Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tom's Hardware Tests and Reviews Fedora 16 and Gnome 3

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the love-it-or-hate-it dept.

GNOME 101

New submitter LordDCLXVI writes with a review at Tom's Hardware that starts out with some loaded questions about GNOME 3, as included in the newest version of Red Hat's Fedora: "While most other distros are passing up or postponing GNOME Shell, Fedora is full steam ahead. Does Red Hat know something the rest of us don't? Or is GNOME 3 really as bad as everyone says?" Writes LordDCLVXI: "This massive article amounts to a full-blown guide to Fedora 16 'Verne' and complete dissection of GNOME Shell. It begins with an installation guide, with instructions for enabling third-party repos, proprietary graphics drivers, Wi-Fi, Flash, Java, multimedia codecs, and 32-bit libs. Next up is a GNOME Shell tear-down, including customization options and methods to 'fix' the Shell or mimic GNOME 2. Finally, Fedora is benchmarked against Ubuntu 11.10 and Windows 7. [While the author] adds to the voices criticizing GNOME Shell, he also points out that the extensions can empower distributors to create unique, yet compatible layouts. One of the most fair and constructive critiques of GNOME 3 — definitely worth the read, and even makes GNOME 3 worth a second look."

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I went with XFCE (4, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415311)

Since the Ubuntu version of Gnome3 didn't work right because of my AMD/ATI graphics card, I went with the XFCE4 Spin when I installed Fedora. Runs like a champ!

Re:I went with XFCE (2)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415429)

Is XFCE the best desktop alternative to gnome3/unity for PCs intended to be used with a mouse and not touchscreen? My social machines are still riding mint10.

Re:I went with XFCE (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415585)

Yes, if you want a plug'n play type of OS installation.

If you like tinkering then there are many many more possibilities.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39419191)

I'm largely Linux ignorant here, but uh... yeah. Is there any reason a "plug and play" installation would preclude you from doing any sort of tinkering or customization? I'm searching for a bit of insight here. I was under the impression that Linux was incredibly customizable with almost no regard as to when it was installed.

Re:I went with XFCE (2)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39421643)

To some extent. You can always install another DE later on, but some distros are more... brittle then others when it comes to being able to customise stuff.

In general, the more plug-and-play distro's are less flexible due to the large amount of customised software and integration work they have carried out. These customisations can also change drastically between major updates, which is fine if you are just upgrading a vanilla ubuntu install from 10.10 to 11.04 but will can really trash your system if you make moderate customizations to the OS.

None of these problems are impossible to work around, but the amount of effort you will expend will be greater in the long run then just using a more generic system designed that is designed for modification in the first place.

But don't get obsessed about picking the distro that is just right on your first install. You just need to use one and get your feet wet. You'll soon work out what you like and what you need from your distro.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39421933)

Ah, I see. Well, I have very little interest in using Linux on my main machine, but I do like it in principle. (I am, unfortunately, a very heavy gamer and far too lazy to dual boot or fool around with stuff like WINE).

Nevertheless, you've been very helpful and enlightening. Thank you!

Re:I went with XFCE (3, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39422259)

Ah, I see. Well, I have very little interest in using Linux on my main machine, but I do like it in principle. (I am, unfortunately, a very heavy gamer and far too lazy to dual boot or fool around with stuff like WINE).

Nevertheless, you've been very helpful and enlightening. Thank you!

If you are a serious gamer, you probably don't want to use Linux, unfortunately. But, for the average user, Linux is great. My neighbor across the street was constantly bringing his notebook over for "repair". I put the XFCE version of Ubuntu on it and rarely see him at my door with notebook in hand. He still comes by, just not with his computer anymore. The only question he had after I showed him how to get to his stuff was, "What was the password again?" I asked him what street he lived on. He told me and I said, "THAT is your password." He's not a gamer though. He checks his mail, browses the web (weather channel mostly), and plays the occasional card game. I showed him the other cool stuff to like sky maps, Google Earth and so on. He really seems to dig it. He really likes the fact that he has not seen a virus since installing it.

So, if you have that person who you are constantly fixing their machine who doesn't use their PC for gaming, I'd highly recommend Linux. Dual boot setup is extremely easy with the hardest part being the partitioning setup. Once that is done, it will repartitions your drive, installs the boot manager, copies your Windows files and settings over and leaves your windows partition intact, if a bit smaller.

Re:I went with XFCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39423915)

You don't need to dual boot or use wine to investigate Linux. Since you are a gamer, it stands to reason your main machine is powerful. In that case virtualization is the way to go. Get VirtualBox, and get it to boot a live CD Linux image (you don't even need to do an installation, just have VB run the live CD). I virtualize a number of separate Linux machines on my main machine (which incidentally is also a Win7 gaming setup).

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39424841)

You don't need to dual boot or use wine to investigate Linux.

Acknowledged, but I do if I want to game on the main system. And I am admittedly too lazy to dual boot, run WINE, or use a second system.

Since you are a gamer, it stands to reason your main machine is powerful.

Er, I'd call my main (and only...) rig powerful like an averagely-endowed man would call his penis "gigantic".

In that case virtualization is the way to go. Get VirtualBox, and get it to boot a live CD Linux image (you don't even need to do an installation, just have VB run the live CD). I virtualize a number of separate Linux machines on my main machine (which incidentally is also a Win7 gaming setup).

I'd like to tinker with it, but it's something that become a hobby. Maybe running Linux off of a thumb drive would be the easiest way to do it without messing around with a lot of config, but it's honestly one of those things that's so low priority that I probably will not get around to it anytime soon.

Re:I went with XFCE (4, Interesting)

RDW (41497) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415755)

If you liked Gnome 2, then MATE is an obvious choice:

http://mate-desktop.org/ [mate-desktop.org]

It's an active fork of Gnome 2, and is included in the current Mint distribution, though you can get a more recent version from the developers' repository (which also supports Debian and Ubuntu):

http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/download [mate-desktop.org]

Third party rpms for Fedora 16 are now available too.

Re:I went with XFCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417929)

Yes, renaming Gnome makes everything better.

