×

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!

Giving GNOME 3 a GNOME 2 Look

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the fighting-change-by-any-means-necessary dept.

GNOME 181

nanday writes "GNOME Shell Extensions have done more than any other set of features to make GNOME 3 usable. Nearly 270 in number, they provide a degree of customization that was missing in the first GNOME 3 releases. In fact, if you choose, you can use the extensions to go far beyond Classic GNOME and re-create almost exactly the look and feel of GNOME 2 while taking advantage of the latest GNOME 3 code."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

181 comments

As someone who uses GNOME 3... (3, Interesting)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | about 9 months ago | (#44235849)

I dont understand the problems that people have with it. I spent an hours learning it, I kept an open mind and ended up really liking it.

That said - 90% of what I do requires a shell so maybe Im missing something....

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44235895)

I personally must say the same, it gave me a lot less problems than gnome2. All in all, it just worked. I didn't feel the need to configure much, if anything (made middle mouse click be minimize windows).

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 9 months ago | (#44237451)

made middle mouse click be minimize windows

OK, but anyone who has been around *nix for a while, or has the remotest claim to nerd cred should be aware that middle-click is supposed to paste.

Middle-click other than in a text input (1)

tepples (727027) | about 9 months ago | (#44237943)

What should "pasting" into a window's title bar do? Middle-click into a text input pastes the PRIMARY selection, but a title bar is not editable text.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (4, Insightful)

greenfruitsalad (2008354) | about 9 months ago | (#44237591)

What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering.
Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.

Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane.
(Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 9 months ago | (#44238495)

What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering.
Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.

Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane.
(Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)

The original Gnome 3 theme did have a large title bar and extra padding, but that was resolved long ago. Besides, there are a myriad of themes with different sized title bars and widgets to choose from.

As for dynamic workspaces, you can turn those off and use fixed ones, if you like and you can even add back the maximize/minimize buttons. In reality, Gnome 3 is pretty flexible. It's a shame it was released when it was because of outside pressure. If it had matured a little longer so more of the pieces were in place, it probably would have been much better received. KDE4 had the same issue, it's early release wasn't meant for every day use and they lost a lot of users, too.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (4, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 9 months ago | (#44235915)

Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44235925)

Exactly. Grouping by apps is incompatible with my workflow. End of story.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 9 months ago | (#44235993)

regain something approaching my old workflow

I know, it took me ages to get back the spacebar heating feature. :P

(But yeah, random UI redesigns can be annoying as hell. Personally, I kind of like the gnome-shell desktop - and at least it's better than freaking Unity - but on the other hand I'm not over gnome-terminal losing transparency. Currently I'm holding on to the old version as long as possible.)

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 9 months ago | (#44238527)

Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.

That's strange, because apt-get install xfce or its equivalent usually only takes about 10 minutes unless you have a really slow connection.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236149)

The big thing for me when GNOME 3 was forced on me all floppy was the lack of reconfigurability. I had various launchers on a hidden short panel on one side of the screen, CPU|RAM|Video thermal monitor along with CPU|RAM|NET usage graphs, weather, various other pieces WHERE EVER THE HELL I wanted them. And if I wanted a Win7-like menu, I had that too, along with gnome-do.

Fast forward to floppy dick. The menu is here. No you can not put stuff on it. Fuck you you like it like this. I don't think you should even be able to change the background in case someone sees your machine in a coffee shop and doesn't know that it is GNOME 3 at a glance, but we'll let that slide.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2)

miknix (1047580) | about 9 months ago | (#44236245)

For starters, the quality of the extensions is lower than Gnome 2 applets - specially the system monitoring extension. When a single extension crashes in Gnome 3, the whole panel goes MIA, unlike Gnome 2.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 9 months ago | (#44237691)

What finally did it for me was the "you shouldn't even be allowed to have widgets or themes" attitude of the Gnome devs. I'd tolerated Gnome shell despite its flaws up until then. With that kind of vision, we're eventually going to be very much at odds eventually, as I think Linux is all about options, and I like configuring my desktop to look and work the way *I* want. It's the same as iOS. If you think you'll be always be happy with someone elses' design, then by all means, stick with it, otherwise, get out as soon as you can.

I moved to KDE and wish I'd done so earlier. It's fantastic, and doesn't get the attention it deserves from the Linux community.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 9 months ago | (#44238643)

What finally did it for me was the "you shouldn't even be allowed to have widgets or themes" attitude of the Gnome devs. I'd tolerated Gnome shell despite its flaws up until then. With that kind of vision, we're eventually going to be very much at odds eventually, as I think Linux is all about options, and I like configuring my desktop to look and work the way *I* want. It's the same as iOS. If you think you'll be always be happy with someone elses' design, then by all means, stick with it, otherwise, get out as soon as you can.

I moved to KDE and wish I'd done so earlier. It's fantastic, and doesn't get the attention it deserves from the Linux community.

I've heard that complaint about the gnome devs, but have yet to find actual evidence of it. It seems that if they really thought that way, they wouldn't have made gnome-shell extensible so that one could change widget and themes. The fact that they didn't build the initial tool to make those changes, while frustrating, is understandable as changing themes was not as high a priority as getting the rest of it working.

As for KDE, yes, it is very good and extensible, too. However, if you had switched earlier, before it stabalized, you would be complaining about it, too, just like the many kde users were when KDE4 came out.

