been too lazy to install it (and last time I heard installing gnome shell deletes Unity. I guess it's not true anymore going by all the comments) but I'll get around to it eventually.
They conflicted on 11.04 since they were using different versions of Gnome at the time. Now they're on the same version, they play nicely together. For best effect in Gnome Shell, I've removed notify-osd and taken nm-applet out of autostart, but that's really, really minor stuff that doesn't have a big effect on Gnome Shell in the first place. (In both cases, they just send duplicate notifications.)

keithpeter

January 31st, 2012, 11:48 AM

Can't wait to check out the plugins that people keep talking about.

Gnome Extensions can be installed using Firefox by visiting the Gnome Extension web site. Its a similar process to installing an extension to Firefox.

I believe that Gnome Extensions can be written in Javascript/CSS

There seems to be a good range out there :twisted:

rudihawk

January 31st, 2012, 11:59 AM

I'm a Gnome-shell user, absolutely love it!

satanselbow

January 31st, 2012, 12:52 PM

If I could go back, I think I might have added Cinnamon. At first I wasn't impressed by it but recently it has been looking more and more interesting.

I installed it and very quickly reaslised that - I don't want to go back to that... it looks nice but, as far as I'm concerned, is a step backwards (well maybe sideways) and I have very quickly settled into the not really that different workflow... did no-one else use GoogleDesktop / LiveSearch in Vista/W7?

Chatting to a "I tried ubuntu a while ago but went back to windows" colleague of mine the other day I rather poetically stated that Gnome-Shell is Cool As F--- whereas Unity is WTF! :D

forrestcupp

January 31st, 2012, 12:52 PM

I've only used Unity but I must say gnome shell looks nice. I've been too lazy to install it (and last time I heard installing gnome shell deletes Unity. I guess it's not true anymore going by all the comments) but I'll get around to it eventually.

It's pretty darned easy to install. Just go to the Software Center, search for Gnome Shell, and click install. After a couple of minutes, it is installed, and you can choose a Gnome session next time you log in. It's worth checking out if you're not short on hard drive space (and by that, I don't mean that it takes a lot of space).

Stovey

January 31st, 2012, 03:44 PM

jongkind

January 31st, 2012, 05:18 PM

Hitting <ALT> <F2> r <Enter> may bring your desktop back when something like this happens.

grtz.

Stovey

January 31st, 2012, 06:00 PM

Thanks bud, I'll remember this for next time - maybe a "sticky" on the monitor.

LowSky

January 31st, 2012, 06:05 PM

I kinda like that Linux distros are making the desktop more their own. It keeps development moving and tells what 'customers' (what Canonical really needs to start calling them) want.

forrestcupp

January 31st, 2012, 06:16 PM

Perfect Storm

January 31st, 2012, 06:56 PM

The only thing so far that I don't like about Gnome Shell is that you have to log out to shut down or restart your computer. I'm sure there's a way to change that, but I haven't attempted to figure it out yet.

There's an extension for that. It's called 'Alternative Status Menu Extsion'.

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=211734&stc=1&d=1328032578

Dragonbite

January 31st, 2012, 07:03 PM

The only thing so far that I don't like about Gnome Shell is that you have to log out to shut down or restart your computer. I'm sure there's a way to change that, but I haven't attempted to figure it out yet.

Hold down the Alt key and you'll see the last choice ("Suspend"?) change to "Shutdown"

jongkind

January 31st, 2012, 07:09 PM

The only thing so far that I don't like about Gnome Shell is that you have to log out to shut down or restart your computer. I'm sure there's a way to change that, but I haven't attempted to figure it out yet.

Pressing the <ALT> key the "Suspend" entry in the top right menu changes to "Power Off".

grtz.

malspa

January 31st, 2012, 07:19 PM

There's an extension for that. It's called 'Alternative Status Menu Extsion'.

I use the same extension, but that's one that shouldn't have been necessary to add. No big deal, though.

satanselbow

January 31st, 2012, 07:32 PM

I use the same extension, but that's one that shouldn't have been necessary to add. No big deal, though.

Why not? A default design decision was made and the API exists and is sane enough for an extension to be knocked up... not so simple to make such a change in Unity, no?

cek

January 31st, 2012, 08:11 PM

I've been playing around over the past few days with different distros, and I spent some time with Ubuntu, Unity and Gnome-Shell.

I prefer gnome-shell because I've used it for longer -- never really gave unity a fair chance, though I can see how it could be nice.

That said, I'm not really a fan of the intrusiveness of the branding and application selection of ubuntu. I didn't really have time to give a go with a minimal install building up just what I would want, so I went (back to) Fedora.

Hylas de Niall

January 31st, 2012, 08:12 PM

Hold down the Alt key and you'll see the last choice ("Suspend"?) change to "Shutdown"

Yeah, i was wondering at all the talk of logging out.
I found out about the 'alt' trick at the launch of fedora 15!
It only takes a quick google :)

rudihawk

January 31st, 2012, 08:21 PM

Pressing the <ALT> key the "Suspend" entry in the top right menu changes to "Power Off".

grtz.

I did not know this. :D thank you!!

forrestcupp

January 31st, 2012, 11:33 PM

There's an extension for that. It's called 'Alternative Status Menu Extsion'.

Hold down the Alt key and you'll see the last choice ("Suspend"?) change to "Shutdown"

Pressing the <ALT> key the "Suspend" entry in the top right menu changes to "Power Off".

grtz.Sweet!

Yeah, i was wondering at all the talk of logging out.
I found out about the 'alt' trick at the launch of fedora 15!
It only takes a quick google :)Like I said, I hadn't attempted to figure it out yet. Looks like it's a pretty easy solution. ;)

DogMatix

February 1st, 2012, 01:34 AM

Generally, I'd have to say I say I prefer Unity over Gnome3's desktop. I have used both over periods of weeks and could find fault with each. But in a nutshell I find Unity easier to use but performance goes to Gnome-shell.

EDIT: The <ALT> Suspend/Power off, drama is a good example of Gnome-shell's awkwardness.

rudihawk

February 1st, 2012, 08:43 AM

EDIT: The <ALT> Suspend/Power off, drama is a good example of Gnome-shell's awkwardness.