I wish people could try to understand things instead of just buying into conspiracy theories.

Re:I went with XFCE (3, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417111)

Is XFCE the best desktop alternative to gnome3/unity for PCs intended to be used with a mouse and not touchscreen?

Both xfce and KDE would be good choices. Neither Gnome 3 nor Unity is acceptable in their present incarnations.

I've converted our Ubuntu gnome desktops to xfce, with a little customization (preparing for the 10.04 LTS to 12.04 LTS migration). The laptop has been xfce for a while. From many trials using VMs, my opinion is that Unity is an abomination - nobody in the family likes it - and Gnome 3 sucks on multi-display systems.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39419323)

Neither Gnome 3 nor Unity is acceptable in their present incarnations.

I've not had good luck with Unity so far (latest try was with Ubuntu 12.04 beta), but Gnome 3, with just a couple extensions, works quite nicely for a keyboard-oriented kinda guy like me.

I don't use the mouse with it nearly as much as I did using Gnome 2/AWN - even with Gnome Do installed.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39431405)

Neither Gnome 3 nor Unity is acceptable in their present incarnations.

but Gnome 3, with just a couple extensions, works quite nicely for a keyboard-oriented kinda guy like me.

Do you have one monitor, or several? If you got Gnome 3 to work acceptably with multiple monitors, which extensions were helpful? I ask, because its appalling behavior with dual monitors was a stumbling block which I never overcame (maybe it works OK with the right add-ons, but I gave up in disgust after enduring repeated failures).

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39421825)

With a little tweaking (all UI, no futzing around with config files or any of that stuff) I have XFCE looking almost identical to the way GNOME 2 looked, and working almost the same too.

So I'd say yes, give it a try if you're not a fan of the Unity or GNOME Shell stuff. There are a lot of us about.

It's probably worth keeping an eye on "Cinnamon" too, it's a Linux Mint project to make GNOME 3 useable, by ditching the Shell and making a more traditional desktop out of it.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415433)

I just kept using GNOME2 (MATE). xfce lacks some features that I like. gnome3 doesnt work to well for me, especially with dual screens (on a lowend netbook). GNOME2 has work great for years, so i see no need to change.

Re:I went with XFCE (2)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415781)

I'd just gotten the enthusiasm going to use gnome3 but that quickly ended as I discovered that it doesn't seem possible to span graphics cards (for quad screen). I went with xfce, it does what I need.

While gnome shell at least seems the least offensive of the 'new' gui's, and while I'm not opposed to change in itself, I really dont like regressions and the last couple of releases have broken a lot of functionality that used to work well.

Re:I went with XFCE (4, Insightful)

rish87 (2460742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415475)

Same here, I went with XFCE years ago and haven't looked back. It's not that I am opposed to new directions in UI development, I've just never felt Unity/Gnome Shell offered anything useful. For someone who spends most of their time in linux with a maximized terminal and screen session, when I DO have to interact with the desktop, I want it to be as small and light as possible. I know there are lighter environments, but XFCE is a good blend of efficiency and usefulness IMO.

Re:I went with XFCE (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415511)

I use a mix of XFCE and OpenBox. OpenBox and KDE are apparently one of very few desktops these days that can handle 4+ monitors correctly. Even that stock XFCE window manager doesn't work correctly. What a shame.

GNOME 3 can't do it at all. If I load it on my 4 monitor setup (two twinview screens) it gets all screwed up with only half the screen rendering and the rendering is done on the opposite monitors from where the actual mouse clicks are detected. It's seriously broken.

10 years ago this setup worked perfectly. It's sad to see so much software getting worse with age.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

devjoe (88696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416779)

GNOME 3 started on my main system in fallback mode. I eventually found that was because virtual resolutions more than 2048 pixels wide were not supported on my video chip, and my dual-head system naturally is wider than that; otherwise I was set, hardware-wise. But by the time I did this, I knew I was going to switch it over to XFCE anyway as soon as I got everything set up. I had been running GNOME 3 on my second system for a month, and all the extra clicks and whatnot described in the article even to do simple tasks was just too much for me.

The second month we discovered shell extensions.

This is on the last page [tomshardware.com] of the article. At the end of my first month, after having given GNOME 3 a fair shot, it wasn't cutting it and I switched to XFCE (switched back, really, since I had used the much simpler XFCE years ago back before GNOME 2 got up to speed). So I didn't get the chance to discover these extensions in my second month. Had I read this first, I might have gone down the tweak road described here instead.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417391)

2048 pixels is the max? There are single displays that will exceed that. Heck, the latest iPad is already 2048 pixels wide, and that screen is less than 10 inches diagonal!

I went with LXDE (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415541)

AKA lubuntu. The most lightweight version of Ubuntu, and it still looks like a standard menu-based OS (start menu, tabs, etc). Plus I needed something small for my Pentium 3/256 megabyte laptop.

Re:I went with LXDE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39418545)

More people should try Lubuntu. It's slightly different from the other "lightweight" offerings.

First, yes, you get the classic w9x toolbar-style GUI. It's the closest of the lightweights in the small details of function. After that, it never sends you to CLI to configure anything. All the dialogs are there. They didn't lean on CLI to make a trim distro.

If anyone likes Xubuntu etc, by all means please continue. Variety is a good thing. But for those who are only aghast at Gnome and are looking for a quick alternative, Lubuntu is probably exactly the distro you want. There's virtually nothing to learn here. It's completely familiar.

And yes, it's a "lightweight" but really you don't need to think of it that way. It's good for old boxes and for new boxes. Load it up with the familiar apps you use on Ubbuntu now.

[Minor detail -- it does run on 286mb but with that on Athlon 1100, I found it terribly slow; it wants more RAM for actual use IMHO. I'd go for a super-lightweight for P3/256. YMMV, etc.)