What hurt Gnome 3 the most is the same thing that hurt KDE 4. Distros switched right away to the new versions of both, even though they weren't ready for average users. They should have stuck with Gnome 2 (and KDE 3) for another release or two, but allowed the new versions to be installed. That way, once the initial version 1.0 kinks got worked out, the transition for most users would have been much smoother. Then again, the Gnome and KDE devs don't have much say over what the distros do.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (5, Informative)

lvxferre (2470098) | about 9 months ago | (#44236349)

The hate against GNOME 3 has mixed origins. Some are natural, as "they changed now it sucks" reactions; the fact GNOME 2 was/is great also doesn't help at all. Some are because the software is new and nowhere mature. But some are genuine complaints from the users for GNOME 3 not actually improving their experience, but getting in the way to do common tasks - the devs confused "simple" with "simplistic" and are completely deaf for users' requests (some as simple as putting back in 3.7 a background configuration already present in 3.6 [gnome.org] .

As for me, I just moved to MATE when the whole thing happened and I'm quite happy with it.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44236627)

In all fairness the Gnome 2 userbase was not the desired userbase for Gnome 3. So being "deaf" was part of the design. Gnome wanted to shift its target market.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (3, Insightful)

Ignacio (1465) | about 9 months ago | (#44237227)

So then they shouldn't have called Gnome 3 "Gnome". Just like Microsoft shouldn't have called Windows 8 "Windows".

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44237647)

I agree with you on Gnome 3. When you want to shift user bases you should rename the product. The problem is the developers see "Gnome" as not being the desktop but rather the GNU Object Model which has been updated. The users of the GNU Object Model are the developers not the users of the desktop.

Microsoft wants the Windows 7 community to migrate to Windows 8. On the other hand I think there would be a lot less friction if they had called it "Metro OS the successor to Windows" and had made it clear Windows 7 was the last version of Windows in the traditional sense.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

TWX (665546) | about 9 months ago | (#44237879)

Heh. I'm no developer nor have I ever been and I loaded Linux for the first time in many years over the weekend for a new box. When Gnome loaded, my first though was, "What the hell is this?"

My second thought was, "Maybe KDE still looks a little like HP's CDE and will actually make sense". When I have a chance I may give it a shot.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 9 months ago | (#44238743)

So then they shouldn't have called Gnome 3 "Gnome". Just like Microsoft shouldn't have called Windows 8 "Windows".

Not really. After all Gnome 2 is open source. If the the target base for Gnome 3 was different than Gnome 2, there was nothing stopping somebody from picking up the Gnome 2 base and continuing it. Which is what the Mate desktop basically is. The same thing happened with KDE 3 and there is Trinity. However, Trinity has a very small user base compared to the original KDE 3 base and only time will tell if Mate is successful in keeping the Gnome 2 interface alive or not.

Gnome 3 is the third iteration of the Gnome Desktop Environment, there is no reason for it not to include the 3.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237827)

the fact GNOME 2 was/is great also doesn't help at all.

Gnome 2 wasn't great. But it was sufficient.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (0)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 9 months ago | (#44236399)

I dont understand the problems that people have with it. I spent an hours learning it, I kept an open mind and ended up really liking it.

That said - 90% of what I do requires a shell so maybe Im missing something....

No, there is nothing you are missing I don't get the upheaval over Gnome 3 either. Some people just can't stand anything changing and there is a certain small subset that group that likes to kill time by searching for crap to get angry over and make a lot of noise about it. The rest of the Gnome 2 traditionalists have simply realised that there is a growing collection of (how many is it now?) Gnome 2 forks out there and they are only a yum/apt-get away. Mate for example is now at version 1.6 and there is a Linux Mint LiveDVD that comes preinstalled with it [linuxmint.com] .

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (5, Insightful)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 9 months ago | (#44236967)

No, there is nothing you are missing I don't get the upheaval over Gnome 3 either. Some people just can't stand anything changing and there is a certain small subset that group that likes to kill time by searching for crap to get angry over and make a lot of noise about it. The rest of the Gnome 2 traditionalists have simply realised that there is a growing collection of (how many is it now?) Gnome 2 forks out there and they are only a yum/apt-get away. Mate for example is now at version 1.6 and there is a Linux Mint LiveDVD that comes preinstalled with it [linuxmint.com] .

I'm not someone who froths at the mouth and gnaws my desk every time something changes. Even the perpetual shuffle on Windows only annoys me (OK, so what is the Nitwit Neighborhood called in this release?).

But Gnome3 took away critical desktop assets that I used every day and all day. THAT is what the upheaval is about. It didn't change them, it removed them and left nothing comparable in its place. And that is what had me screaming in rage.

I switched to Cinnamon, which replaces some, though not all of what I lost, and I don't mind the fact that it looks like Gnome3 at all.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

smi.james.th (1706780) | about 9 months ago | (#44238161)

I was about to say, what about Cinnamon? I've never run into a shortcoming of Cinnamon, though I'll admit I'm not as much of a power-user as some.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237851)

Some people just can't stand anything changing

Again, for the 100th time, I must patiently explain that it's not the change itself that's the problem.

The problem is when the change takes away features and functionality, or hides them.

For example, Windows underwent a significant amount of UI design change between 3.1 and WinXP, and almost all of it was an improvement.