It's great! :D

If they'd just document it a bit better it would be a non-issue.

markbl

February 1st, 2012, 10:37 AM

But in a nutshell I find Unity easier to use but performance goes to Gnome-shell.

EDIT: The <ALT> Suspend/Power off, drama is a good example of Gnome-shell's awkwardness.
I don't see how anybody could say that Unity is simpler than gnome-shell. In gnome-shell, you merely have to press the single meta key, or use the top-right screen hotspot, to see and action all application, window, and desktop management. It's simple, effective, and easy for newbies to learn. There is no silly launcher popping out, hiding, over-laying, or constraining your screen workspace. It's so neat I call it beautiful.

That Suspend/Power off issue is actually not *typical* of gnome-shell. It is an a very odd blot on gnome's design and usability and I suggest that 99% of people would agree that the standard suspend-only option is plainly ridiculous. Newbies should *not* be expected to google the solution (the best of which is to install the alterative-status-menu extension). This should be fixed by the gnome3 developers asap and the process by which it got instituted should be remedied.

CarpKing

February 1st, 2012, 01:21 PM

Hi everyone! I installed Gnome-Shell, and it looked GREAT! I liked the darkish color scheme, and I liked the top left launcher option.

But, when I left the computer for a while and came back, the screen gave me no option to login! It just showed the background. I shut down, but when the system came back, it just faded to to background and the screen was still locked. I'm not an expert, and was unable to unlock the system, so I had to reinstall my entire system. That sucked, and now I'm reluctant to try Gnome-Shell again.

How long did you wait? On my computer it takes uncomfortably long to pop up the password entry field; until it does so I just get the background like you described. I also get the "fade to black" after resuming when I wait too long to plug in and it auto-suspends. In both cases I just have to wait and the password prompt eventually comes up. If I start typing my password before it appears, that much of the password will be typed when it does, but I don't know if that speeds things up at all.

Dragonbite

February 1st, 2012, 02:53 PM

I don't see how anybody could say that Unity is simpler than gnome-shell. In gnome-shell, you merely have to press the single meta key, or use the top-right screen hotspot, to see and action all application, window, and desktop management.

Yeah.. I just wish my laptop had a meta-key.

evertmantel

February 1st, 2012, 08:46 PM

Hi, I'm an Ubuntu user for some years now. And like it a lot!

I use Ubuntu for both work and fun stuff. It gets better and better: maybe 2 versions ago one had an occasional crash; I never see this anymore.

When in 11.04 Unity was issues, it took me a while to get used to it. Also in the beginning it had some issues. Now it is nice and stable. Same for Gnome 3. I installed it on 11.04, some issues. Now: incredibly stable.

I flipped back and forth between the two for the last 9 months or so.
Pro unity is that it is easier to customize than Gnome 3. But it feels more sluggish. And is less stable than Gnome.
Gnome is now stable as a rock. Since 11.10, I never ever had to reboot because of any issue. And it simply works.

One disadvantage of both, is that you have to remember the names of the programs to access them quickly, if not, you have to search for them relatively a long time. (my pictorial memory works better than the whatzacallit memory)

Accessibility for the programs I use most is much faster than the old win xp like click and find approach. For lesser used programs it is a lot slower.

All in all, I happy with the new interface. Yet, it would be best to have an on the fly choice between the two. I'd be
master of what type of access I would choose, not anyone else.

My preference is gnome 3: speed and stabiity.

wolfen69

February 1st, 2012, 08:55 PM

It's so neat I call it beautiful.

I agree with this, but it's not for everyone.

To me, it's not about what DE I'm using, but if it's stable. So far, gnome shell has been for me.

Dragonbite

February 7th, 2012, 04:33 AM

Well, other than the few minor visual differences, Unity 2D seems a possibility on this system since it is a slightly older (5-6 yrs) system.

It can handle full-blown Unity, and does Gnome-shell too but I am going to try Unity 2D for a bit and see if I notice any benefit or deficit form the different version.

satanselbow

February 7th, 2012, 09:40 AM

Pro unity is that it is easier to customize than Gnome 3.

Themes? Extensions? the "lenses" api is currently lagging behind what can be achieved with Gnome-Shell extensions IMHO.

The lack of customisability is frequently cited as being a major drawback of Unity... and the default (only) skin is pretty ugly :(

robsoles

February 7th, 2012, 11:24 AM

OK, so it's about time I speak up.

I've only ever seen mugshots of everything other than: Gnome (CentOS, Ubuntu) & Unity (Ubuntu). I have an idea of which I am going to try first when/if Gnome# fails me but for now I can drive Gnome and I get what I want to get done how I want to get it done more efficiently than I could ever see Unity allowing me to be.

Ubuntu is yet to fail me, CentOS didn't really fail me - Ubuntu beat it by a wiser older gentlefellow handing me a CD :)

Seven of the people who rely on me for their computer's operability have taken the plunge into Ubuntu since I showed it to them, including two workstations at work, and I cannot recommend to any one of them to try Unity knowing their prior OS and their computing habits and needs - One "accidentally" upgraded themselves (from 10.04 LTS darnit!!!) to a release which defaulted them into Unity, :lol: you should have seen the relief on their face when I logged them back into Gnome :p

While it remains a viable option for me, I will always choose Gnome over Unity.

baizon

February 7th, 2012, 11:33 AM

I used both. Gnome-Shell is not as much as Unity usable imho, Gnome-Shell is optimized for Tablets i think, Unity is for a good desktop experience. But Unity need to work a little bit on Unity to optimize it.

JayKay3OOO

February 8th, 2012, 02:06 AM

I tried it again after 3 or so months and got it working. I think that Mint 12 does gnome 3 a little better out of the box so I might switch to that having tried it in a VM already.

The animations feel a lot smoother than under unity, but this could simply be my driver fix, but Gnome shell does run noticeably faster on my laptop than unity so I think there is some truth in that.

Dragonbite

February 8th, 2012, 02:50 PM

I'm finding myself constantly going back-and-forth between Unity and Gnome-shell. I just don't think I'm satisfied with either one.

That's why I figured I would try Unity 2D on this machine, even though it can handle full-blown Unity. Maybe a speed boost would help me lean one way or the other, but it just isn't doing that yet.