Re:I went with LXDE (1)

mmortal03 (607958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438247)

I've been wanting to use something that is lighter weight than Ubuntu on a relatively older netbook (the original Lenovo IdeaPad S10 from 2008), but I haven't been able to get the wireless drivers to work on it with either Lubuntu or Xubuntu, originally having tried 11.04, and later 11.10. Ubuntu, on the other hand, had the wireless working right out of the box. Why is it that these Ubuntu variants can break something as standard as wireless drivers? I searched around and tried to follow some directions in various online forums to get the Broadcom BCM4312 to work by running some command line instructions, but simply had no luck. Maybe it will be fixed in the variants of 12.04?

Re:I went with XFCE (4, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415583)

I've been debating moving back (xfce, or KDE) for a while now. I've given Gnome3 a good 4-5 months of good attempts to use, but I find that multitasking is not the forefront of the interface. Yeah, you can "snap" windows to the edges and see more than one, but it's just not the same somehow. Maybe it's because the windows mostly open full screen? Maybe it's the added complexity of having to hit Shift + click to open a new instance of something instead of bringing up the old one (that still bugs me the most...) Maybe it's not being able to "pin" (or favorite) an application to the launcher if it doesn't have a .desktop file associated with it. Why can't I run a Java app from the prompt and make that pin-able? Maybe it's the annoying bottom bar notification? (I prefer mine up top... been trying to get used to it, didn't put much effort into seeing if I could move them back up to the clock...) It mostly pops up when I don't want it to (when I have to click on the scroll down button.) Maybe it's all that combined. I just use the machine as a web browser anymore because that's usually full-screened anyway. I tried developing on it, but it feels clunky to do so.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39420481)

Why not just use good old gnome-panel (which also has been ported to GTK+3) and compiz/other-favourite-window-manager (which you can install anytime)? Works very well for me!

Re:I went with XFCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39424711)

A lot of this fuss has come from KDE superfans desperate to paint Gnome 3 as a disaster on the level of KDE 4 - namely an almighty fuckup with the project being exposed as being run by 12 year olds with 6 months of VBA experience. It served no purpose, had no design and was a train wreck of bad coding.

But that's not the problem with Gnome 3. Gnome 3 has been carefully thought out to aim at tablets. Don't get me wrong - it fucking sucks in many ways.

They let "designers" rule the day. Check out Seth Nickel's infamous "task pooper" blog post while g3 was under development . If it doesn't make you think of an idiot carrying a snowboard, tongue stuck out, making devil horns with his fingers and drinking Pespi Max - the sort of moron that should be confined to "web design" - then you're a better man than I.

Putting retarded episodes like the above to one side... Gnome 3 actually works and makes sense if you understand the "tablet will rule" aim of it. That approach is entirely sensible given the enormous success of Linux on tablets/phones.

But it really does suck donkey balls for desktops.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

edeefelt (771994) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415923)

Me too, and I tried KDE first as well.

Re:I went with XFCE (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39418531)

I recently installed Linux Mint 12 KDE. It required a little bit of tweaking to get it how I liked. The most radical thing I did was to install Cairo Dock, and THAT required a bit of fine tuning as well. Getting the compoze manager to work right on bootup and login took a bit of searching. I also replace the default screensaver with Xscreensaver. That is almost working now, I still need to hook the screen lock into the screensaver, right now it just goes blank. Some say that KDE is a hog, maybe but it runs fine on a dual core 2.8ghz Pentium(R) in 64bit mode. I hope that Mint will include KDE in their upcoming LTS releases based on the next Ubuntu.

Gnome 3 (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415343)

I see it still sucks, then.

I've honestly never understood why Red Hat would believe that pushing a tablet interface on an OS that's primarily used for servers and corporate desktops makes the slightest amount of sense.

Re:Gnome 3 (2)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415431)

I see it still sucks, then.

I've honestly never understood why Red Hat would believe that pushing a tablet interface on an OS that's primarily used for servers and corporate desktops makes the slightest amount of sense.

Totally agree. Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface. I don't understand why Fedora wouldn't just go with KDE as the default since it's still a desktop interface (assuming we are limited to the big two managers, Gnome and KDE). KDE (finally) runs great.

Re:Gnome 3 (3, Insightful)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415655)

Gnome3 is the default desktop env that gets installed. Anaconda (the OS installer of fedora) asks
you, on install, if you wish Gnome3 or KDE. Just choose KDE and you are set.

I get the point though, from the two KDE is definitely the better desktop env. Probably that choice
came from higher up though.

Re:Gnome 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416677)

Probably that choice
came from higher up though.

Are you sure you don't mean "down there in Hades"? It all started with good intentions, y'know.

Re:Gnome 3 (4, Informative)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417143)

Totally agree. Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface. I don't understand why Fedora wouldn't just go with KDE as the default since it's still a desktop interface (assuming we are limited to the big two managers, Gnome and KDE). KDE (finally) runs great.

I agree with this sentiment. That's why I went with KDE. On my desktop, I have a desktop interface, on my netbook/ultrabook, I can use the netbook interface and on a tablet, the new plasma active. Three different UIs for three different purposes, but underneath it all, one desktop environment to learn.

Re:Gnome 3 (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39419585)

Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface.

While no interface is perfect (Gnome 2 was pretty close, but we had a lot of time to get used to it and improve/perfect the parts we didn't like), I have to wonder how many of the "tablet interface" complainers have actually tried Gnome3/Gnome Shell.

I just can't see a desktop - no mattter how different - that is so dependent on hidden hotspots and/or the Super key to have an interface that is tablet-like.

Re:Gnome 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415477)

Nor do I understand why I would want to turn a perfectly good desktop into a dramatically inferior experience with a tablet/smart phone interface. The stupidity is astounding.

Gnome 3 is simply unusable for all but the most feeble of users without significant customization or a flat out fix like Cinnamon.

To add insult to injury, according to the Gnome 3 developers, anyone who can't see the brillance of making your powerful computer unusable does not have the intelluectual capacity to partitipate in the discussion. This is paraphrasing but right from the mailing list. The massive egos and grand stupidity which is the gnome 3 core developers is truely staggering.

Re:Gnome 3 (3, Interesting)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416421)

"the most feeble of users"Doesn't that sum up the majority of desktop users? For real work I use Chakra, on the computers that everyone uses Fedora with Gnome 3. I have had windows users with no linux experince ask me to intall Gnome 3 on their computers. That has never happened for me in the past with any desktop.