But we now have a new generation of UI designers who are operating on the theory that if you hide or remove features and functionality, it will make the interface better. We've seen the dismal results of their work: Canonical Unity, GNOME 3, and Windows 8 -- all resoundingly criticized for the hiding and/or removal of features, and for abandoning the crucial principle of discoverability.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2, Interesting)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 9 months ago | (#44236589)

These are the people who think that Win95 was the apex of UI design. Leave them to their retro revelry.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

ta_gueule (2795275) | about 9 months ago | (#44237729)

Because you think menus and overlapping windows come from Win95? Win95 is nothing special. it just uses the same interface all other desktop computers with a mouse and a keyboard use.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

TWX (665546) | about 9 months ago | (#44237963)

Windows 95 did something important, it created both a go-to button for the bulk of tasks for the novice user, it created an intuitive (albeit clunky underneath) method to handle files as a component of the user interface, and it showed a list of active applications on-screen with the taskbar.

Initially Apple left off an easy way to manage open applications. I've seen lots of people confused over where their Clarisworks was because it was running but hidden and they didn't know how to switch to it. I've seen people confused in Windows 3.x because their running programs looked more like files on the desktop, and their files weren't on the desktop, and god-help-them if someone minimized Program Manager.

Unfortunately when it comes to the mainstream, those are really the only two that have significant market penetration.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236607)

As someone who speaks Chinese mandarin....

I don't understand the problems that people have with it. I spent years leaning it, I kept an open mind and ended up really liking it.

The problem is that when you try to FORCE people to spend hours relearning something that worked, they feel bad, they feel angry(because they have work to do that they can't because someone else want to tell them what to do), they feel betrayed. When people feel bad they can't learn or they don't want to.

I use Ubuntu Unity every single day. It works, now, after lots of problems and bugs that were not in Gnome(just changing my desktop, crash, searching something, crash). People wonder "Why I have to stand this?" and the only answer is "because a designer thought so in his Ivory tower without thinking in the real consequences for their users".

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44236615)

/. has become ultra conservative when it comes to interface changes. Any substantial change of a piece of software is going to involve some things getting worse in exchange for more things getting better. Which means complex existing workflows likely will have to change. They don't like that even though existing workflows usually stifle innovation.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237583)

So please tell me what got better with Gnome 3? And please, restrict yourself to things which could not have been done with a Gnome 2 style interface.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44237813)

Well for one thing what the article is about, the fact that the desktop is extensible with Javascript. We now have something for the GUI that can play a similar roleto shell scripts for the command line.

Support for touch

Integrated notification system

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (2)

Shark (78448) | about 9 months ago | (#44238425)

I may be naive, but I think adapting the workflow to the interface is backward. The interface is there to allow you to work, it should adapt itself to *your* workflow. With Gnome 2, if you wanted a pannel on the right side of the screen, you put a pannel on the right side of the screen. If you wanted a taskbar on the left side, you put a taskbar on the left. If you wanted the notification area in a specific corner, you put it there.

People cling to Gnome 2 because it at least granted them the freedom to adjust the interface to their workflow and the ability to do so was built into the interface. You had various components and while the default layout was alright, it was only that, a default layout, you could lay them out however you pleased. Now it's all integrated for the sake of integration with no real benefit except perhaps if your workflow happened to meet the dev's vision.

Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237857)

I dont understand the problems that people have with it. I spent an hours learning it, I kept an open mind and ended up really liking it.

Do you also like the crashes, or perhaps your GNOME 3 doesn't crash on you? Have you ever seen the sad computer and the words "something has gone wrong"? Many people get a lot of this. Quite often just by activating an extension or clicking a panel icon.

For me, there are two big problems with GNOME 3: the first is technical, the second political. The technical problem concerns the stability of the shell, which is, unfortunately, a never-ending story, due to to the close integration of the extensions with the shell/panel -- errors in extensions too often crash the shell. I'm really glad I've switched to Cinnamon, since with their panel applets, which use a stable API, I see that a lot less often. One would think two years after release is enough to stabilize the environment, but no. A new version still crashes old extensions, new extensions that catch up with the new version introduce new bugs, and their bugs still crash the whole shell session. A few times it even crashed my X11 session altogether.

The political problem consists of the decision to alienate the existing user base in order to satisfy a non-existent user base, that is, users of tablets and smartphones. The default GNOME 3 UI doesn't make much sense on a desktop PC, period. For people who'd built their workflows around GNOME 2 and had learnt it by heart, the defaults of the new UI are pulling rugs from under their feet. This of course can be alleviated by using extensions that re-create the old experience, but then the "something has gone wrong" story begins.

I appreciate and support a lot of (most? all?) changes under the hood that took place in GNOME 3, but the UI is a disaster. That's why you see MATE and Cinnamon gaining traction.

a couple years late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44235851)

everyone who was a gnome2 user switched to xfce or something similar.

Re:a couple years late (0)

rvw (755107) | about 9 months ago | (#44235903)

everyone who was a gnome2 user switched to xfce or something similar.

Except for me. I use Ubuntu at work as my daily desktop. I used 11.04 as long as possible because I didn't like Unity at all, but in October 2012 I had to move on. I reinstalled my system because the upgrade went wrong for some reason and wanted to use 12.04LTS only. Some apps don't have a tray icon anymore. I still don't like the way the app launcher works. It's not a big issue for me but I can understand that many people find it non intuitive. The most irritating is the disappearing menu - I want it to be there all the time. I'm going to try Gnome 3 and see how that works out. Maybe it's better, but Unity is workable for me. Compiz is garbage however, crashes many times.

Re:a couple years late (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 9 months ago | (#44236145)

I used to use ubuntu. Took one look at Unity and switched to xubuntu.