Cinnamon is the next to try and if that doesn't work... I'll have to get creative!

xtremo

February 8th, 2012, 10:47 PM

Gnome shell for me!

neu5eeCh

February 8th, 2012, 11:13 PM

So, last night, just to be fair, I gave Gnome Shell another try. I have to admit, now that the extensions page is up and running, I much prefer it to Unity. Still, I feel like both Unity and G3 developers have declared war on users. It's a fight and struggle to customize anything in either DE. Honest to Pete, it feels like both DEs scrunch up their little fists, hold their breath and turn red as beets whenever I try to make changes. There's now talk, in Unity, of removing Compiz (which most everyone already knows). The crazy thing is that Windows 7 is more customizable than either - which is itself less customizable that XFCE - so I think I'll be installing Xubuntu 12.04 when it comes out.

Also, and unfortunately for me, I love the glassy/Aero look - it just makes the DE feel classier and more modern in my opinion. At this point, it's only available in KDE and Emerald. I'm guessing that compiz is going to be more and more difficult to use in Unity and Gnome, and it's already difficult to configure in XFCE. That leaves KDE, which runs slow on both my laptops, even thought they have no trouble running Windows 7 or compiz. Anyway, guess this got a little off topic...

LillyDragon

February 8th, 2012, 11:15 PM

I would honestly give a Unity or Gnome 3 a fair shot, but I'm too busy actually using my Gnome 2 desktop to bother. I really don't need the awkwardness of adjusting to a new GUI getting in my way ATM. Besides, I'm still too attached to Gnome 2 right now anyway! It will be quite some time before I decide to mess around with Gnome 3 and slowly transition to that, or just screw it and move onto Xfce.

So yeah, I'm a Gnome fan. Unity looks nice, but it's too different from what I like in the appearance of a desktop for me to take it seriously. I know it was designed to be different, I just personally found it too alien, even for someone like me who eagerly embraces everything that's new and unusual. If it floats your boat, good for you! As for me, I don't hate Unity, but I'm no early adopter either.

Might give it another try whenever there comes an option to reposition that immobile side bar, though, because Unity's options are kinda slim right now.

forrestcupp

February 9th, 2012, 03:30 AM

You could just use Gnome Shell with the extensions that make it look and act like Gnome 2. That way you have a modern and supported DE with the familiar look and feel.

BigSilly

February 9th, 2012, 09:35 AM

I'm finding myself constantly going back-and-forth between Unity and Gnome-shell. I just don't think I'm satisfied with either one.

I can relate to this to some degree, though for me it's not because I find neither one satisfying. Mostly it's because I just don't want to miss anything! But for the record, though I voted Gnome Shell here, I'm back on Unity again. I just cannot escape the fact that though I love Gnome Shell a great deal, it still feels as though it was designed with desktop functionality way down the list of aims. Unity fits desktop operation way better imho.

Just imho. ;)

LillyDragon

February 9th, 2012, 09:51 AM

You could just use Gnome Shell with the extensions that make it look and act like Gnome 2. That way you have a modern and supported DE with the familiar look and feel.

Virtual desktops support and more was broken last time I tried that; every desktop but the first was blank without any toolbars or desktop icons. (Only the wallpaper and cursor was visible.) If I hadn't tried ALT+F2 to return to the first desktop, it would have forced me to hard-reset my laptop, and maybe even corrupted the Wubi install in the process. (Not that it would have mattered, I uninstalled it anyway.)

So yeah, Gnome 2 look in Gnome 3 = Too broke to use. So until that and an innumerable number of issues are resolved (Which could be some time depending on the demand for it.) it's either invest the time needed to get used to the new Gnome, or forget it and move onto Xfce.

forrestcupp

February 9th, 2012, 01:17 PM

Virtual desktops support and more was broken last time I tried that; every desktop but the first was blank without any toolbars or desktop icons. (Only the wallpaper and cursor was visible.) If I hadn't tried ALT+F2 to return to the first desktop, it would have forced me to hard-reset my laptop, and maybe even corrupted the Wubi install in the process. (Not that it would have mattered, I uninstalled it anyway.)

So yeah, Gnome 2 look in Gnome 3 = Too broke to use. So until that and an innumerable number of issues are resolved (Which could be some time depending on the demand for it.) it's either invest the time needed to get used to the new Gnome, or forget it and move onto Xfce.

That's no good. Was that with Gnome Classic or Gnome Shell with extensions?

Dragonbite

February 9th, 2012, 03:34 PM

One thing that makes comparing the two difficult is they are both under heavy and rapid development so the state of them today is not necessarily going to be their state in the near future.

Like today, reading Mark Shuttleworth Explains Launcher Dodge Decision in Precise (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/02/mark-shuttleworth-explains-dodge-ditch-decision-in-precise/).

So after 12.04 comes out I'll have to try Unity and see what improvements they made.

I haven't heard what Gnome (shell) is working on improving but I suspect they aren't sitting around either.

Urumiko

February 9th, 2012, 03:50 PM

Well. I've only tried Gnome and KDE and Gnome wins for me so far.

Roasted

February 9th, 2012, 04:54 PM

I like Unity, but I love Gnome Shell. I'm not sure I could use Unity full time. It's just not my cup of tea. However, as newer editions of Unity come about and it becomes more refined, I'm open to the possibility, but each +1 I suspect Unity will make, I see Gnome Shell matching or even raising the bar a bit higher.

kohoutek1

February 9th, 2012, 05:10 PM

Has anybody seen the video on youtube, "Hitler being briefed about GNOME 3?" It's a hoot.

:P

forrestcupp

February 9th, 2012, 07:22 PM

Earlier today, I gave Unity another shot. I'll admit that I liked it a lot better than I previously did, but I still like Gnome Shell much better. I'll stick with Gnome Shell, and just not hate Unity as much. :)

LillyDragon

February 10th, 2012, 12:29 AM

That's no good. Was that with Gnome Classic or Gnome Shell with extensions?

Gnome Classic, I do believe. Haven't heard of the extensions, though. If that isn't half as problematic as Gnome's built-in support for the classic look, I might try playing around with 3.0 again if it's in 10.04's Software Center.

Copper Bezel

February 10th, 2012, 12:51 AM

Copper Bezel

February 10th, 2012, 12:52 AM

Double post, scrubbed.

