Debian User Forums

I don't know the solutions to the many problems associated with Gnome 3 and up, when ever I see posts on these problems , I want to just say,
"Try using another DE" , but to many that would not be a solution,...anyway it
is for me.
Actually, not another DE, but I have found using a Window Manager instead
the best solution.
So any way, I started wondering, if it was just me , or if others had similar feelings about Gnome, from what I see here on the forum, a lot of people seem to still try to use it, but there seem to be a lot of problems.
I am kind of lazy, and when one "program" becomes extremely problematic, well , I don't know of a better term or the best term, I just consider it "broken" or mal ware, there might be a better term, ? Any way, I take the easy route, get rid of the "broken program", and start using something that works better,
This was the case with gnome, for me.
It is not just Debian either, using OpenBsd, I ran into the same problems with Gnome,..I found that XFCE and OpenBox WM , are a better solution.
So any way, to see what others have experienced, I used this search string:
Why I do not use Gnome any more

This was one link , these results lead to:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torv ... n-failure/
and ,
http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torv ... nome-fork/

Apparently I am not the only one that is not impressed with the changes that
Gnome has made,..years ago it was pretty good, in fact when I first started using
a Linux system , it was what I used, but not any more.

I couldn't agree more.
I always used Gnome2 from when "etch" came out. When Gnome3 first reared its head, I used it in classic mode but soon changed to the mate-desktop, which is the nearest thing to Gnome2, on my home, work and laptop computers.
The other day I installed "jessie" on a laptop as an alternative for Windows Vista for an elderly acquaintance and chose Gnome so that the user would be able to update easily by means of the update-notifier. I was immediately horrified by desktop environment and chose the classic mode where, annoyingly, there appeared to be no quick way to place icons on the desktop. I haven't seen Gnome in "stretch" yet but have an inkling I won't like it either.

I'll admit Gnome can be annoying at times, but I still find it to be the most versatile and powerful desktop for my needs.

I have been running plain OpenBox for years and I do not feel I miss anything. My applications are easy to start, what else I need? What is the advantage of a bloated DE is a big mystery for me. What can KDE or Gnome do for me I already do not have?

I used only a few on my early Linux journey GNOME. I prefer tiling WM, spectrwm/dwm/herbstluftwm && stack openbox+tint2
So yes, WM alone i find better as well - less and accurate.

The only GNOME on my system is GTK2 Themes and a very less gui apps.

I think GNOME is great, I love the way they tuck all the configuration away out of sight (much preferrable to KDE's "wall of knobs" IMO) and I think the design paradigm is absolutely spot on.

the human interface guidelines might be ok (it depends who it's for - many long time linux users feel cheated when options start disappearing from preferences) - but gnome development deserves a critical view from many more viewpoints...
https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/11 ... in-threes/

I couldn't agree with you more Head_on_a_Stick. The whole approach is very refreshing. All installed apps can be seen in one go, and as you said, configurations are all in one place. And I find it to be as configurable as it's always been. And aside from some updates in Debian's Testing branch, I haven't had any problems with it at all.
When I started using Linux, there was only one spin of Ubuntu which came with Gnome. Even though I'm using Debian now, I'm still using Gnome. The Gnome devs can be difficult to work with, but their ideas are...

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:... absolutely spot on.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:I think GNOME is great, I love the way they tuck all the configuration away out of sight (much preferrable to KDE's "wall of knobs" IMO) and I think the design paradigm is absolutely spot on.

Yeah, I just LOVE setting my preferences through the Windows.... errr I mean Gnome registry. Also, who needs choices on screen? I can't wait until the Gnome devs just make it one giant button on the screen that interacts with the drool catcher that the user has to install at their physical desktop too! So much simpler!


But seriously though, I have hated Gnome from day 0. It's always had less configurability to the users needs, and I personally hate the way GTK looks ( unless you smash it into shape with a REALLY big hammer ) more Fischer Pricey than Windows XP ever did. Save dialogs are especially fugly by default. QT has always look much cleaner and nicer to my eyes.

I like Gnome Shell a lot. For me, it's lack of configurability is almost a virtue as I'm not constantly messing with it like I've done with every other DE I've used. To my eyes it's the most polished DE I've used on Linux - not only does it look good but everything works without a lot of fiddling. Sound, wireless, fonts, screen resolution, multi-monitor, all of the pain points that I've experienced in other DE's just don't happen for me on Gnome. The application overview works fine for me and the windows/workspaces implementation in Shell is, in my opinion, the slickest and most intuitive on Linux.

Of course, nothing is perfect. I don't like not having a dock/taskbar that's always accessible, but the Dash to Dock extension serves that need very well. And the Gnome dev's stubborn insistence on putting notifications everywhere but where God intended them to be - in the right side of the panel - is annoying as hell. Fortunately, the Topicons extension solves that problem.

I have no quarrel with people who don't like Gnome. One of the reasons we all use Linux is that we get to choose whatever suits our workflow best.

PhilGil wrote:I like Gnome Shell a lot. For me, it's lack of configurability is almost a virtue as I'm not constantly messing with it like I've done with every other DE I've used.

Yep. I have a lot of fun tweaking and configuring various DEs/WMs, and Openbox is probably my favorite these days. But I enjoy logging into GNOME Shell sessions, too. I find it kinda relaxing to use, and I think it's a lot better than the old GNOME. I run it without any extensions.

No DE or WM is loved by everyone, but each has its fans, and for good reasons.