Re:a couple years late (2)

Mashdar (876825) | about 9 months ago | (#44236943)

I used 12.04 for a long time without Unity by installing the gnome-desktop package, which IIRC was Gnome 3.

I've recently switched to Mint 14 on MATE (modified Gnome 2) and have not had any regrets.

I did have to bind ctrl+alt+t to open a terminal, though :)

Re:a couple years late (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237905)

I used to use ubuntu. Took one look at Unity and switched to xubuntu.

Similar to me, except that I took the opportunity to rediscover KDE and found that it was a very polished and pleasant desktop.

I'm actually glad that GNOME self-destructed, forcing me to learn that a better desktop existed.

Re:a couple years late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44235913)

or just still using gnome2 (either via MATE or using a slow moving distro). From these folks point of view GNOME3 is a whole different product rather than an upgrade.

Suppose you like abiword. you wouldn't 'upgrade' to libreoffice and then spend a day installing plugins to try to make it behave like abiword.

Re:a couple years late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236443)

Trayvon Martin was a Gnome 2 user.

One time, on a dark and stormy night, he took one look at Gnome 3 and cried "Someone please just shoot me."

gnome-shell only bad for geeks (2)

deaf.seven (2669973) | about 9 months ago | (#44235927)

I've installed Ubuntu with gnome-shell for 3 computer illiterate friends.
Once I've explained them that they should always work with the super key (on most keyboards windows key) and if they want to start something just type it into the startmenu (I also installed gnome-do on F4, because it's a little faster and I like it better), then they didn't have any problems with it at all.
(One of that friend actually tried out unity too and even liked it!)

I remember when I first upgraded to Ubuntu 11.10 (I think it was that one where gnome2 was removed and unity & gnome-shell were available), I was really disappointed and I really regretted having upgraded.
But I gave it a shot and I started to like it. I often like to use it on my laptop when I'm traveling. (On my desktop I use the i3 tiling window manager, strongly recommendable)

The point is: I believe it's mostly the geeks that have used static panels with static start menus for the past 10+ years that have the most problems with gnome-shell.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44235955)

More or less. I see comments here about preserving their workflow, which doesn't work - the thing with these new desktops (GNOME Shell, Unity) is that they do require you to adopt new workflows, and that's a problem for a lot of the people who do things like posting Slashdot comments.

Personally I really like GNOME Shell, although I'm using Unity at the moment due to various issues non-Ubuntu distros are having with my brand new laptop and Ubuntu's version of GNOME 3 being just wrong enough to be annoying. And actually, Unity's okay, although I still find the menu handling concepts extremely dubious and find that the search interface isn't anywhere near as fluid or convenient as that in GNOME Shell.

What I really want, actually, is for Unity and Shell to get together and share their best bits, because they both have awesome concepts going on.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (2)

gfxguy (98788) | about 9 months ago | (#44236059)

Well, that was it for me - Unity completely violated my work-flow, multiple documents open on a very large monitor, with focus-follows-mouse. It didn't work for me on MacOS, and it didn't work for me in Unity. Then I got a new laptop and installed 12.10 on it... I don't like how small laptop screens have gotten (4x3 ratios actually give more pixels and more useful vertical space); in this case, I only want one window at a time because of the screen size, and having the launcher on the side (and no app-bar, or whatever you want to call it) saves crucial vertical space. So I got accustomed to it on the laptop... which helped me get accustomed to it on the desktop. I still hate the Mac UI, and I still have problems with Unity configurations (I just don't feel like spending so much time tweaking and still not getting things just right), but I find it usable, at least. I have a feeling I'll be spending a lot of time tweaking the UI today because now it's in my head. Thanks, slashdot.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (1)

MrWindmill (2919231) | about 9 months ago | (#44236125)

I used Ubuntu from 7.04 right up to 11.04 when they introduced Unity. I personally found it disrupting my workflow too much, so I tried Gnome 3 for a few months, and then XFCE. That was when I heard about Linux Mint and tried the MATE edition. Loved it, but missed the pretty Compiz animations from the Gnome 2 days. I've finally settled on Cinnamon as my favourite DE currently.

I always loved the Gnome 2 look and feel, and I found it much easier to customise Cinnamon (than Gnome 3) to look like Gnome 2. As a DE, it's still not as mature as Gnome and is missing a few minor features, but it seems to be getting there. I'd say it's worth a try for anyone looking for a modern version of a Gnome2-ish look.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (0)

loufoque (1400831) | about 9 months ago | (#44236037)

Why you think that displaying the mediocrity of your friends on slashdot legitimates GNOME 3 is beyond me.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#44236281)

Why you think that displaying the mediocrity of your friends on slashdot legitimates GNOME 3 is beyond me.

it's a form of "it's just not for you".

fyi, his friends would have been just as happy if not happier with icewm. it's not like they had any choice. it's a mystery how his friends know what magic to type into the start menu - which gets us to the why a gui was a wonderful addition to pc's, you didn't have to magically know what apps you have for a task.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (0)

loufoque (1400831) | about 9 months ago | (#44236409)

My point is that what computer illiterate people are content with is fairly irrelevant with regards to the quality of what they use.
I was also trying to troll a bit. I dislike how in every slashdot threads geeks feel obliged to talk about the handle the technology that their friends, wife or family might be using.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (1)

ta_gueule (2795275) | about 9 months ago | (#44237689)

Nope. My gf hates it, my mother hates it too. Nothing is discoverable. People like to be told what they can do with the computer. Typing things on the keyboard or reading documentation is for geeks.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237787)

I'm a professional *nix admin, and I absolutely LOVE Gnome 3. The people whining are just a vocal minority. Most people who are moderately displeased will go use a different DE. The loud minority that REALLY hate it, use a different DE, then bitch about it. Most people just use whatever their distro came with, which is usually Ubuntu or Mint currently. Fedora seems to be the big distro using Gnome 3 at the moment, and that distro is meant for developers and bleeding edge users wanting to see and test the newest developments in linux.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237883)

Ah, so you are saying that gnome-shell is only bad for Linux users. Because face it, apart from servers (where the GUI is a non-issue anyway) the vast majority of Linux users consists of geeks.

Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44238279)

No. It's not "geeks", it's "users of GNOME 2". That is, the existing user-base of GNOME. Which can be proved by examples of my family and friends that I personally had migrated to GNOME 2 a long time ago -- no geeks among them -- who shared the critical opinions about GNOME 3 _usability_ (on the other hand, there was a lot of "Oooo.... Candy" about its looks).

why bother? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44235937)

I know this will invite a flame or three, but the proper response here is Mate [mate-desktop.org] .

Mate Cinnamon and Gnome3+Extensions (4, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 9 months ago | (#44236087)

I know this will invite a flame or three, but the proper response here is Mate [mate-desktop.org] .

Mate http://mate-desktop.org/about/ [mate-desktop.org]
"MATE is a fork of GNOME 2.
It provides an intuitive and attractive desktop to Linux users using traditional metaphors."

Cinnamon (although same as Gnome 3 with extensions) http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/ [linuxmint.com]
"Traditional layout, advanced features, easy to use, powerful, flexible."

Can you not see the difference. The real question is why use Mate.

Re:Mate Cinnamon and Gnome3+Extensions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236239)

"Traditional layout, advanced features, easy to use, powerful, flexible."

You forgot slower and buggier than Mate. Would you like to try again?

Cinnamon still missing window previews in pager (2)

caseih (160668) | about 9 months ago | (#44236559)

Cinnamon and Gnome 3 still are missing one vital feature from Gnome 2 and Mate. That is the key feature of showing window previews in the pager. This is a powerful feature that helps make virtual desktops a bit more easy to use. Seeing a bunch of boxes with numbers in them is far less useful. This sort of thing has been available in old X11 pagers for about 20 years or more. Why can Cinnamon not do it too? I rely on this feature to mind me what apps are running where.

Re:Cinnamon still missing window previews in pager (2)

IANAAC (692242) | about 9 months ago | (#44236837)

Cinnamon and Gnome 3 still are missing one vital feature from Gnome 2 and Mate. That is the key feature of showing window previews in the pager. This is a powerful feature that helps make virtual desktops a bit more easy to use.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... I get this feature with Gnome3/Gnome Shell, although I installed an extension to get a better version of it, called Workspace Navigator. It actually provides a better overview than Gnome2 did for me. If I forget what's where, I just hit the super key and can see what's running on each virtual desktop.

Truthfully, I like the idea of having extensions. I only install the functionality I need. I also like that I don't have to deal with Compiz in Gnome Shell. While it was fine with earlier versions of Ubuntu, the version of Compiz that ships with Ubuntu (at least with 12.04) is really garbage.

Mate and Trinity desktops (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 9 months ago | (#44235967)

Mate is really popular, and Trinity is a forked build of KDE-3.x both desktops i liked a lot back when Gnome-2.x and KDE-3.x were being included in Linux distros, i have Mate on a Debian Wheezy desktop, and it works great, have not tried Trinity lately so i dont know the status of it but it seemed to be along the same lines as the KDE-3.x build,. seems like those two third party desktop environments would be more popular, and even built as portable as possible so a Linux user can untar in ~/ and fix up an ~/.xinitrc file to launch it and BAM! you got your cool retro desktop

Lubuntu Fan (3, Insightful)

misfit815 (875442) | about 9 months ago | (#44236023)

Gnome 3 is why I switched to Lubuntu (LXDE) and I've been very happy with it ever since. But if you have to jump through so many hoops to make your software behave like you want it to behave, then something's fundamentally flawed.

Too little, too late (1)

mfearby (1653) | about 9 months ago | (#44236063)

Why should I put in hours and hours trying to make bad software usable? I used Linux for 5 years until 8 months ago when I finally gave up on Linux because GNOME 2.30 was consigned to the dustbin and I got sick of the alternatives. Since then I've bought a Mac and never been happier. Sure, the Finder is utterly pathetic, and I pine for a taskbar to replace the dock, but apart from those two abominations, every other aspect of the Mac experience is without equal. So having a crappy file manager and no task bar is a price worth paying. But since GNOME shell ruined more than it improved, the Mac is by far the lesser of all the evils currently on offer. Sorry, Linux, but your fascination with throwing the baby out with the desktop environment bath water every few years is doing more harm than good; it's alienating users more than it's winning new converts!

PS: yes, I also wish my home and end keys actually did something useful on the Mac; thank goodness for the Keyfixer Firefox addon.

Apple stuck in 90's (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 9 months ago | (#44236153)

Since then I've bought a Mac and never been happier.

Ironically I have used Mac regular, and back 8 years ago would recommend them (when the top end where reasonable value and their software shined), today they look and run like overpriced dinosaurs, with gimmicks like cylinder cases with no real innovation. Now I use Gnome or XFCE and both are better, and its lightening fast. In short the MAC is overpriced brand trash.