LillyDragon

February 10th, 2012, 01:00 AM

It's not. Even in 11.04, installing Gnome Shell requires a PPA and makes a bit of a mess.

I logged into the Fallback session for a bit myself and found it to be rather glitchy. I haven't had any remotely comparable problems in Shell, regardless of the extensions added (and Shell can be made to look and work exactly like Gnome 2 with extensions.)

Now I know I'm not the only one who had problems with the flaky "classic" mode. :P

Too bad it's not in the Software Center, though. 'Guess I'll just save Gnome 3.0 and said extensions for Ubuntu 12.04 LTS when a stable release of that hits the front page.

Copper Bezel

February 10th, 2012, 01:07 AM

Yeah, that would be the most reasonable. If you're happy with your 10.04 install, it makes sense to wait for the next LTS.

And yeah, Fallback mode was a mess for me.

forrestcupp

February 10th, 2012, 01:40 AM

Gnome Classic, I do believe. Haven't heard of the extensions, though. If that isn't half as problematic as Gnome's built-in support for the classic look, I might try playing around with 3.0 again if it's in 10.04's Software Center.

I'm pretty sure that before 11.10, Gnome Shell was being used on top of Gnome 2, which wasn't as good of an experience as Gnome Shell on top of Gnome 3.

LillyDragon

February 11th, 2012, 07:16 AM

Wait, so the fallback session in 11.04 was really Gnome 2.0 with the extensions implemented?

I'm a bit confused, but either way, it sounds like 11.04's implementation of Gnome 3 must have been somewhat backwards. I'm looking more forward to the next LTS now than I did before! I'll have to wrestle with Unity for a moment or two, but hey, "you reap what you tweak"!

Copper Bezel

February 11th, 2012, 08:00 PM

y6FgBn)~v

February 11th, 2012, 09:00 PM

Having used both I prefer Gnome 3. I found Unity to be obtrusive.

goldshirt9

February 11th, 2012, 11:31 PM

at the moment Gnome shell , but i am turning back to Unity with all the alterations you can do ;)

aeronutt

February 11th, 2012, 11:38 PM

Using gnome-shell via Mint. But I will be trying Unity under 12.04. The HUD concept looks pretty interesting, but I'd bet it'll take a few versions to get it really well integrated and generally usable.

Mini Evo

February 12th, 2012, 12:09 AM

I find Unity to be a little more practical for my needs (small netbook), what with the tool bars integrated into the top bar itself (giving more screen space)

LillyDragon

February 12th, 2012, 09:56 AM

There wasn't any Gnome 3, at all, in 11.04, unless you added a PPA. Classic Mode was ordinary Gnome 2 with a couple of panel applets added, and Unity was Unity.

Adding Gnome 3 from the PPA really did use Gnome 3, which is why it broke Unity at the time, which was built against Gnome 2.

At least that was addressed in 11.10! Perfectly explains why it was so broken in 11.04. Now I no longer have this unshakable doubt that Gnome 3 might still break on me in 12.04 LTS anyway; thanks for clearing that up.

drawkcab

February 12th, 2012, 10:28 PM

Gnome Shell is clearly superior to Unity but Cinnamon has recently been stealing the show on my machines as of late.

CarpKing

February 12th, 2012, 11:04 PM

forrestcupp

February 12th, 2012, 11:20 PM

Cinnamon looks nice, but it looks too familiar. I doubt that it would have been enough to pull me back from Windows 7, like Gnome Shell did.

drawkcab

February 13th, 2012, 08:18 AM

Cinnamon does look intriguing, much more so than the doomed MATE, but as long as I can pry the functionality I want out of vanilla Gnome-shell + extensions, I'll stick with that. I wonder what extra stuff they do that requires a fork, especially now that Gnome-shell has a fairly robust extension system.

I think this ^^^ is going to be the issue between the two.

Honestly, I find myself more productive using the classical layout offered by cinnamon.

It's like Gnome Shell can't figure out if it's a touch screen gui or not. Once Gnome offers more customization (especially in terms of laying out app menus), maybe workflow will improve. I find myself piling way too many apps into the dock and having to work the hot corner to exhaustion. All the extra clicking seems unnecessary. In my opinion the old 10.04 netbook layout was ultimately superior to Gnome Shell and Unity precisely because it allowed for one to customize the layout of the app menus.

On my HTPC, however, I like the scalability of Gnome Shell. Cinnamon's task bar does not scale correctly on the larger screen. But on my HTPC I'm usually just browsing for and downloading torrents and/or watching videos so maximizing workflow is not a priority.

evertmantel

February 27th, 2012, 07:14 PM

All in all, I happy with the new interface. Yet, it would be best to have an on the fly choice between the two. I'd be
master of what type of access I would choose, not anyone else.

Well, I've been shopping around a bit: Mint 12/Cinnamon. The choice between old and new was implemented really nicely with this flavor of linux. Downturn is that one has to choose up front. I want it to be 'on the fly'. This looks like the way to go for future development of Gnome and/or Unity.

CarpKing

February 27th, 2012, 10:51 PM

Well, I've been shopping around a bit: Mint 12/Cinnamon. The choice between old and new was implemented really nicely with this flavor of linux. Downturn is that one has to choose up front. I want it to be 'on the fly'. This looks like the way to go for future development of Gnome and/or Unity.

If you use a "classic" Gnome interface with Cinnamon, can you preserve the Shell overlay as a hot corner/button? That sounds to me like choosing between new and old on the fly.

I guess a better question would be, what can you do with Cinnamon that you can't do with Gnome-shell and a pile of extensions? I'm currently using the Shell on Ubuntu with a number of extensions that make it look mostly the same as it did in Gnome2.x, but I can still access the overlay if I want.

nikonian

February 27th, 2012, 11:20 PM

Unity is Canonical's hobby project, that noone asked for, and very few actually like. Gnome 3 smashes Unity into the dust with a drop kick, both functionally and aesthetically. I mean, who was hired to design the Unity UI elements? it looks *terrible*, like a Chinese copy of "Duplo" bricks.

My final gripe with Ubuntu aethetics... they assume we all love their badly designed purpley-browny-orange themes and wallpapers... are you joking? They're a mess, and it's time Canonical hired UI staff as talented as those who code the back end.