Is that applied to these gnome applications gparted, gedit as well?
or Just a bloated DE? that you're stayed away from.

Even gparted official iso used fluxbox wm.

Segfault wrote:I have been running plain OpenBox for years and I do not feel I miss anything. My applications are easy to start, what else I need? What is the advantage of a bloated DE is a big mystery for me. What can KDE or Gnome do for me I already do not have?

Same here. Fortunately, Linux provides choice. Those of us who prefer window managers can have them. Those who have powerful machines and want a DE can have one if they wish.

Gnome 2 was pretty good, I used it for a number of years, until 2011 when Gnome 3 came out, then I switched to XFCE and never looked back.

But yeah, Gnome is really bad these days. Honestly since Gnome 3, it's almost like they're deliberately trying to come up with ways to make it as awful as possible. Like for example, client side decorations. What the hell are they thinking there? It's a huge regression, and for me defeats one of linux's best points - the fact that there are many window managers to choose from. Even after I ditched the gnome desktop, I was still using some Gnome programs, like the PDF reader. I had to switch to Okular once I updated to jessie and found that they'd finally ruined that too with the CSD rubbish.

They keep removing useful features, and the gnome developers seem to have a really obnoxious 'we know better than you do, you should do things our way' attitude about it.

I'm also very obsessive about how my desktop looks, to the point that I wrote my own custom theme. And thanks to the fact that the GTK3 theming API was unstable until just last year, I had to completely rewrite it like five times. I won't forget that, and I won't forgive the Gnome project for that. I sincerely hope that in the future, Qt will be used more than GTK.

Innovate wrote:Is that applied to these gnome applications gparted, gedit as well?
or Just a bloated DE? that you're stayed away from.

Even gparted official iso used fluxbox wm.

Since there are several posts after this, and it is short, I am using a full quote,

Anyway, no, actually I do use some gnome apps, including 'gparted',
and 'gedit' is a good editor,...but yes, the Full DE, I no longer use.
Interesting replies from every body.
It is nice that we do have choices on these, and can choose to use , or not use
what ever DE and apps,..

dust hill resident wrote:....I was still using some Gnome programs, like the PDF reader. I had to switch to Okular once I updated to jessie and found that they'd finally ruined that too with the CSD rubbish.

What's wrong with Evince? Once I found it, I didn't miss Okular anymore. I started with Kubuntu, so KDE was my first DE.

No_windows wrote:

dust hill resident wrote:....I was still using some Gnome programs, like the PDF reader. I had to switch to Okular once I updated to jessie and found that they'd finally ruined that too with the CSD rubbish.

What's wrong with Evince? Once I found it, I didn't miss Okular anymore. I started with Kubuntu, so KDE was my first DE.

The client side decorations. All the Gnome apps have been redesigned to use them, and I think they're absolutely awful. Since I updated to debian jessie, I replaced the few Gnome apps I was still using with alternatives.

GarryRicketson wrote: http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torv ... nome-fork/

Apparently I am not the only one that is not impressed with the changes that
Gnome has made,..years ago it was pretty good, in fact when I first started using
a Linux system , it was what I used, but not any more.

That article is pretty old, dating from 2011, but what Torvalds calls for, a Gnome fork, exists in MATE. Simple, clean, fast and relatively light. Also fairly configurable, possibly not to the extent of KDE or XFCE, but enough to do most of the things that you want. I think that his comment about the way he uses his computer - keyboard for typing and mouse for other things, is also reflective of what most people do, certainly the masses who've come through the Windows system, at least to Win7.

I started with Gnome, too but the move to Gnome 3 lost me, just as Unity drove me away from Ubuntu.

Surely the lesson is out there to be learnt - that a pretty, but difficult to use, non-intuitive interface really isn't what most users want.

What is your desktop anyway? The way I see it, it's just a platform on which the applications/programs that you use to do the real work, reside. It needs to provide a fast and efficient way of accessing those programs and, ideally, keeping them reasonably consistent in look and feel, so that common actions are similar across the range. For some it's a place to hang a pretty picture, although personally I find this terribly distracting and makes finding stuff on the desktop difficult at times since icons get lost in the picture. That's just me, though. A desktop also needs to provide access to panels which are the most popular way of instant access to basic information and commonly used tasks. That's pretty much it from a basic user's perspective. Of course, it does more that isn't quite so apparent, but as Garry notes, much of this can be achieved with a simple window manager.

Of course, then there's the other type of user - the one that is less likely to use the computer for work and demands Steam and everything else that goes with SNS syndrome. Gnome is possibly quite appealing to them.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: I think the design paradigm is absolutely spot on.

From this page:

Defining an application

An application is a distinct and independent piece of software that incorporates useful functionality, and which can be installed on a user’s system.

This definition can be broken down into a set of characteristics, which describe an application in more detail. Applications:

Can be individually installed and removed from the system.

Do not rely on other applications in order to run.

Contain functionality of their own.

Provide at least one primary window.

Do not affect or interfere with the behavior of other applications.

Have a unique name and icon.

At the heart of this definition is a model that allows the modular installation and use of 3rd party software, in a way that avoids dependency issues and ensures simplicity of use.

In GNOME 3, only software that conforms to these characteristics should install an application launcher.

Excellent. To sum up: GNOME is awful. Or GNOME is great. Depends on which users you ask. Smh. Maybe coming next, the "Why I do not use KDE anymore" thread.