5 ms·

I can honestly say that I'm generally very happy and productive with Gnome 3. It looks and feels way better than Unity. With Gnome 3 I can launch, place, and s

I can honestly say that I'm generally very happy and productive with Gnome 3. It looks and feels way better than Unity. With Gnome 3 I can launch, place, and switch all applications with a few keystrokes and without touching the mouse at all, all while "normal" people can still use the very same configuration. I like that it's basically just an unobstrusive shell to launch and switch applications. People always complain that Linux desktops just mimic Windows 95, now that Gnome has done something entirely new (and good!), people complain that it's different to what they're used to.

w0utert 13y ago
>> People always complain that Linux desktops just mimic Windows 95, now that Gnome has done something entirely new (and good!) [..] If by 'entirely new (and good)!' you mean 'just mimic the OS X desktop' (badly), then yes, Gnome is doing great :-/
- moreentropy 13y ago
  Well I beg to differ. I really like the Gnome 3 Shell, and I think it's a mature and usable interface. Of course paradigm stealing is happening since 1984 Mac OS (or before), but there's enough to Gnome 3 to make it not just a bad copy of something else. Of course there's some stuff that sucks badly, for me it's some changes in Nautilus' drag&drop and keybindings, they seem to just change stuff there for the cause of being different. And the crude notification space on the bottom of the screen is pretty unimaginative and annoying.
josteink 13y ago
With Gnome 3 I can launch, place, and switch all applications with a few keystrokes and without touching the mouse at all, all while "normal" people can still use the very same configuration. I like that it's basically just an unobstrusive shell to launch and switch applications. OK. So basically just what Unity does then? Not trying to belittle your comment or anything, but had you not prefixed your comment "With Gnome 3 I can", I would just have assumed you just described Unity. Because Unity does all that very well too. So what's different about it? What makes it better?
- moreentropy 13y ago
  I haven't really used Unity apart from launching a terminal and a browser on someone else's desktop. Unity and Gnome 3 seem very similar, both visually and by paradigm. I guess Unity is a brainchild of Ubuntu's NIH attitude. Personally as a Gnome 3 user, when having to use Unity i got annoyed because my muscle memory keystrokes didn't work as expected (hit win, type "term" hit return, hit win-uparrow, expect a fullscreen terminal), but there's no point in expecting Unity to behave exactly like Gnome 3, I'm sure a similar workflow exists in Unity.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    > hit win, type "term" hit return, hit win-uparrow, expect a fullscreen terminal Unity version: hit win, type "term" hit return, hit F11, expect a fullscreen terminal
    - SkyMarshal 13y ago
      Also: hit win, type "term", hit return, hit alt-space x, expect a fullscreen terminal.
      - Paul_S 13y ago
        Don't want to come across smug but in Awesome and many other tiling WM: meta+Enter That's it, your fullscreen terminal is there.
        mh- 13y ago
        hmm, also in Windows 95.
        Paul_S 13y ago
        That's blatantly not true. You have to press: ctrl+esc, up arrow, enter, c, m, d, enter, alt+m, enter (or something along those lines) And in the end I'm pretty sure the windows command prompt doesn't allow you to maximise it because it can't adapt to the changing line and row number. Also how do you get Windows 95 to manage your X session? ;) Seriously though, we're all talking about Linux here. edit: I understand your confusion now, I think you failed to realise that meta+enter also opens the said terminal
pippy 13y ago
I have to agree with this post. Gnome 3.1 is really great, and I feel they've finally moved away from the 95 look and feel.

w0utert 13y ago

>> People always complain that Linux desktops just mimic Windows 95, now that Gnome has done something entirely new (and good!) [..] If by 'entirely new (and good)!' you mean 'just mimic the OS X desktop' (badly), then yes, Gnome is doing great :-/

moreentropy 13y ago
Well I beg to differ. I really like the Gnome 3 Shell, and I think it's a mature and usable interface. Of course paradigm stealing is happening since 1984 Mac OS (or before), but there's enough to Gnome 3 to make it not just a bad copy of something else. Of course there's some stuff that sucks badly, for me it's some changes in Nautilus' drag&drop and keybindings, they seem to just change stuff there for the cause of being different. And the crude notification space on the bottom of the screen is pretty unimaginative and annoying.

josteink 13y ago

With Gnome 3 I can launch, place, and switch all applications with a few keystrokes and without touching the mouse at all, all while "normal" people can still use the very same configuration. I like that it's basically just an unobstrusive shell to launch and switch applications. OK. So basically just what Unity does then? Not trying to belittle your comment or anything, but had you not prefixed your comment "With Gnome 3 I can", I would just have assumed you just described Unity. Because Unity does all that very well too. So what's different about it? What makes it better?

moreentropy 13y ago
I haven't really used Unity apart from launching a terminal and a browser on someone else's desktop. Unity and Gnome 3 seem very similar, both visually and by paradigm. I guess Unity is a brainchild of Ubuntu's NIH attitude. Personally as a Gnome 3 user, when having to use Unity i got annoyed because my muscle memory keystrokes didn't work as expected (hit win, type "term" hit return, hit win-uparrow, expect a fullscreen terminal), but there's no point in expecting Unity to behave exactly like Gnome 3, I'm sure a similar workflow exists in Unity.
- phaemon 13y ago
  > hit win, type "term" hit return, hit win-uparrow, expect a fullscreen terminal Unity version: hit win, type "term" hit return, hit F11, expect a fullscreen terminal
  - SkyMarshal 13y ago
    Also: hit win, type "term", hit return, hit alt-space x, expect a fullscreen terminal.
    - Paul_S 13y ago
      Don't want to come across smug but in Awesome and many other tiling WM: meta+Enter That's it, your fullscreen terminal is there.
      - mh- 13y ago
        hmm, also in Windows 95.
        Paul_S 13y ago
        That's blatantly not true. You have to press: ctrl+esc, up arrow, enter, c, m, d, enter, alt+m, enter (or something along those lines) And in the end I'm pretty sure the windows command prompt doesn't allow you to maximise it because it can't adapt to the changing line and row number. Also how do you get Windows 95 to manage your X session? ;) Seriously though, we're all talking about Linux here. edit: I understand your confusion now, I think you failed to realise that meta+enter also opens the said terminal

pippy 13y ago

I have to agree with this post. Gnome 3.1 is really great, and I feel they've finally moved away from the 95 look and feel.