Gnome3 maybe IS "made of easy" (1)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464403)

I have had windows users with no linux experince ask me to intall Gnome 3 on their computers. That has never happened for me in the past with any desktop.

I've had a very similar experience as a GNOME3 user since June. The transition to Gnome 3 is jarring for someone used to any other "Traditional" desktop environment. However my first experience with it went much MUCH better than my first kick at the can with unity. Unity was such a turnoff for me that I stuck with Lucid and eventually ditched Ubuntu for Debian for my new computer. I can't be alone in that respect--the initial releases of Unity were an unmitgated disaster, though it has improved somewhat. Gnome 3 on the other hand has been by far the most well recieved desktop when I've presented it to computer novices. To a slashdot-like audience "tablet-like on a PC" is an insult--it makes no sense, but to my young niece or my father in his 70s who make the same observation they say it as a complement. Computers are "hard"--iPads and iphones and droids are "easy", or at least "easier". The differences in form factor mean there should be some differences in the user interface obviously, but for "regular folk" incorporating some more appliance-like design makes the computer much less intimidating.

I found that although the initial release of GNOME 3 was quite un-polished there was certainly a sense of where the project is trying to go. Though I don't totally agreee with some of the Tom's Hardware editorialising, I was impressed with the throroughness of its review and that they did at least "get it" at some level. Gnome 3 is striving to cater to the "uninitiated" linux user--indeed to users unaccustomed to computers of any platform. When presented with the Gnome 3 desktop and told to figure out how to do a given task with no assistance, what would a novice user do? That seems to be the approach the designers have taken.

To put yourself in a newbie's shoes: If you want to do anything you'd thing "activities--that must be where I go". There are more efficient ways to bring up the launcher/switcher screen--notably the super/"windows" key but that is something you can learn. It brings to mind a humourous youtube video where an IT blogger/journalist shows his dad the Windows 8 "public preview" and tells him to perform a simple task, ends up getting out of the "metro tile" screen onto an empty desktop, then has no idea how to get back without prompting. Gnome 3 may have its growing pains, but it seems Win 8 will have more than its share of issues with novices and opwer users alike.

So if you aren't a regular computer user what do you do when you are done using a gadget? Well, you turn it off. how do you accomplish this in Gnome 3? They are going to press the power button, and in Gnome 3 when you do that the shutdown dialogue pops up and counts down from 60, just like a Mac. So if you can do that, why bother with a superfluous shutdown icon or menu item on the screen?

As an experienced user with a definitely established set of habits I can certainly say I encounter frustrations with Gnome 3 from time to time, but I find I'm really growing into Gnome 3 quite well. The learning curve is NOT as steep as Tom's might have you believe--admittedly it does present some obsacles if you are trying to "2-ify" the shell to make it conform to your habits. However one thing Tom's very effectively demonstrates is that however flawed you might find the Gnome 3 shell out of the box, as a platform is has fantastic potential, certainly moreso than Unity could ever offer and enough flexibility to hold its own against KDE. The Gnome Shell Extensions are still in their infancy but it makes the new Gnome Shell into a very versatile platform.

I think the jury is still out on whether the strategy of simplification and stepping out of the traditional "desktop box" more than any other GUI is a mistake. I can understand how seasoned Linux users could take offense to the "dumbing down" but perhaps it was the right thing to do. XFCE, KDE, and so many others are there for those who like the old tried and true desktop paradigm. Linux is about having that choice so somebody has to be meaningfully differect and to try to cater to different audiences. Clearly the Gnome team figures computing is moving away from the desktop and that to remain relevant in the long-term future they need to do things differently.

As power users/programmers/enthusiasts perhaps these observations are lost on us becasue we LIKE and WANT TO use our PCs--most people use computers because they HAVE to (or had to). To do everyday office tasks you needed a PC, to browse theinternet, send emails and so on you needed a PC, but these days you don't. Smartphones and tablets are new forms of computing that are more convenient, easier and generally just more desirable for the general public to use for everyday tasks. Linux has to be there to be relevant--it certainly won't be if it sticks with traditional paradigms and slowly evolves. And Linux IS more relevant to cmputing than ever before--it is a dominant force on servers, and it is embedded it our televisions, is the basis for the leading smartphone platform and so on. And how many of those examples of end-user Linux systems uses XFCE or KDE...almost none. They all are smartpones and tablets with Android interfaces, or are web-platform kiosks or have custom interfaces. If you think about it you can understand why the Gnome team took the risk of junpong the shark to stay relevant.

Re:Gnome 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415531)

agree and you in the RH... what happened to a decent text installer.

Re:Gnome 3 (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415905)

What part of "linux text" did you mistype?

Re:Gnome 3 (2)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415757)

Yeah, they really jumped the shark here. I can sense what they are aiming for, the aesthetic of less to the point of having nothing and forcing the user to jump through hoops so the designers can revel in a blank desktop.

RH/Deb/BSD/Slack/Gentoo + Gnome/KDE/GNUSTEP (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416231)

Well, I keep my distance from RH distros due to dependency issues w/ both rpm and yumm, so that rules out not just Fedora, but better Linuxes before it, such as Mandriva. And I never liked any of the Gnomes either. There is one distro called Comice Linux that made Gnome3 look like OS-X, but aside from that, I see no reason for anyone to prefer Gnome. I'd prefer any Debian based distro or PC-BSD along w/ KDE or GNUSTEP. (Would like to see how PBI compares to apt-get, ports and other packaging methods of other OSs)

Re:RH/Deb/BSD/Slack/Gentoo + Gnome/KDE/GNUSTEP (1)

YoungSaint (1158131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39423895)

Same here. I used fedora with Gnome3 for a while, but it doesn't like multiple monitors, and I don't like the way it's laid out. Also what is going on with rpms? Every time I play with an rpm-based system I get burned. Badly. Either the repositories are almost completely empty aside from the basics, or after installing a few packages I end up with a broken system somehow...

