PDA

View Full Version : Gnome desktop poll - a year on



Linux_junkie
May 1st, 2012, 03:50 PM
Hello everyone,

About this time last year I created a poll asking you (the Ubuntu user) which version of Gnome you were using. The results I found very interesting, I am now interested to run the same poll again to see how different the results are 12 months on.

BigSilly
May 1st, 2012, 08:29 PM
Unity is more excellent than ever before, truly, but I'm still a Gnome Shell user.

forrestcupp
May 1st, 2012, 08:38 PM
Gnome Shell. I still can't bear Unity, even though it is getting better.

PaulW2U
May 1st, 2012, 08:42 PM
I still consider myself to be a Kubuntu user.

Running Kubuntu 12.04 on my laptop and Lubuntu 12.04 on my netbook. Ubuntu 12.04 (Unity) is also installed on my netbook but at the moment sees little use.

synaptix
May 1st, 2012, 08:52 PM
G3 with Unity2D.

KingYaba
May 3rd, 2012, 09:15 PM
Gnome 2 "classic."

scratman
May 3rd, 2012, 09:40 PM
Gnome 2 classic, Unity seems to be getting better, but frankly, in terms of productivity, usability and all round experience I still by far prefer my lightly customised Ubuntu 10.10 default install. I've used Unity, but I'm still not impressed by it, and still will not use it as it is in my opinion less fit for purpose than Gnome 2.32.

Each to their own, and I'm glad that Ubuntu is shaking things up and introducing something new, there are always gonna be teething problems, but to me Unity is a bit like walking ten miles through snow;- It's quite pretty, but it's also unpredictable, slippery, and takes me longer by its nature. I'll bear it when there is literally no other option and my life depends on it. As a Linux user, that's not a concern :D

zombifier25
May 4th, 2012, 01:05 PM
Why are you adding the "GNOME 2 with Shell" choice? :lolflag:

Linuxratty
May 4th, 2012, 01:35 PM
Gnome 2 "classic."

Gnome2 as well.
Don't like keyboard short cuts,don't want to type in commands. If I did I'd just use the command line. I'm a point and click kinna person.

BrokenKingpin
May 4th, 2012, 01:35 PM
Xfce here... so no Gnome.

billyseth
May 4th, 2012, 01:40 PM
Gnome 3 with Cinnamon, it really is a good piece of software. Especially considering how long it's been around

mips
May 4th, 2012, 02:06 PM
xfce

georgelappies
May 4th, 2012, 02:23 PM
Gnome 3 with Unity. Unity is turning out to be quite nice. Quickly pressing the windows key and typing a few letters either of an app name or what an app does and then have a decent list displayed is much faster then clicking through menus :)

Getting files with terms matching the few letters pressed is like getting cream with a cherry on top.

Seriously I can open any app or any recent file with as little as 4 key strokes typed quickly in succession.

When it first came out I was seriously against Unity and thought Conical has lost it's mind. I can now actually see where they are heading with this. Sure the HUD needs to be a bit bitter integrated and all apps should work with it (like for instance libre office not working???). But it will get there.

I forced myself to only use the keyboard for like a day or so. Using "Super + w", "Super + s", "alt+tab", "Super + tab" etc. There is not so many and once you get to know them it really is faster. Learning something new or having to do something different is not always nice especially if the your current version do not seem "broken", but how would you know that your current version is the most optimal way of interfacing with a PC, because it was the first way? Or because it is the way you learned how to? Break a habit and learn Unity :)

SemiExpert
May 4th, 2012, 03:10 PM
Unity represents a great solution to maximizing screen space and multitasking on a modern, up to date PC. It is not a lightweight desktop, and it takes marginally more resources than the already resource intensive Gnome 3.x. Looking back, Gnome 2.x was a universal solution, light weight enough to run on old hardware, easily configurable and customized interface, etc. It's a bit odd that neither Unity or the Gnome 3.x desktop are configurable, despite being so resource intensive, and that's the biggest problem, giving an opening to alternative GTK based desktops, such as XFCE and LXDE. In a way, I wish that Canonical had pursued a fork of Gnome 2.x, in the same vein as the current MATE desktop, while simultaneously pursuing Unity. Personally, I'm impressed with Mate 1.2.

viperdvman
May 4th, 2012, 06:07 PM
Last year, I was using GNOME 2 "classic" when I ran Ubuntu 11.04, and have customized it to look and act like Mac OS X. But with GNOME 2 dead (only some rolling releases and older Debian-based and RHEL-based distros run it now, among a few others), and GNOME 3 pretty much uncustomizable, I started taking a liking to how much better Unity was in 11.10 than it was in 11.04.

