Giving GNOME 3 a GNOME 2 Look 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."
Lubuntu Fan (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:While we are at it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.