Re:Gnome 3 (2)

Sussurros (2457406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39421491)

I totally agree. I use Fedora 16 on two of my computers but with KDE instead of Gnome 3 and the look and feel is good. Actually I find it better than Kubuntu except that I don't like Apper very much and Fedora doesn't let you use anything else. When I read the review and saw that Gnome 3 desktop on what is now my customary desktop I couldn't believe how plug-uglified it was. I couldn't finish reading the review. I really didn't like Unity when I used it and that was why I moved to KDE, but Gnome 3 seems to be ugly for ugly's sake. Seeing Gnome now is like seeing George Best or OJ Simpson after the meltdown. Even Tiger Woods is looking better than Gnome.

Re:Gnome 3 (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39422353)

Fedora is their bleeding edge distro. Not really meant for prime time like that. It usually works fine for me, but not always.

Re:Gnome 3 (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39422965)

I see it still sucks, then.

I've honestly never understood why Red Hat would believe that pushing a tablet interface on an OS that's primarily used for servers and corporate desktops makes the slightest amount of sense.

They didn't. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 still has Gnome 2.
Fedora is sort of a playground for Red Hat - they get to test new packages out in the field and find out what works and doesn't work. And what doesn't work will never make it into RHEL.

Because Fedora 15, 16 and 17 are, quite frankly unusable, I have decided to upgrade my Fedora 14 workstation to ScientificLinux[*] 6.2 and get security and hardwre patches ffor many years to come. Because where the Red Hat kids got it wrong with Fedora, they got it right with RHEL.

[*]: SL is basically a free version of RHEL, less known than CentOS, but better supported.

In short, Gnome 3 is like Highlander 2 or Star Wars I - something we pretend doesn't exist, in the hope that it will go away.

Fedora for fags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415355)

Fedora for fags. 'nuff said.

Re:Fedora for fags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415409)

True dat. I'm rocking Win7 on this rig - no complaints.

Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415437)

Original submission says "One of the most fair and constructive critiques of GNOME 3" -- ... Then the Slashdot interpretation files it under "from the love-it-or-hate-it dept."
 
*sigh* =/

Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (5, Insightful)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415893)

And it's sad that most /.ters won't read the review, because it is truly very complete. At one point you read

Another side-effect presents itself after a few weeks of regular use.

or

I needed to open it on the Dell Inspiron Mini 10v to access my DropBox account [...] Back on my desktop, KeePassX reported that my password database was locked

and think "a review that actually tried to use the fucking thing for weeks intead of just installing, looking around for a few minutes and writing about it? What the hell is happening to tech journalism?". Gnome Shell didn't, but Tom's Hardware scored a few points with me today.

Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (3, Informative)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416915)

I was very favorably impressed with the review. I actually tried to use Gnome3 for a while and gave it up as a bad job, after reading this I've got a good idea of how I could fix a lot of the annoyances I found. I'm not sure I'd want to (as the reviewer says, he had to go through a pretty insane amount of effort to make the desktop usable), but still this guy went to some serious effort and found several tips and tricks I didn't know about. Combined with a really good explanation of the pluses and minuses for a pure FOSS distro on the first several pages and a clear effort to really use and abuse the system being reviewed, this may be one of the most useful and informative reviews I've seen in a while. Whether for a new Linux user or a Linux veteran that hasn't really played with Gnome3.

Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (4, Informative)

dslbrian (318993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39419423)

I agreed with his review as well. Frankly I found his tolerance far exceeding my own when it comes to GNOME3. Pretty much everything he said on the "Why it Failed" [tomshardware.com] page is spot on. I thought this was insightful regarding their target demographic:

So, when the power users are leaving, GNOME doesn't really seem to care. After all, GNOME 3 isn't designed for them. But what the GNOME Project leaders don't seem to understand is that new Linux users are like vampires, or werewolves, or zombies. Stick with me here.

New Linux users don't just spontaneously pop into existence, they have to be "bitten" by someone who is already involved. Average Joe, who needs to use his computer and doesn't care how it works, doesn't wake up one day and, out of the clear blue sky exclaim, "You know what? I think I'm gonna screw around with Linux today.” New users are typically converted by a friend or family member who gets them set up and interested.

By gutting GNOME of every power user-oriented feature (a functional desktop, virtual desktops, on-screen task management, applets, hibernation, and so on) it's losing that intermediate-to-advanced crowd that's responsible for bringing users on-board. The power user demographic isn't going to recommend and support GNOME 3-based systems if they've already jumped ship.

Just how does GNOME intend to put the GNOME Shell into the hands of new users? By chasing away its current base with a brand new interface designed to be "easy," and with no clear strategy for acquiring an easy-seeking audience, GNOME simultaneously shoots itself in the head and foot.

And finally:

Using GNOME Shell is an exercise in supreme frustration. After spending the first month with this interface, I wanted to crawl into a corner and die.

Just the reaction the GNOME devs were hoping for, no? I kind of wonder how long Fedora will stick with it given that.

Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39421117)

I never even got gnome to start after ugragrading to Fedora16 system, so just went back to Enlightenment17 which goes to the opposite extreme of letting you customise everything while having quite sane defaults.
I've tried the new gnome from a live CD, but from the little I've used it I became so pissed off that I even prefer the old early 1990s style TWM (which I used last week). Perhaps the initial defaults should be changed so it works more reliably and pisses people off a bit less on initial use. Maybe all it would take is a README file linked from an icon on the desktop, some sort of intro animation, or even just a web page describing why it is the way it is and the benefits.

Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39423093)

You might want to check Cinnamon out. Seems quite impressive.

Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417251)

Tom's Hardware scored a few points with me today.

Definitely. I could feel his agony, having tried Gnome 3 myself on Fedora in a VM. His pain threshold is obviously much higher than mine, as he stuck to it for a couple of months...

Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417273)

One thing the review left out, but others have alluded to is that Gnome 3 may not be the only desktop one uses. I've used both Gnome Shell and Unity quite a bit and if they were all I had to use, I could more readily adapt to them. However, I also have to use Windows a lot and going back and forth between them is cumbersome.

