Linux - DesktopThis forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Anyone know if Gnome 3 will be(or is - sorry haven't followed that one) resource-hungry or more resource-hungry than Gnome 2 for older computers? When i tried Gnome 3 test desktop was lagging like hell for me..maybe it was just cause of test version..
Apparantly Shell uses less resources than Fallback (aka Classic Gnome 2.x that we're used to).
However, every time I've pulled it out on any system to see if it's really all the fuss, I see at least three times the resources of a Classic Gnome session, and twice that of a KDE 4.6 session.
Distro doesn't seem to make much difference, though Ubuntu fared considerably worse off than Arch, possibly because of the differences in what's packed into packages.
I don't mind Classic Gnome - it's tried, tested, known and well liked, at least by me. I've yet to make a KDE session as customisable as it was.
But between Gnome3 w/Shell and KDE? I'll take KDE thanks, and I stand with those who call it a netbook and mobile interface, not a desktop one.
Fedora 3 is still in beta. Don't base your assessments of GNOME 3 solely on how it behaves in a Fedora beta release.
I agree with what RockDoctor said above, it wouldn't be a big difference between beta and final release but lets see what surprises would Fedora bring to us.
I guess I'll stick my nose in here with an opinion. I've been playing around off and on with F15 for several days now. I know this is beta software and things could change, but I would be surprised that there would be really significant changes at this late date. But then, I have been surprised before...
I have two major issues with Gnome 3. The first has to do with what others have said about it becoming rather unintuitive. The learning curve seems to be rather steep, particularly if one is used to the way it was. I have been using Linux at least some of the time since one bought Mandrake or Red Hat on floppies in a box at Best Buy - so I've been around a while. Yet I had to go online and look up how to shut the computer off. This is a pretty simple and standard task - or should be. This is true for other tasks as well.
There also doesn't seem to be much of a way of restoring the desktop to the way it was - although I admit I haven't spent a lot of time trying to find if that was possible. Even if it is possible, it should be easy to figure out. The point here is that people who have been using a product for many years should not suddenly need a tutorial or training on how to use that product because of changes made unless the changes made solve such large, critical problems as to make the gain clearly offset the effort required to learn the new.
Which leads to my second major issue - the changes don't seem to solve any problems. Perhaps they do, just not ones I have encountered. Certainly there are people that use their computers in different ways than I do. But from my perspective they seem to be changes because someone (presumably the developers) thought it was time to make major changes. Because I see nothing to benefit me in these changes, that makes it much less likely I will want to take the time to learn how to use the new version. While I may not be the "typical" user, I don't think I'm the only one like me.
Yes, I could switch desktops. I don't have to use Gnome. But again, there is the learning curve, as well as the fact that I don't want to switch. I am happy with the way things are.
I am not opposed to change when there is benefit from it. And I understand that sometimes change takes a while to show its benefits. I won't give up yet on Gnome. But for the time being, I will stick with Fedora 14 and look at other desktops as well.
Sorry about the length of this post, but I wanted to make it somewhat intelligent instead of just a rant.
If you want the old Gnome back, I believe somewhere in the settings you can force it to always go back to 'fallback' mode. Though I understand if you remove the gnome-shell package, it should automatically default to it anyway.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.