I'm not even alone Mac sales are being crushed dropping 22% and 2% over last two quarters, yet Linux usage continues to rise.

Your trolling. The topic is about Gnome Shell (Default) vs Desktop Metaphor (Note I don't add traditional before it) and not about Apple who have lets be honest have abandoned their Desktop.

Re:Apple stuck in 90's (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44236679)

Well we have more of your made up statistics. The comparison for a season company is YOY which is mainly flat. That would be like talking about how clothing stores sales are crushed in the 1st quarter because they aren't doing anything like their christmas volumes.

As for abandoning the desktop: Macbook Pro Retina, New iMac form factor, Mac Pro were all this year.

Apple is failing on the Deskop (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 9 months ago | (#44237405)

Well we have more of your made up statistics.

I use Apples Earning Releases for my statistics. You should be able to see them in Firefox.
Q1 2013 Unaudited Summary Data http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q1fy13datasum.pdf [apple.com]
Q2 2013 Unaudited Summary Data http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q2fy13datasum2.pdf [apple.com]

Year on Year Change for Units was down 22% and 2% as previously stated.

No apology necessary.

Re:Apple is failing on the Deskop (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44237903)

I didn't say they were false, I said there were highly misleading and not the way anyone does comparisons in a company with an annual sales cycle.

Apple is fucking its customers again (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 9 months ago | (#44238381)

I didn't say they were false, I said there were highly misleading and not the way anyone does comparisons in a company with an annual sales cycle.

No you called me a serial lair...and I re-quote "we have more of your made up statistics" because the the truth does not reflect the image you want to portray...and then lie about your actions. In reality we notice Apple is making more revenue from less units...which sounds like Apples usual sacrificing market share for profits. Good for them...sucks for its customers, who already pay too much for their mid-range products, better buy a Lenovo...everyone else is.

Seriously though think about your behaviour.

Re:Apple is fucking its customers again (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44238673)

You are a serial liar. "Mac sales are being crushed". That is sort of terminology is not used for a product on an annual cycle.

Mac Units:
2Q2013 3952k
2Q2012 4017k

1Q2013 4061k
1Q2013 4017k

Their sales on Macs are flat. There is no "more revenue from less units" nonsense. If you are reading Apple reports they quote year over year statistics and they do so for a very good reason, their products have 20% deviations between different quarters every year. That means nothing other than their products are cyclical. Pretending that's not the case and talking about quarter over quarter numbers is lying.

Re:Apple stuck in 90's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237151)

Apple has not to abandon the desktop because there are million of users in the world loving OS X (and developers too) and Mavericks proves (if it is necessary) Apple has one of the best desktop available and with Cocoa the have also best development environments.
I code from years on any platform and nothing is better then Cocoa + objective-C in productivity terms (if you know them enough and not the bare minimum to put some crap on the app store).

On the opposite Microsoft already DID it. Desktop is dead on Microsoft because they killed it.
And regarding Linux I love it and I would love to develop for it (probably using Qt) if someone would only spend 1 $ for Linux software.

So stop your non-sense sentences on OS X which, in the long run, is becoming the only true desktop environment where developers can invest on and get true money back

Re:Too little, too late (1)

RDW (41497) | about 9 months ago | (#44236185)

Why should I put in hours and hours trying to make bad software usable? I used Linux for 5 years until 8 months ago when I finally gave up on Linux because GNOME 2.30 was consigned to the dustbin and I got sick of the alternatives.

8 months ago you could have spend 5 minutes installing MATE, which is really just Gnome 2 (rescued from the dustbin, cleaned up, and now nicely polished). It's not really 'Linux' that's the problem, just the attitude of the Gnome developers (who, to be fair, do seem to be coming to their senses lately).

Re:Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236665)

Gnome developers have the same attitude that Apple UI developers (and the Windows 8 team of UI developers). Apple get away with it because of the RDF, but both Apple and MS have lock-in on the product, so both can manage to push people to their "vision".

Gnome don't have the lock-in to push people to their "vision".

Therefore their antics are far more noted than Microsoft's, never mind Apple's.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 9 months ago | (#44237965)

I like Gnome 3 and think they did the right thing in terms of the shift. That being said, Gnome developers were incredibly arrogant in 2011. To pick a fight with Canonical, the system for the majority of their users base, was insane. To do it at the same time they were bringing out a major update was incredibly destructive. It is hard to imagine how they could have handled this release worse.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#44236961)

so.. because a window manager/"desktop environmen" which provides pretty much just a taskbar and a file manager you went to a system that has steaming pile of poo for both? (dock is a taskbar. it's just very shitty at being a taskbar, but fundamentally that's what it is. my personal favorite is the tiny led lights for showing if the app is on or not).

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236069)

We convince some really big company with a major influence on the computer industry -- Microsoft, perhaps -- to design a new interface. And not just an interface for desktops and laptops, mind you, but one that can work on phones as well. Think of how great that would be, to have a single user interface across all your devices!

I tremble at the thought of how wonderful that would be...

yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236099)

draw a mustache on aunty and call her uncle.

they would have thought all this earlier.

The architecture is flawed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236117)

The usability of GNOME Shell on normal computers (the ones with 24" screens, not the ones you put in your pocket) maybe can be fixed with extensions. The problem however is that GNOME Shell architecture is fundamentally flawed. The gnome-shell process is doing so many things in one single process: in addition to the task of a window manager it is doing things as disparate as enumerating the apps you have installed, showing your network state or the instant messaging state, etc... A bug in any of those components can lead to a lockup of the whole session (because gnome-shell manages composition). Result: at least once per week my session hangs and I have to go through dirty tricks to resurrect it. How it was possible that such an architecture was adopted is beyond my imagination. This is completely unacceptable and is the reason why I'm going to migrate to something more stable as soon as I can.