I "got" the whole "coffee" theme about 5 years ago... but a friend will offer you coffee, not force it down your neck with a funnel. ^_^

neu5eeCh

February 28th, 2012, 01:48 AM

Cinnamon does look intriguing, much more so than the doomed MATE, but as long as I can pry the functionality I want out of vanilla Gnome-shell + extensions, I'll stick with that. I wonder what extra stuff they do that requires a fork, especially now that Gnome-shell has a fairly robust extension system.

There are subtler differences between Gnome Shell and Cinnamon. I can't say that I know all of them because I don't use either DE as much as Xubuntu. However, I have noticed that when I call on a new window in Gnome Shell, it pops up behind ](*,)whatever app window is already open. Cinnamon, sensibly and obviously, opens the chosen app over top of whatever window is already open. This alone, makes me prefer Cinnamon. Also, it's possible to move the panel anywhere you want with Cinnamon. Not so with Gnome Shell. The best you can do is to auto-hide it with an extension.

forrestcupp

February 28th, 2012, 02:06 AM

I have noticed that when I call on a new window in Gnome Shell, it pops up behind ](*,)whatever app window is already open. Cinnamon, sensibly and obviously, opens the chosen app over top of whatever window is already open. This alone, makes me prefer Cinnamon.

That's weird. Gnome Shell is what I use, and I've never had that happen. Any time I open a new window, it comes up in front with the focus.

wolfen69

February 28th, 2012, 02:28 AM

Unity is Canonical's hobby project, that noone asked for, and very few actually like. Gnome 3 smashes Unity into the dust with a drop kick, both functionally and aesthetically.
Unity is not a hobby project, but is a serious DE. It's great that you prefer Gnome 3, but many others, including myself, find unity to be just fine. Belittling the hard work of others is not helping the linux community move forward.

But anyway, I used to use gnome-shell all the time, but decided to give unity a real chance to grow on me and it did. I now find unity to be second nature. But I have nothing against gnome 3/shell, and think it's a great DE in it's own right. But I figured if I want to help people on the forums, it might be a good idea to learn the default DE. Now I love it.

nikonian

February 28th, 2012, 02:45 AM

Unity is not a hobby project, but is a serious DE. It's great that you prefer Gnome 3, but many others, including myself, find unity to be just fine. Belittling the hard work of others is not helping the linux community move forward.

But anyway, I used to use gnome-shell all the time, but decided to give unity a real chance to grow on me and it did. I now find unity to be second nature. But I have nothing against gnome 3/shell, and think it's a great DE in it's own right. But I figured if I want to help people on the forums, it might be a good idea to learn the default DE. Now I love it.

I'm not belittling it, I am being honest. It's a mess.

wolfen69

February 28th, 2012, 02:57 AM

I'm not belittling it, I am being honest. It's a mess.

That's just your opinion, not fact. But thankfully, we as linux users have many choices and aren't forced to use anything. Let's not make this a bashing thread and stay on topic. Thanks and peace.

nikonian

February 28th, 2012, 03:04 AM

That's just your opinion, not fact. But thankfully, we as linux users have many choices and aren't forced to use anything. Let's not make this a bashing thread and stay on topic. Thanks and peace.

God bless you. :)

aeronutt

February 28th, 2012, 03:07 AM

That's weird. Gnome Shell is what I use, and I've never had that happen. Any time I open a new window, it comes up in front with the focus.

Ditto. Mint Gnome Shell for me and all new windows comes up on top and with focus.

wolfen69

February 28th, 2012, 03:18 AM

Ditto. Mint Gnome Shell for me and all new windows comes up on top and with focus.

Same here too.

Dragonbite

February 28th, 2012, 03:20 AM

Copper Bezel

February 28th, 2012, 10:32 AM

That's weird. Gnome Shell is what I use, and I've never had that happen. Any time I open a new window, it comes up in front with the focus.
Some apps, not all, will launch a new window behind the current window if that app already has a window running elsewhere. I don't like it because it's inconsistent, but I don't have a preference one way or the other on the behavior. If a new window does load in the background, a notification pops up at the bottom until I switch to that window. It's actually kind of nice, because it means that a loading window doesn't interrupt what I'm doing, and then I can switch to it whenever, so I really wish it happened with all new windows, instead of just new windows for a running app. (Which, as it stands, is annoying.)

I'm surprised that this isn't universal, though. Weird.

forrestcupp

February 28th, 2012, 12:58 PM

I'm not belittling it, I am being honest. It's a mess.I like Gnome Shell much more than Unity, and I definitely do not prefer Unity's style by any means. But I'm also not going to project my opinions and preferences on everyone else out there. Unity is not an absolute mess; I just personally don't like it. I think American Football is a much better sport than soccer. Most of the rest of the world would disagree. Who is right and who is wrong?

Some apps, not all, will launch a new window behind the current window if that app already has a window running elsewhere. I don't like it because it's inconsistent, but I don't have a preference one way or the other on the behavior. If a new window does load in the background, a notification pops up at the bottom until I switch to that window. It's actually kind of nice, because it means that a loading window doesn't interrupt what I'm doing, and then I can switch to it whenever, so I really wish it happened with all new windows, instead of just new windows for a running app. (Which, as it stands, is annoying.)
Now that you mention it, I can think of times when this has happened and it was very, very annoying. The specific times I can think of were when I was installing something from the Software Center that required manually accepting a license agreement, and the window to click to accept it popped up behind the Software Center. So it looked like the whole installation hanged until finally I minimized the Software Center, saw the license agreement, clicked on it, and then it sped through installing it. Very annoying. I assumed that probably happens in Unity, too, though.

zeljkojagust

February 28th, 2012, 01:02 PM

With Unity they didn't make a next step so we have a similar but more advanced GUI, but they did like 20 steps ahead and nothing is the same which makes Unity pretty confusing and unusable for me. So I stick to Gnome 2. Installation of gnome-session-fallback and purge of gnome-session, unity and unity-2d works fine for me.

Copper Bezel

February 28th, 2012, 01:11 PM

forrestcupp

February 28th, 2012, 01:47 PM

forrestcupp - Well, again, it's odd that you didn't get any feedback. Do you have notifications turned off? You should have received a notification at the bottom of the screen that the new window was ready.