Under Gnome 2, XFCE and KDE, at least my desktop functions similarly in all cases (menu bar, task list, notifications, etc.). I don't have to think to switch tasks on this computer, I need to do this and on this computer I need to do that. I don't think I am alone on that.

I have no doubt that I could set my mother up to use Gnome 3 and it's shell and she would get along quite well with it. She only has the one computer and once she was familiar with how to do things, she'd be fine. However, I, and many /.ters have multiple computers at home and work and we don't necessarily have the luxury of choosing the OS or desktop environment. In these cases, similar functionality is more important than sexiness.

I do agree, however, that the Tom's Hardware review was extremely well done. Then again, I agree with their findings, so maybe I'm biased.

Got used to Gnome 3 (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415543)

After a while of using it, I got used to it. I still find myself trying to launch and switch tasks the old way, but the new way is not bad. Nowhere near as extreme as Windows 8. Still have trouble using that, and we have been testing it since November.

The extensions are what makes it work for me, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39415615)

Deep down, I'm still longing for the days where everything was simple and in 2D (everything going through OpenGL has some performance implications) and the default Gnome 3 desktop irks me in many ways, but I've got a couple extensions installed that make it sort of work for me. I'm still not really happy with it, but I feel like there's hope with some of the awesome modifications people are making (still plan on trying Cinnamon). The performance has improved a lot and it's not as bad as it used to be with things like Compiz, but I still miss some of the snappiness I had before, and honestly, it feels slower (especially bad with heavy graphics applications like Inkscape, GIMP, etc) than my Gnome 2 desktop did 5 years ago, which makes me sad.

Re:The extensions are what makes it work for me, b (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416047)

Use gnome-panel and metacity with effects turned off. Everything is instant!

I hear tell (0)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415659)

That there is no way to fix the default interface in Windows 8, of Vista to run like XP. unlike most other OS(like OS X lion where you would fix the trackpad) or most *nix where you can run everything whatever GUI or CL you want, even X. This is pretty much why I only upgraded MS Windows XP when it became clear that MS Windows 7 worked. There is no way to go back with MS.

Note to bash, but the install summary kind of reminds that MS Windows XP for the longest time could not really deal with mass storage devices, such a hard disks, cameras, video recorders, without a special device driver. Even now MS Windows wants a device driver for each flash drive.

Not to say that one thing is good because another is worse, but the issues with the *nix GUIs is they are developed with different viewpoint than say MS or Apple uses. Because they are not what people expect or are used to, and because each iteration might be more radical, users think they are bad. Just like people are hating on Metro without even seeing how it works in the real world over time. Of course it could be clippy.

Re:I hear tell (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415733)

"fix" would be a 3rd party program for win8.

until they come up with some libs they'll only ship for 8, dunno why one should switch though..

Re:I hear tell (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416059)

You think we're bitching about Metro? Wait till it lands in front regular users. I had people freaking out because their desktop looked a little different in Windows 7. They're going to have a fucking aneurysm when 8 hits. Also, people are talking about touch-screen monitors like it is something we are going to have on our desktops. I can see using the TSI for some off-hand UI stuff, but most use is going to have to be mouse driven. It sounds great until you have to lift your hand up to actuate the UI, after a couple of times it gets real old. We have had touch screens employed for their optimal uses for many many years now, the desktop is not one of them.

Why say Tablet UI? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415795)

Can someone please explain to me the whole GNOME Shell/Unity is a tablet interface meme? I understand how people may not like the interface, but I don't understand calling it a mobile one.

Re:Why say Tablet UI? (4, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415931)

Can someone please explain to me the whole GNOME Shell/Unity is a tablet interface meme?

Single-tasking full-screen apps with no application menus, and masses of enforced mouse movement to get anything done? Clicking in the corner of the screen to switch windows doesn't cause RSI when using a table, but it's horrendously bad design when using a mouse.

Unity is fine on my netbook when I just want to check email or look at some web pages, but it's a total cluster-fsck when I try to get any real work done; I'm continually having to move the mouse all over the screen to switch windows, and the stupid task bar is continually blocking the left side of the screen when I move the mouse over there and don't quite stop before the edge (e.g. to use the 'back' button in Firefox).

Re:Why say Tablet UI? (1)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39418699)

Hahaha, you too have discovered the Unity back button hell!

Honestly, the ability to customize the time delay of the taskbar appearing when the mouse touches the edge of the screen is the most obvious and simple feature they could have added. I have always been amazed by Gnome and Ubuntu's distaste for configuration menus. One fully featured config menu would remedy 90% of the problems power users have.

Re:Why say Tablet UI? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39419065)

Unity and GNOME Shell don't open up apps full screen by default though.
The rest seem to be issues with "this is a bad UI because..." and not "this is a tablet UI because..."

If Unity (in its current form) is a tablet UI, how the hell are you supposed to use the global menu when it's such a small touch target and it's only visible on hover?

Re:Why say Tablet UI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39419761)

You know you can switch apps in Unity with the Windows key + number, don't you? And you can change to a different desktop with CTRL+ALT+number. With these shortcuts the Unity experience is not bad at all, only the left popping menu is annoying, but it's getting better in Ubuntu 12.04. I'm a heavy keyboard user and never have to use the mouse to switch windows in Unity.

If you don't have or don't want to use the Windows key you can configure the keyboard to use other key in substitution (I'm using an old IBM Model M keyboard without a Windows key and have it mapped to Caps Lock).

A very complete list of keyboard shortcuts for Unity, worth remembering and using: http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-keyboard-and-mouse-shortcuts.

Re:Why say Tablet UI? (1)

error_logic (1160341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415953)

It does have elements akin to that of tablets in that the activities pane (launcher) is a tiled icon display (like many mobile interfaces...and Windows 8), and there's a focus on having single-layer workspaces with no min/maximizing. Really, though, GNOME 3 has a lot of potential once you apply some of the tweaks mentioned in the article, and browse https://extensions.gnome.org/ [gnome.org] for a bit.

Re:Why say Tablet UI? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417299)

Technically, until either one can deal well with touch screens, neither is a tablet interface. They do, however, look like tablet interfaces.