While we are at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236127)

I am looking forward to plugins to make MATE look like KDE4, KDE4 to look like TWM, TWM to look like GNOME3. Freedom is about choosing a window manager and making it look like another one.

Just works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236193)

Using gnome 3 in the first few hours got me headache (I just haven't found anything), but then I've realized that they created a really useful desktop environment.

Gnome 1 rocks (4, Interesting)

water-and-sewer (612923) | about 9 months ago | (#44236223)

Just for fun last week I reinstalled one of the first distros that really got me cooking on Linux: SUSE 8.0, running KDE3.0 and Gnome 1. And you know what, I think Gnome 1 is the version that worked for me - sawfish windowmanager,hugely tweakable, some cool themes, and so on. Yes, the apps were in an earlier and less-useful state, but as a desktop, it was pretty cool.

I had a fun time going down nostalgia lane with apps like Balsa and Spruce and even the early versions of Nautilus file manager (long before they went nuts on the "spatial" metaphor etc.) and even early version of the Pan newsreader.

Maybe it's nostalgia, but that was a pretty good desktop. Gnome 2 never really floated my boat. And Gnome 3 can wither and die, as far as I'm concerned. It makes me so unproductive it drives me to turn off the computer and go read a book or something.

Re:Gnome 1 rocks (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 9 months ago | (#44237225)

Ive been tempted to try this, i remember early gnome as being really responsive... so how is it on new hardware as far as latency goes (app startup etc) ?

Re:Gnome 1 rocks (2)

water-and-sewer (612923) | about 9 months ago | (#44237627)

I installed it in a Virtual Machine, since my modern hardware would be unrecognizable to a distro from 2001. But it's freaking FAST. Imagine all those fat libraries that used to be thin, from the era when your distro came on a set of CDs instead of online repositories, and you accessed the 'net over a telephone line.

To be clear, I like the modern apps better - things like clementine and kontact and I guess even evolution. But as a desktop, Gnome1 was tweakable and useable and interesting and geeky (and gasp .. unrefined) in ways that I find useful. And sawfish as a window manager was really interesting and hugely configurable. Gnome2 may have been more refined but it was also less tweakable. And to this geek anyway, the reason I run Linux is so I can tweak to my liking. Any distro (ahem Gnome3) that reduces my options in order to guide me to some developer's personal vision of computing nirvana makes me say "no frikkin' way." If I wanted untweakability, I'd use OSX.

Gnome3 was/is a disaster (1)

EPDowd (770230) | about 9 months ago | (#44236225)

Why waste time trying to make gnome3 look different. I gained nothing when I shifted to gnome3 and lost a lot. I shifted to mint w/cinnamon and see no reason to go back. I found that everything I did in gnome3 took more steps...ie more clicks, more resizing, more drilling down, and on top of it all one additional click that does nothing more then get you off that stupid, useless page that is your faux desktop. For me and the way I use my computers this is not a step forward, but two steps back. If gnome3 was on a smart phone, or a tablet, and I ran one application at a time, always full screen, it would be pretty, and get the job done. But I run this on a desktop computer with fair horse power, lots of memory, and with a BIG monitor, just so that I can have several things going on at once and see them all without a lot of dragging, drilling down, resizing, and general piddling around every time I sit down. I can do everything I need to with Gnome3, it is just more work. Not sure what the gnome folks were thinking. I've heard it said that they were enamored with OS-X, don't know. However at work I have a very nice brand new iMac with Lion on it, and it is much easier to use and has a very different orientation then gnome3.

The proper way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236229)

sudo yum groupremove "GNOME Desktop"
sudo yum groupinstall "XFCE Desktop"

or

sudo yum groupinstall "MATE Desktop"

GNOME 2 is better for most users (2)

mo0n_sniper (1143549) | about 9 months ago | (#44236307)

So the greatest accomplishment of GNOME 3 is to be able to look and feel like GNOME2. Doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

Gnome Shell is small part of Gnome 3 (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 9 months ago | (#44236533)

So the greatest accomplishment of GNOME 3 is to be able to look and feel like GNOME2.
Doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

Yet is does show how *flexible* Gnome 3 is. It also allows those who prefer a Gnome 2 look can have one without installing a replacement, and the pursuit of better interface can continue without punishing users in the transitional period.

Re:Gnome Shell is small part of Gnome 3 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236689)

Nobody prefers a Gnome 2 look. They want movable panels and applets, a cascading start menu, and a taskbar that works with multiple monitors. Extensions cannot do any of these things - the extension API simply doesn't support it. Most of the extensions offered in this article conflict with each other and will crash gnome-shell if you attempt to use them at the same time.

Re:GNOME 2 is better for most users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236719)

It's to appease all the spergs that get angry if their workflow changes by so much as a pixel.

Look doesn't matter ... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#44236321)

The look doesn't matter, breaking the old applications before they were replaced does.

End Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236323)

I'm sure end users would love a guide that makes their software useable in X number of easy steps instead of out of the box. I'll stick with Cinimmon or XFCE thank you very much.

Xfce (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236733)

You can do all this, and run xmms with - if you like to - debian skin, and it looks as if it's always been far ahead of its time now.