When I first ran into this, I think I might have had notifications turned off, which is pretty buggy, by the way. But it that's still not a great solution, because when you're installing something, sometimes it will give you 3 or 4 notifications about what it's doing, so you tend to just ignore them. There needs to be a smart way that whenever a window requires user input, it will not be hidden behind something else.

sinrilo

February 28th, 2012, 01:49 PM

I prefer the Gnome shell. Unity seems better suited for tablets imho. I also use cairo dock a with gnome as a launcher. It has a nice look to it and is very customizable.

Copper Bezel

February 28th, 2012, 02:07 PM

When I first ran into this, I think I might have had notifications turned off, which is pretty buggy, by the way. But it that's still not a great solution, because when you're installing something, sometimes it will give you 3 or 4 notifications about what it's doing, so you tend to just ignore them. There needs to be a smart way that whenever a window requires user input, it will not be hidden behind something else.
Agreed - it's not a good solution yet. I don't mind windows loading in the background, because I do think it's nice not to be interrupted, but it's no good if it isn't both consistent and context-aware. (The alternative that everything from Compiz to Windows uses, where newly launched applications appear on top, essentially means having to do nothing while waiting for the application to load. I don't like that, either.)

But it makes no sense that windows only load in the background when they're within running applications. There's just no logic to that. And although the USC problem could be solved with modal dialogues, not everything can.

And apps that do weird things on launching - like LibreOffice, which destroys and relaunches its window when the document loads - don't help. I've also noticed an odd thing in a recent Chrome update where the window appears on my second monitor, then jumps back to my primary and, if there's nothing running on that workspace, somehow triggers the overview. Window placement in Shell depends a lot on the applications playing by Gnome rules, and thus far it seems that the only applications that do that are (most of) Gnome's own apps.

And then there's dragging and dropping to launch an app onto a specific workspace, or launching an app from the overview and then switching workspaces with some level of confidence that the app will actually launch where you launched it. I like that I can do this with gedit and Nautilus, but it's worthless when it doesn't apply to my browser, music player, office apps, or anything else.

I hear a lot of complaints about DEs messing with the way apps work. I really just wish my apps would stop messing with the way my DE works. = P

CarpKing

February 28th, 2012, 04:02 PM

The only windows I can think of that pop up in the background are Firefox's "Downloads" and Update Manager. I'm pretty sure the latter is by Ubuntu's design, because I remember the controversy back when introduced. I've also had license agreements appear in the background, but I think I remember that happening before Unity and Gnome-shell were around.

LibreOffice does some weird things with the dock extension I have in the Shell, but I heard AWN developers complaining about it making their lives difficult too, so I guess it's just a quirky app that doesn't play well with newer window management systems.

Copper Bezel

February 28th, 2012, 04:34 PM

Yeah, LibreOffice's command and identifier don't match, so weird things can happen in docks. I know that DockBarX and Unity have this sorted, but there's an extensive workaround involved, and older versions of AWN wouldn't identify running Libre/OpenOffice windows with their launchers. I'm not 100% sure what actually happens when the window first launches, but I think it identifies as a generic LibreOffice window, then closes and launches the window that identifies itself as Calc, Writer, or Impress.

It's one of the many, many messy and nonstandard things about LibreOffice.

Hobomank

February 29th, 2012, 04:06 AM

I use LXDE on lubuntu...But gnome is way less of a resource hog for older pc's, which is mainly what I use.

Spr0k3t

February 29th, 2012, 05:00 AM

forrestcupp

February 29th, 2012, 01:35 PM

I gave Unity a shot... I forced myself to use it for over two months. I learned the hotkey shortcuts. I learned how to tweak the interface. After the first month... I started moving things around, changing the icons/images. Still, I can't stand using Unity. I still use Ubuntu as my primary desktop, but I focus heavily on gnome-shell environment and development.

I'm not going to waste my time forcing myself to use Unity for an extended period of time. I like Gnome Shell a lot, so why should I? The only time I go into Unity is if I need to help someone that needs Unity specific directions, which isn't very often.

The difference for me was first impressions. My first impression of Unity was that I really didn't like it. My first impression of Gnome Shell was that I really loved it. That should tell you something right off the bat, even though it is purely my own opinion. But I've been looking forward to Gnome Shell since the early mockups.

t.rei

February 29th, 2012, 03:04 PM

Compiz scale plugin still sucks on dual-monitor setups compared to mutter/gnome-shell's overview with native-window-placement-extension. So I keep looking at the various desktop solutions but comming back to gnome-shell always impresses by smooth workiness.

I do believe that I will go "full pantheon session" as soon as there is a better implementation of the scale plugin.

Unity feels... cluttered.

*edit* I have rather high hopes for improvement in this sector due to the announcement of multi-screen going to be awesome. So far, no valuable improvements have been made.

Dragonbite

February 29th, 2012, 06:04 PM

One gnome-shell advantage is that it is used by more distributions than just Ubuntu.

I am preferring the taskbar on the side and getting access to everything without having to pull up the entire (nearly) full-screen overlay.

I'm hearing more chatter about Unity on non-Ubuntu systems. I hope they can start facilitating it, as it (I guess) uses some pieces that are would also need to be ported to other systems.

One thing I miss (I'm using KDE currently) is being able to pull up all 4 desktops and see the applications in each. Plus it is real-time so if I am working on one but have something running on the other I can click the button, see the actual status and click the button again to return if it is not.

rg4w

February 29th, 2012, 06:31 PM

forrestcupp

February 29th, 2012, 06:39 PM

If you feel similarly, any opinions about what could be changed with Unity to make is as visually appealing as Gnome Shell?

For me, the side bar is too imposing and constricting feeling, and the icons are too big and boxy. Also, I don't like having to bring up the dock and click on an icon to search for an app. In Gnome Shell, I can hit the hot corner and start typing. Other than Dash, Unity is just the same old dock placed on the left side of the screen, and it isn't as nice looking and flashy as some of the docks we already had.

danieluseslinux

February 29th, 2012, 08:25 PM

I plan to upgrade to the next LTS and use Gnome-Shell. Hopefully by then AMD would have caught up with their drivers and they will work a lot better than they are now (almost there AMD, but not quite).