Cinnamon - what Gnome3 should have been (4, Informative)

Dakiraun (1633747) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415851)

Even though it's barely out of the gates, I tried out Cinnamon, a fork of Gnome3 by the folks that brought us Mint Linux. MUCH better than the base Gnome3.

To keep things short, one could say the biggest point of contention with Gnome3 was how radically different it was from Gnome2, moving from a task-centric way of managing the shell to an application centric method. While great for a novice, this tended to frustrate a lot of power users. Cinnamon allows more flexibility in the shell's method of focus on tasks and applications, essentially letting the user pick whatever point on the scale they prefer. It's a good approach - perhaps the best approach.

I don't know if it's offered for Fedora or Red Hat based Linux's in package form, but you could build it from source if need be.

Why the keyboard hate? (2)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39415879)

This review, like most others, makes a big deal of there being no dock for multitasking. The complaint being that to switch applications you have to mouse to the corner to open the activities screen and then click on the destination. Is it really that hard to use the keyboard instead? Or just press the banner key to get to activities and click on the destination. To me this looks like a big improvement over hunting for the destination on a cluttered desktop. Do you really hate using the keyboard so much that key+click is a totally unacceptable change from move+click?

Re:Why the keyboard hate? (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416033)

Is it really that hard to use the keyboard instead?

It's a GUI, dude. If I wanted to be using the keyboard, I'd use a CLI.

And yes, having to move my hands between mouse and keyboard all the time because they've totally fscked up the mouse interface for no good reason would be incredibly annoying.

You see, here's the thing. Changes are supposed to take what we have and... improve it. When you do that, users are happy and start using the new features and few people complain. But all these new GUIs are a big step backward for desktop users, merely to support a tablet market which does not exist. Android and iOS own the tablet market right now, Microsoft might get a small market share, but no-one is going to be pushing Red Hat tablets any time soon.

Re:Why the keyboard hate? (2)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416559)

Do you play games with just a mouse? Or do your browsing habits require you have a free hand for a non computer related peripheral?

Re:Why the keyboard hate? (1)

error_logic (1160341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416579)

This is overlooking the convenience of throwing your mouse to the upper left for accessing the very same features quickly. As one of the 5 instant-access points of mouse interaction (the four corners and what's already under the cursor) there's little difference between that and having a hotkey. It's really not that bad. Once that view is up, other window targets are also generally larger.

Now, default alt-tab switching on the other hand...one of the many reasons for installing a ton of extensions, for sure.

Re:Why the keyboard hate? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39423205)

This is overlooking the convenience of throwing your mouse to the upper left for accessing the very same features quickly. As one of the 5 instant-access points of mouse interaction (the four corners and what's already under the cursor) there's little difference between that and having a hotkey. It's really not that bad.

Thus speaks someone who can't imagine users having more than one monitor (nor very large monitors).
For one thing, with multiple monitors, the edges don't necessarily stop the mouse. And with high resolutions, you have to move the mouse quite a bit to get from one part of the screen to another.
Trying to use Gnome 3 with multiple high-res monitors and multiple windows for each app is inviting RSI.

Re:Why the keyboard hate? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416321)

If I loved using the keyboard so much I'd use GNU screen or similar.

If a GUI developer can't create a GUI that helps people manage tasks better than "screen" (or similar) then that GUI developer should find something else to do and stop wasting time and resources.

It's so bad that conspiracy theorists could suspect Microsoft/Apple are paying these "GUI developers" to sabotage Desktop Linux.

Re:Why the keyboard hate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417175)

This is a false dichotomy; one need not 'hate' the keyboard to complain that the feature is unavailable using a pointer. The complaint assumes the feature is important enough to be accessible using both keyboards and pointers. How a pointer provides feature this has been a solved problem for at least 17 years; Win95 provided a task bar that would hide and reappear as the pointer approached. Your 'hunting' characterization is exaggerated; edges and corners are easy to find.

Gnome developers are indulging their own prerogatives. They stopped listening to actual users long ago. Thus, desirable and useful features like this go missing.

OS-button (1)

MM-tng (585125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39416159)

Gnome 3, once you start hitting the os-button you will never go back. The shell is awsome :)

just use fx64 linux instead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416269)

"It begins with an installation guide, with instructions for enabling third-party repos, proprietary graphics drivers, Wi-Fi, Flash, Java, multimedia codecs, and 32-bit libs."

just use fx64 linux instead and save yourself the trouble!

meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39416941)

real users use fvwm2

"Live" install (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39417801)

Why is the default download type a "live" CD? Choosing "Applications -> Install to hard drive" doesn't seem at all intuitive. Granted, I installed on a virtual machine which kicked Fedora into "fallback mode" (no display drivers yet) on first boot so maybe that prevented a dialog from displaying.

Shoutout to KDE developers: Don't screw it up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39417885)

Just reminding all KDE developers reading this - all you have to do to win is not screw up. Learn from Gnome 3 and Unity. Provide us with a good desktop environment, and you'll win. Gnome 3 and Unity will be footnotes in the history of computing soon, and KDE will be going stong.

No Single Page Option; Did Not Read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39418103)

I refuse to click "Next Page" to read anything.
The more people do likewise, the less of this shit we will have to put up with.
They even do it on pages talking about good and bad UIs - well it's a bad farking UI that requires one to click "Netx Page" 30+ times to read an article, wankers.

Tom's hardware... (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39418171)

I wouldn't trust what they say about hardware, let alone Linuxy stuff.

Re:Tom's hardware... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39420171)

Bob's Hardware has always been more reputable in my neck of the woods.
Those evil patent wielding critters at Menard$ chased them outta business though: http://bobshardware.com/

Task switching (1)

raxx7 (205260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39418897)

I've been using Unity (or whatever it was called back then) on my 10.1" netbook since it was available and I never liked it for the desktop.

But I've gown to like Gnome 3 and, in particular, it's task switching.
While Gnome 2 style task switching works well, it becomes a bit painful when you have a more than a few windows in the same desktop.
If I have more than a few, names in the task list buttons will become truncated, which tends to require extra effort to figure out which button I want.
If I have a lot (and I sometimes do), then the task list button will group windows, requiring me to navigate through the groups.