Get the broom ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44236915)

It seems not so far away that we were at RedHat 7.3 Gnome 1.4's and the likes.At the time the systems did what they did : allow us to run applications and have a good set of tools like file management ( GMC ) that was easy to use and flexible etc etc. Though i admit it was a bit of a pain because of the rpm package management and it's shortcomings we did have the tools we needed to perform our tasks. The graphical interface was fine for what it had to do and we were all happy.Then came Gnome 2 and Nautilus.Growing pains ? Man was this ever a pain.First off we lost a lot of functionality. For example Nautilus didn't sport a dual pane interface. You just could not see two directories in the same window. WOW .So i write the developers list and ( kindly without cussing , though i felt an irresistible need to do so ) told them this was a much needed and used feature. It was the days where it would show one folder / window which was a true pain in the a&&. The only ( terrible ) answer i got is from a developer saying " What's dual pane for ? " BANG .. A developer that didn't even know what use a dual pane file manager had. I was stunned.He obviously had no idea what we had been doing , how we worked and the needs of his users one dang bit.Totally clueless.

This introduction to actual Gnome disasters and growing pains is just one of countless times where the users , the way they work , what they need , have been totally ignored by the developers. At the time Gnome Foundation had users in it's board but were slowly ousted by corporates and their interests. The changes were rather brutal in our relationship with development, The users didn't count anymore .So GNOME took what the corporates thought it was good for their wallet and totally ignored it's user base. Ever since GNOME is piling up disasters. Putting corporate interests in front of user's interests and needs have had catastrophic results ever since.

First off , I have to admit things did improve on many fronts , but not so much on the base as on the frills.
File manager is a fm is a fm .. Desktop icons is desktop icons , menus are menus. There's just so many ways to make a button on the toolbar to get to the program menus. Where i draw the line is loosing on the basic functionality for the sake of redoing code. As long as the functionality is there , and it fills the needs of the users , why recode ? The need is just not there. It's time lost to redo over and over again just for the sake of the novelty side. It's a waste of time.
If there's a toolkit available and we worked it for years and it fills it's use , why loose time scrapping the work and recode ? Just to keep the wheel turning ? Just to give a chance to someone to loose time and money reinventing it again and again ?
In the long run it makes no sense. A media player is a media player , and frankly how is the latest player going to improve on the sound of your flawed mp3 recordings ? Nothing . This is just examples so you get the gist of my thoughts. If the features are just rewrites for the sake of cosmetics then it's working against what the users need i.e. : Improvements on the base functions and improvements on the results provided by the applications.

We saw that over and over in the choices that have been made for GNOME .The last installment is a catastrophic desktop that is best suited for cell phones than for computers.We use Linux on computers because we need the computing and number crunching abilities , we need servers , databases etc. THAT is where we need the improvements. The kernel is a fantastic piece of work and the hardware support is terrific. The improvements made to it are a big positive.

To have an interface that can do a touchscreen on a laptop is not all that practical .. Those of us who have laptops with touch screens know how bad it gets with finger oily smudges on the screen and how leaving the keyboard to touch the screen is a long term pain. It MAY seem to be a good idea , but it's not all that hot for users. I now use openbox . Simplicity. I got the menus organized so it does what i need. Not what a team of corporates think i may need. Gnome was a fantastic user interface , but somehow along the way , it lost the user focus. Applications were changed for the sake of change.Not one of these changes ever improved the sound of a mp3 .. xmms sounds just as good as the latest player.

Somehow GMC and Dolphin ( Years down the line Nautilus gained back the dual pane function ) are the preferred fie managers for their functionality. Heck Midnight Commander is still in use.Changing stuff for the sake of changing stuff is not what the users truly need. We need improvements on the basic functionality not on the frills like the ability to use a touch screen which between you and me are not super hot ideas for computing . Seen a lot of real computer screens with touch interfaces ? ..

Drop the bullshit , get back to the basics and offer us what we need. Listen to what the Linux users say and what their needs are. When you do, you may gain back credibility , but all the wishy washyness that took place the past few years shows you have no idea what the users needs are and just react when people point to the errors of your ways and are totally fed up . Make a survey , open the telephone lines , do something . Get the private interests out of the equation and go back to the ways that got you their attention in the first place. Make good software that your users need.Not corporate pipe dreams.

At some point it's a story that just had to be told.

I don't hate Gnome 3, but I don't use it either (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#44237653)

I tried, I genuinely did. It suffered from what most Linux desktops do. Mediocrity. There was nothing about it that I actually liked.

It always feels to me as if the teams finish what they want for themselves and then just stop trying.

Workflow, not look (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44237895)

Gnome 3 is broken because it does not allow you to have a fixed number of fixed virtual desktops. I have 10 virtual desktops in KDE, and each has some purpose - photos and editing, terminal windows, browsing, etc - and I put windows on each desktop for that purpose. With Gnome 3, all you can do is watch virtual desktops come and go, you can't fix them. It's a confusing mess, and I should not have to alter a decade's worth of workflow that I have fine-tuned. So I switched to KDE, and have never looked back.

Better Alternatives Exist (2)

trickstyhobbit (2713163) | about 9 months ago | (#44238071)

This issue is moot. Cinnamon, MATE and XFCE all offer the ability to regain your old functionality and work-flow . Maybe there are needs I don't understand, but all three of these alternatives have worked really well for me, particularly XFCE.

And it only took you how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44238383)

Making it possible for users to keep their old workflows is supposed to be the STARTING POINT, not where you wind up years later.

Please, stop "innovating".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...