Raistlin355

February 29th, 2012, 09:02 PM

After I installed 11.10 it took me probably a week to finally get it the way I want, not the way Canonical wants me to want it. That being said there are still a handful of things that I cannot seem to make right, Java being the most glaring one. However at this moment in time I can live with it can't wait for April though.

forrestcupp

February 29th, 2012, 09:44 PM

danieluseslinux

February 29th, 2012, 09:57 PM

Lol. We've been hoping for that for the past 6 or 7 years. ;)

Since the introduction of Gnome 3, AMD has made huge improvements to their ATI drivers in regards to G3 support.

I remember when Gnome 3 first came out and how horrific AMD/ATI drivers were...rainbow colors all over the place...massive graphical corruptions, etc..

My latest bout with Gnome 3 and 12.1 Catalyst proved quite good, only a few graphical corruptions with the menu.

Copper Bezel

March 1st, 2012, 03:28 PM

Curious thing about Gnome Shell: While I find Unity more usable (could be just that I've spent more time with it) I find Gnome Shell more aesthetically pleasing, and so do most folks who've seen both.

If you feel similarly, any opinions about what could be changed with Unity to make is as visually appealing as Gnome Shell?
I don't know - make it look like Shell? = ) But it's a matter of taste, isn't it? Some people really do prefer Unity's look.

My gripes with Unity's appearance mostly have to do with the combined top panel. It feels claustrophobic and doesn't make any effort to distinguish system controls from application controls, and you can't have a nice contrast between the panel and the window frames. (You can make them different, such as by changing the panel opacity, but then maximized windows look weird.) I do think it would be an improvement if the system tray area were set off somehow, made to match the Launcher instead of the windows, with a nice little slanted transition between that system tray portion and the larger window-related length of the panel. I also don't think that the auto-hiding menus and controls on the panel help, and the interaction between the Launcher and the panel at the corner is a little weird. (I'm not really sure how to solve that last bit, and the two solutions in 11.04 and 11.10, first sectioning off that part of the panel above the Launcher and then dropping that partition, kind of illustrate that Canonical sees that as a trouble spot.)

Like forrestcupp, I don't really like the plastic bubble style of the Launcher, either; I prefer a style that's more about graphic design than representing physical widgets. But that's taste.

In any case, Shell just has a lot of little touches that seem to prefer form over function. The notification area, for instance, is purely an effort to hide clutter, and it adds a step to access controls that are hidden there. Unity is more utilitarian. I don't think Unity wants to look like Shell, and it works for a lot of users as is.

aimwin

July 20th, 2012, 11:41 AM

I like unity on my "Desktop", on other device have not try yet?????

1. Dash APP Search function. (when you remember what do you want)
2. New Menu Icons to a beautiful look.

I don't like Unity because.

1. Very hard to see what menu are available.
(I suppose this will reduce if I use it a lot.)
2. my computer run a bit slower, when I run many app. together.
My hardware is old, but this is my problems and many others.
Unity 2D seem to improve the performance.
3. Not enough utility that is as good as those on older Gnome Classic.
Again that will diminish as Unity will be leaping forward.

4. Too much change the way we have to use our UBUNTU.
Well why I have to waste time to learn new things that aren't going to make my work run faster or easier.

Though in fact, I put in hundreds of hours on Unity usage.
For the testing and try to see why people run away from New Ubuntu.

======================

I went back to Ubuntu 10.04 for 2 reason.
1. Much more comfortable and happier under "accustom" environment.
2. Ubuntu 12.04 crash too often, and waste more times.

===============================

How ever I gave full support to Canonical and Mark for their new Leap.
And I will do more in supporting and promoting Unity now and the future.

But for now it is the Gnome Classic for my own use.

Anurag Creed

July 23rd, 2012, 02:51 PM

Unity is Best. I don't know why people hate Unity

Linuxratty

July 24th, 2012, 02:48 AM

I prefer Gnome shell in Classic mode

Classic mode with Compiz for me.

screaminj3sus

July 24th, 2012, 11:35 AM

I originally voted that I prefer gnome-shell over unity, but these days I prefer unity.

BigSilly

July 24th, 2012, 05:53 PM

I originally voted that I prefer gnome-shell over unity, but these days I prefer unity.

Same here. Unity seems to me to have overtaken Gnome Shell somewhat. However, I'm now using KDE. :-s

Voting for these things is fraught with contradiction. I blame the fickle users. :D

teward

July 24th, 2012, 05:57 PM

Unity's meh. Gnome-shell is meh. Command line rules all. So I dont really care either way xD

Dragonbite

July 24th, 2012, 06:38 PM

I'm more on the Unity side of the fence, but am also curious whether the Gnome Extensions can sway me back or not.

Unity has definitely improved with 12.04's release.

BigSilly

July 24th, 2012, 07:12 PM

I'm more on the Unity side of the fence, but am also curious whether the Gnome Extensions can sway me back or not.

Unity has definitely improved with 12.04's release.

For me, if anything the Gnome Shell extensions put me off. Firstly having to add functionality this way seems flawed in the first place, and secondly breaking the extensions between Gnome versions is a right pain. Finding out your favourite extension no longer works because you're using the last release and have to update...urgh what a drag. It just doesn't feel thought through.

But I do like Gnome 3 and Shell overall, even if it doesn't sound like it.

Dragonbite

July 24th, 2012, 07:19 PM

For me, if anything the Gnome Shell extensions put me off. Firstly having to add functionality this way seems flawed in the first place, and secondly breaking the extensions between Gnome versions is a right pain. Finding out your favourite extension no longer works because you're using the last release and have to update...urgh what a drag. It just doesn't feel thought through.

But I do like Gnome 3 and Shell overall, even if it doesn't sound like it.

That reminds me of Firefox extensions having trouble keeping up with each iteration.

I don't think picking and choosing your extensions just to get your system more configurable is the best answer either, but maybe it's just temporary until Gnome-shell is improved?

There are some features I wish could be pulled from Gnome-shell into Unity; Online Accounts and Documents (moot if Google ever comes out with a Google Drive synchronization program for Linux) and the integrated messaging/IMs.