Gnome 3's requirement of the mouse to the upper left corner or pressing the "Windows key" is a hassle, but a very small one in imho.
The Windows key is well at hand, and I don't really move the mouse to the upper left corner: I just throw it there.
And in return, I get a visual overview of all windows. Of course, your mileage may vary but for me it's a boon.

I also like being being able to navigate windows when I keep "Alt+tab" down.
Although I'd prefer if the new scheme was activated just with "Alt+~" and "Alt+tab" operated in a more traditional manner.

Re:Task switching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39421179)

I'm more bothered by the fact that Alt+tab doesn't work on windows as it should. Having dual mode task switching is a great pain. Switching to another window manager the first thing after I install.

Re:Task switching (1)

GoingDown (741380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39424457)

How it should work? Or how one expect its to work?

There is big differences here. For me, Gnome 3 way works perfectly (ALT+TAB walks all applications in all workspaces, ALT+key above walks current application windows).

This is different than traditional way, but which one is correct?

quick summary of tfa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39419553)

it is a 28 page bashing of gnome 3.. nothing we haven't already seen here on /.

GNOME 3 demographic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39419611)

This is a no-brainer. The demographic for the the lack of built-in configuration options and the slashing of functionality is the enterprise desktop that fedora is the development vehicle for; it is designed for IT admin, not the Linux user.

Current desktop environments suck (1)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | more than 2 years ago | (#39421331)

I cannot stand the childish and immature desktop environments that are being forced upon end-users. Unity/Gnome Shell are both awkward, clunky, unusable and feel like a shameless ripoff of Mac OS X in feel. I sure as hell don't want a desktop environment that restricts what I can do and offers me no customization - that sucks. For these reasons I've chosen Xfce4 on all of my Debian installs as it's the only SANE desktop environment left for power users and those with common sense.

Re:Current desktop environments suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39424511)

Right on. I've been having huge problems with adjusting to Unity/GNOME3, but in addition I don't like KDE nor xfce, which leaves me in a bit of a bind really. I've been wanting to like Fedora, since I really appreciate the work RH does for FOSS and the community, but their desktop work is right now god awful.

Gnome 3 wish list (1)

ocratato (2501012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39421447)

I have been using gnome 3 for a few months now. I have applied enough customisations that it is tolerable - not great, but good enough to get real work done.

The three things I would like to see are:

Named Workspaces In addition to the dynamic workspaces, which I quite like as a concept, I want a fixed set of named workspaces for my routine tasks.

Task Display I want to be able to see, at a glance, what is running on a workspace. I do not want to have to switch to the workspace view just to see if something has slipped under another window.

Task Launching The idea that I would want to reuse a terminal session on another workspace is daft. I can see that for some apps it might be OK, but for others its just wrong. This needs to be something that can be set on a per application basis.

Re:Gnome 3 wish list (1)

esldude (1157749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39422629)

Used Gnome 3 Fedora 16 since release on a netbook and laptop. It is characterized as a tablet OS. Sort of is, but not a good one. Too many keyboard shortcuts. What does a tablet lack? A keyboard. Sure touchscreen keyboard is available, but just one more step away from what you want. So if a tablet OS, it is a neurotically ill conceived one. I tried Unity for two weeks and Gnome 3 is definitely preferable. Still, it just isn't good enough. I don't see it as a good tablet OS, Win 8 beats the pants off it for tablets. It has been crippled as a desktop OS. It simply even now months later feels like I am always fighting it to use it. No good OS makes you feel that way. It is stable and solid, just a terrible GUI. Then there is the example of the shutdown. Suspend is available only, actual power off is hidden and not mentioned. I am sorry, that is hard headed dumb assed BS. Why not offer suspend and power off? Only takes one more line, and even on a phone there is plenty of room for it. The developers making these decisions aren't listening. In the end that hard headedness will rightfully cost them. All of these tablet OS's are pitiful. General purpose computers really took off when they were able to allow multi-tasking. Win95 is when PC's became highly useful. Going to APP-centric focus on only one task is a step backwards. Even smartphones will soon have plenty of power for real multi-tasking even on a small screen. This rush to go backwards for most mobile use is stupid. The amount of effort wasted on it is appalling and disturbing.

Good for sandy bridge too (1)

Ateocinico (32734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39423647)

Fedora 16 is also good for core i5. Opensuse 12.1 kernel crashed all the time.

I use it for 3 months now... (1)

boule75 (649166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39424413)

... and I really get accustomed to it.

It is the firt time I find the multi-virtual-desktop thing usable : it becomes very practical to setup multiple virtual desktops for so many different tasks, and it is nice.

I had to customise it a little though, with the folowing extensions, right out from the https://extensions.gnome.org/ [gnome.org] website :
- Coverflow Alt-Tab : Replacement of Alt-Tab, iterates through windows in a cover-flow manner.
- Dash Click Fix : Fix the dash's behavior when you click on an already running icon. The default behaviour is to switch to it, this extension changes that to lanch a new instance instead
- Places Status Indicator : Add a systems status menu for quickly navigating places in the system
- Power Options : Show Suspend, Hibernate (if available) and Power Off options in user menu.
- Remove Accesibility : Remove the accesibility button from the top panel.
- System Monitor : Add a system monitor to the left side of the message tray.

Hardware / software base : Debian "Wheezy" (testing) on a high end full HD laptop with an external monitor attached to it sometimes.
Usage : web / email / some games / office work / platform prototyping with virtual machines, modelling.

The external display behaves like a charm (with really minor glitches : le login screen will somtimes not appear properly if the monitor gets plugged off before one unlocks the screen, but it still work).
I miss the cube. I miss a screensaver, I miss the capacity to change windows themes and colours and the "control pannel" lacks several usefull features, but overall, it is very usable and properly translated in French.

So much moaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39428037)

What a lot of words to say that Gnome3 is not the same as Gnome2, so I don't like it

Living in the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39429989)

What a lot of words to say that he doesn't like Gnome3 because it is not the same as Gnome2.....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>