I personally think the best answer to the 'problem', if you see it as one, is to go experiment, and go with what you want.
On desktops that can handle it, I run a GNOME session with Compiz, and where the desktop can't handle it or I need that little extra not being used by Compiz/Metacity, switch over to using Openbox as the window manager.

And on laptops and other low-end computers, Openbox alone with the tint2 panel serves perfectly.

Even if Gnome 3 did use Compiz, just install fusion-icon, and use it to select a different window manager. If its installed, you could even run the KDE window manager in a Gnome session.

So the base point of all this, is who cares? You can choose to run the parts you want, and slot in another WM wherever and whenever you want. It doesn't matter. Drop it and deal with it.

This isn't just directed at Kenny but for all people in this discussion. I'd like to propose a question. Are Ubuntu users not computer gurus? I used to use Debian and Red Hat before it was FC. I prefer Ubuntu because I get the plusses of Debian (apt-get) without having to do EVERYTHING by hand. Plus, you just can't beat that support base, despite some minor flaws in Ubuntu as a whole.

Sure, I haven't compiled every line of my kernel and I prefer package installs to compiling. I prefer using the command line, but I haven't memorized each switch of every command that I routinely use. But does that make me less of a power user or just less of a sadist?

I actually enjoying using the software on Linux and want to spend about 20% of my time tweaking my system. I find a lot of "gurus" are people who are the flip side of this; they spend 80% of their time tweaking the system and about 20% actually doing work with it.

So the question is, what constitutes a "serious" Linux guru? I'm not trying to invite flames, I think it's an interesting topic for discussion.

My whine for the day on this subject: I've been using gnome for several years now and for the most part like the current version. I think it is misguided to devote extensive resources to something of questionable value like the gnome shell, when we still don't have a good system of hot keys, longstanding problems with nautilus, search boxes in gedit and other gnome programs still don't move out of the way when they are over the search target, gvfs (despite the supposed cleaner design) still won't do some of the things gnome-vfs could do, etc. etc. etc.

@kuriharu

I guess that there can be some "guru"s using Ubuntu, it's just that Ubuntu is designed to be newbie-freindly and is often recommended to newbies, so most of its users are newbies.

Well, maybe not that one in particular, since it is really just Openbox with a panel, PCManFM and some config applications. They do seem to be keeping it reasonably light while retaining some nice features. I'm curious to see what happens as it matures though, since Xfce used to be very light at one time, Xfce3 wasn't much different from what LXDE is now.

It is a decent environment, even if it is kinda Windows 98-ish.

I guess I was a little off, but you know what I mean. We linux users make windows users look like retards, which they are if you ask me. You won't see a Windows user compile the latest version of Cinelerra on their Vista machine, because they don't know how, and also because they use proprietary apps. But yeah, I guess guru is a little bit of an overstatement, but looking down we can see that windows users are like gerbils in comparison. Anyhow, I am mad about this change. I also think the new GNOME UI makes little sense. Just watch the video. It looks like a combination of Moblin and a (shivers) Zune. And what gives with Ubuntu 10.04 looking like the bastard child of OS X??? AAAARGGGG!!!! Dammit, STOP DEVELOPERS!!!! STOP EVERYTHING!!! You are making HORRIBLE mistakes!!!
ARE YOU GUYS HIGH ON CRACK??? Please don't be like the stoner M$ developers!!! AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

(has an anneurism and falls on the floor)

Actually, the irony is that this is why Windows and Mac users think Linux users are retards

There are compelling arguments on both sides.

im not looking forward to gnome 3 im personally sitting back and enjoying my copy of elightenment 17

Way to soon to tell!

Oh, and one more thing I hate about Metacity is that you cannot change the focus policy. I HATE the Windows-like behavior where clicking in a window makes it rise above others. I very often like to have a window maximized and have a small window on top of it, no matter what window I am working in.

If it doesn't easily support Sloppy Focus, I don't want it!

In case you don't know, Sloppy Focus is when the window gets focused the moment the mouse moves into it, and does not raise unless it's clicked on the title (clicking inside the window does not raise it). This is often the default behavior of traditional Unix-style desktops that do not try to emulate Windows.

First, KDE4 doesn't have nearly that number of bugs

Second, GNOME desktop really took off with the creation of the Ubuntu distro; I would argue that most GNOME users are *not* gurus. GNOME makes decisions for the user, hiding all advanced options *by design*. Gurus wouldn't want this, me thinks. And, with newbies opting to use Ubuntu as their first GNU/Linux distro, I don't think many of these new users would be considered gurus either.

GNOME3, meh. I've never been into GNOME's 'simplicity at the cost of functionality'. KDE4 is pretty awesome, IMHO.

1 members found this post helpful.

At the risk of starting a flame war, I find KDE has far too many issues to make it usable for me.

The following is ONLY my opinions. Just because I've never seen any of KDE's good points (Except K3B) doesn't mean it doesn't have any.
The Kicker menu, even in classic mode is difficult to navigate, the panel is nowhere near as customizable as a Gnome panel, Gnome's Control Center is easier to use than KDE's system settings - though I'll admit it's ability to search is useful, something let down by it's hiding too much under 'advanced' when it's really not that difficult, and also failing to use su/sudo or similar when root priveliges are required. I find it difficult to personalize any part of KDE as quickly or easily as I can almost any part of Gnome except fonts, and even on a more recent desktop I find it slow, bloated and clunky. Sometimes that can be partially solved by ceasing to use Compiz and replacing Kwin (or whatever it is now) with Metacity or even Openbox, but that's a short term solution, and doesn't get around any of the other problems I have with KDE.

In short, I think KDE could do with learning some lessons from Gnome.

As said though - that's my opinion. Other people, naturally, will want to defend KDE to the extreme. I'm not interested in that. I'm just sharing.
So no flaming, please.

i used to use gnome and kde back when i was running redhat 6 machines, but around the same time i also experimented with several window managers/desktop environments and fell in love with windowmaker i've been using windowmaker as my de-facto window manager ever since, it's all a matter of choice -if you dont like gnome there are literally 100s of other WM/desktop environments to chose from, some more mature/stable then others but you are hardly forced to use gnome

as for gnome3 'forcing' compiz i highly doubt that even if there isnt a simple tick box to change this setting that there isn't a plain text config file somewhere that can be edited that does allow that