Now, I am realizing I may think differently if I had a Super Key on my laptop to bring up the dash in either system. I do like HUD able to come up with just Alt (I got one of them!!)

Artemis3

July 24th, 2012, 07:49 PM

I like the no-limit on extra desktops instead of the 4-square only approach.
I like how I can see the status of contacts by typing their name in the ... dashboard(?).
I like the information monitor on the bottom of the screen, and the resizing of the icons in the side panel.
I used Gnome-tweak to add a minimize/maximize button on the windows.
I prefer the calendar view when clicking on the panel's clock.

Are you running Gnome-shell instead of Unity on Ubuntu (or other distributions)?

I'm running Xubuntu, to use XFCE (aka. xubuntu-desktop).

XFCE loads instantaneously, there is no waiting, unlike gnome3 or KDE. I noticed Unity somehow loads far more quickly than gnome shell or the future uncertain and heavy restricted "classic".

I don't think there are limits to the number of virtual desktops on most wm, use 2 on mine, and set 1 to older users because when they mistakenly switch they believe their windows closed or something.

In xfce, you don't have the abomination of gconf and friends. To change window buttons you open a window where you drag and drop the buttons you like to the place you want.

With xfce you can still use gnome tray things, including the very same clock that shows the calendar (and network manager, etc). There are others (Xubuntu defaults to the one showing the calendar).

With xfce you can have a classic single or dual panel look, or a dock style by changing the config to one of the panels (Xubuntu's default), or even something different. I use a vertical panel, because screens are wider nowdays (simillar to unity).

In xfce desktop composite effects are optional, exactly like older Ubuntu editions used to be.

Also xfce is rock solid and lean (unlike gnome ever was), and there are plenty of themes on xfce-look.org to play with. I use one called Plasma Bolt.

I can't stand the fact that to make gnome3 usable, you have to make so many changes involving either 3rd party utils, or cryptic registry like gconf changes. With Xfce things are ready to use or a couple of clicks away.

KDE isn't bad from a usability point, but its slow like molasses, did i mention SLOW? horribly slow to load, i thought gnome3 was unbearable, until i tried kde... That and i don't like that vista like start menu with so much horizontal scrolling and unintuitive grouping of things.

BigSilly

July 24th, 2012, 08:33 PM

KDE isn't bad from a usability point, but its slow like molasses, did i mention SLOW? horribly slow to load, i thought gnome3 was unbearable, until i tried kde... That and i don't like that vista like start menu with so much horizontal scrolling and unintuitive grouping of things.

Wow I have not experienced that with KDE. It's super fast for me on my spec (below) 64 bit, and even quicker on the missus' laptop on 32 bit. I haven't had any particular speed issues with any of the Linux desktops. I switched to KDE for usability reasons. I got fed up with having to hack Gnome or Compiz to get functionality that comes out of the box on KDE. But speed was never an issue.

Dragonbite

July 25th, 2012, 01:50 PM

I don't think there are limits to the number of virtual desktops on most wm,

With 12.04 I am able to add more desktops. A lot of improvements were included with 12.04's release over the previous versions.

I can't stand the fact that to make gnome3 usable, you have to make so many changes involving either 3rd party utils, or cryptic registry like gconf changes. With Xfce things are ready to use or a couple of clicks away.

Yes, I am not keen on relying on Extensions. One the one side it does enable you to remove extra crud and clutter if you don't use it, but on the other hand not enough is taken out to make a huge difference, and picking and choosing extensions will be a pain to anybody who doesn't have experience with them or knows what they want.

KDE isn't bad from a usability point, but its slow like molasses, did i mention SLOW? horribly slow to load, i thought gnome3 was unbearable, until i tried kde... That and i don't like that vista like start menu with so much horizontal scrolling and unintuitive grouping of things.

I haven't found KDE very slow, at least compared to Gnome 3, Unity or Windows 7, and that's on a Pent. M @ 1.8GHz w/2GB ram (max)! Minor tweaks make noticeable differences.

I dropped KDE because it didn't work as nicely on my small laptop screen (14" 1024x768) and it is too Windows 7 like. I prefer sitting down in front of Linux and having it so different that my mind never gets confused as to which OS I'm sitting in front and how to do things.

vandamme

August 5th, 2012, 03:41 AM

I like Cinnamon in Mint so I installed it in Ubuntu. Best of both worlds. Actually I would like to figure E17 out, it's pretty cool in Bodhi, and lightweight too. But I heard it sucks on Ubuntu.

viperdvman

August 5th, 2012, 07:44 AM

When I was running Ubuntu 11.10, I prefered GNOME Shell over Unity (nothing against Unity at the time). The main reason I ran GNOME Shell was the GNOME Shell Extensions. Using them, a few Shell/GTK/Mutter themes, AWN, and a couple of tweaks, I was able to duplicate my old GNOME 2 setup (a Mac OS X style setup) from when I ran 11.04... sans Global Menu. And it looked great :)

Now, in Ubuntu 12.04, KDE is my primary DE, and Unity my secondary (haven't attempted to run GNOME Shell yet)... both in a dual monitor environment.

markbl

August 5th, 2012, 10:11 AM

The main reason I ran GNOME Shell was the GNOME Shell Extensions. Using them, a few Shell/GTK/Mutter themes, AWN, and a couple of tweaks, I was able to duplicate my old GNOME 2 setup (a Mac OS X style setup) from when I ran 11.04... sans Global Menu. And it looked great :)
People come into gnome shell (and Unity for that matter) but because it is "different" to what they are used to in a traditional (e.g. gnome 2) desktop, they immediately jump to extensions.gnome.org and then spend a couple of hours rebuilding their familiar confortable old desktop. Gnome shell extensions make it too easy! You don't need extensions. Just spend some time in native Gnome shell and you will eventually discover the advantages of the new design. Make sure you spend 5 mins reading the gnome shell cheatsheet (https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/CheatSheet). We have moved forwards guys so you are better off discarding your old habits. I also don't understand the comment above about gnome 2 being similar to Mac OS X as it is nothing like it anymore. I don't know what version of Max OS X you are using but I am using Lion and now the current Mountain Lion which uses Mission Control and it is very similar to Gnome shell (with a bit of Unity thrown in). These modern desktops are similar and all better than that silly old taskbar.