And then came "GNOME Shell Extensions". Thanks in part to Linux Mint's work, and later distributions featuring heavily-modified GNOME Shell DE's like Deepin, Kahel OS, and Pear OS, suddenly it seemed possible. So I upgraded to 11.10 on the desktop (the netbook had been running it since its stable release) and played around with a large number of those extensions and themes. And voila... I have a Mac OS X style look and feel very similar to the one I had in Ubuntu 11.04's GNOME 2 Classic. I even used some pretty advanced methods to make the Activities Menu activate from my AWN dock (link here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11823588&postcount=67)).

So there you have it. I have Unity, GNOME Shell, and Cinnamon installed on the desktop, but my primary is GNOME Shell.


Unity represents a great solution to maximizing screen space and multitasking on a modern, up to date PC. It is not a lightweight desktop, and it takes marginally more resources than the already resource intensive Gnome 3.x. Looking back, Gnome 2.x was a universal solution, light weight enough to run on old hardware, easily configurable and customized interface, etc. It's a bit odd that neither Unity or the Gnome 3.x desktop are configurable, despite being so resource intensive, and that's the biggest problem, giving an opening to alternative GTK based desktops, such as XFCE and LXDE. In a way, I wish that Canonical had pursued a fork of Gnome 2.x, in the same vein as the current MATE desktop, while simultaneously pursuing Unity. Personally, I'm impressed with Mate 1.2.

For resource intensive DE's that are also highly customizable, we have KDE. Sure it's Qt-based vs. the GTK-based GNOME, Xfce, and LDXE, but it looks great and can be customized literally any way you want. So far, I like it, which is why I like to install KDE on top of my Ubuntu, alongside Unity and GNOME Shell. GNOME Shell can actually be customized pretty decently with GNOME Shell Extensions, but not nearly as well as the old GNOME 2... which is why, as you mentioned, people are flocking over to Xfce and LXDE.

SemiExpert
May 4th, 2012, 06:52 PM
For resource intensive DE's that are also highly customizable, we have KDE. Sure it's Qt-based vs. the GTK-based GNOME, Xfce, and LDXE, but it looks great and can be customized literally any way you want. So far, I like it, which is why I like to install KDE on top of my Ubuntu, alongside Unity and GNOME Shell. GNOME Shell can actually be customized pretty decently with GNOME Shell Extensions, but not nearly as well as the old GNOME 2... which is why, as you mentioned, people are flocking over to Xfce and LXDE.

The divide between QT and GTK+ is still a big deal. Much respect to the KDE community, especially if the KDE Windows Iniative ever produces a final release worthy KDE desktop for Windows. http://windows.kde.org/ The idea of a cross platform desktop would be about the only thing to attract me to KDE, since I'm pretty much tied to GTK+, not QT.

Copper Bezel
May 4th, 2012, 07:14 PM
The philosophy jives, though. QT is far more open to point-and-click customization than is GTK, even apart from KDE's focus on customizability.

I'm tied to GTK as well. Worth noting, though, that KDE still plays with GTK apps a hell of a lot better than Gnome plays with QT ones.

And I do like need demand tweakability, but I don't mind scripting something to make it work the way I want, and so far, I can do that with Shell. I haven't really played with Unity much, but it's better every time I see it (that is, every six months on a new install.) It's just not my thing. I like Gnome's philosophy of keeping everything that can be hidden at a given time hidden, and I dislike Unity's philosophy of favoring screen space and quick access at the cost of aesthetics and simplicity. I'm just too ADD for Unity, I suppose. Too many things on the screen wanting my attention.


Why are you adding the "GNOME 2 with Shell" choice?
Because this is a retake of a poll that existed a year ago, when that was a reasonable option.

xtremo
May 4th, 2012, 09:42 PM
Gnome 3 with Gnome Shell!

I have used Unity for a while but I just prefer the Gnome Shell interface.

ratcheer
May 4th, 2012, 09:58 PM
I use both Gnome3 and gnome-shell (with the latest PPA updates) on my Oneiric installation and Gnome3 and Unity3D on my Precise installation. Every time I use one or the other, I find some things that seem better or worse on each. I prefer the workspaces in gnome-shell. I hate the network manager and its applet in gnome shell. And I really hate the printer applet in gnome-shell. But I greatly prefer the wide open screen "real estate" I have in gnome-shell.

Tim

SemiExpert
May 4th, 2012, 10:16 PM
[QUOTE=Copper Bezel;11905775]....and I dislike Unity's philosophy of favoring screen space .....{/QUOTE]

Screen space, or at least vertical screen space, is a precious commodity in this era of 16:9 displays. With 16:10 displays, there was plenty of vertical area for the two panel Gnome solution.