# Gnome 2 vs Gnome 3



## olav (Oct 31, 2011)

After the release of Ubuntu 11.10, tablet desktop interface became the standard. All the new big distributions will use one of the new tablet desktop interfaces. Is this really the right move? What do you feel about it?

Personally I've never felt so unproductive. There is now just to much mouse movement involved. I really want back the old gnome 2 desktop. Why do distribution developers really think this is a good move? 

How have some of you solved this? Moved over to KDE or XFCE?


----------



## SNK (Oct 31, 2011)

Gnome 2.x was my default DE until I once fully configured KDE. I like it much more, it just takes some time to configure it to your liking.

Basically, I keep it simple and do not use most of the fancy features, put most common programs under shortcuts, and you should definitively try x11/yakuake-kde4.


----------



## fonz (Oct 31, 2011)

olav said:
			
		

> How have some of you solved this? Moved over to KDE or XFCE?


Not even getting involved with Gnome in the first place works perfectly for me, but then again I do have the luxury of being able to choose to use whatever I want. Which isn't Gnome. Or KDE, for that matter.

Fonz


----------



## jrm@ (Oct 31, 2011)

I'm with @fonz.  These desktop enivronments feel too much like other bloated operating systems to me.  To each his own.  I'm happy with a simple window manager like fluxbox.


----------



## fonz (Oct 31, 2011)

Just to be perfectly clear: the "to each his own" part is important.

Most "hardcore" people prefer simple window managers like Flux-/Blackbox, Fvwm(2), WindowMaker or something similar. Others prefer a more featureful WM/DE like KDE, Gnome, Compiz or whatever. That's perfectly fine, after all UNIX is all about freedom of choice. So no judgement there (except maybe between the lines), just personal preference.

Fonz (as said: to each his own)


----------



## hitest (Nov 1, 2011)

I run XFce4 on my main desktop units and Fluxbox on my older hardware.  There is no wrong DE/WM.  Each to his own.


----------



## darcsis (Nov 1, 2011)

What I need is just a really user friendly desktop, simple, stable and powerful. And Gnome2 has been my choice for long. Sometimes I tried to use KDE, and it does have some killer apps that get jobs done. However, I stick to Gnome just for its simplicity and stability.

And I spent some time on fvwm and enlightenment. The former is not a complete desktop environment at all, it still needs gtk/gnome things to work. and I have to install a bunch of gtk/gnome stuff to get it work well. while the latter is better, but still lacks something to call itself a desktop.


----------



## fonz (Nov 1, 2011)

darcsis said:
			
		

> The former [Fvwm, red.] is not a complete desktop environment at all, it still needs gtk/gnome things to work


Partially correct. Fvwm(2) is a _window manager_ (which is, as you said, *not* a desktop environment!) and it most certainly doesn't need GTK/Gnome to do what it's supposed to do, which is simply managing windows. Some people *may* need additional libs/apps to get things done if they need/want a GUI for those things but that's not what Fvwm(2) is for. Fvwm(2) is for managing windows, not for helping the user to wipe his/her bottom. There are other things that can help with that if needed.

Fonz


----------



## fluca1978 (Nov 2, 2011)

Gnome 3 has a concept of activity that is far away from that of KDE 4. In gnome activities are simple desktops, while in kde are fully namespaces where applications get involved (and notified). Besides this, gnome has always been simpler to use than kde, especially from the plasma release (aka 4). I used kde from version 1, never switched back, but my experience says that, even if it tastes more like windows, gnome is usually simpler to use for the average user.


----------



## YZMSQ (Nov 7, 2011)

fluca1978 said:
			
		

> Gnome 3 has a concept of activity that is far away from that of KDE 4. In gnome activities are simple desktops, while in kde are fully namespaces where applications get involved (and notified). Besides this, gnome has always been simpler to use than kde, especially from the plasma release (aka 4). I used kde from version 1, never switched back, but my experience says that, even if it tastes more like windows, gnome is usually simpler to use for the average user.


But Gnome is becoming more and more Linux-centric.x(


----------



## fluca1978 (Nov 7, 2011)

YZMSQ said:
			
		

> But Gnome is becoming more and more Linux-centric.x(



Almost true. It is sad, but Gnome is becoming more and more Linux and proprietary-centric. I mean, Unixes like Solaris (and derivatives) are comfortable with Gnome, but other Unixes like *BSD are not. In other words, it seems to me that Gnome is distribution friendly if the distribution is going to support it, but it is becoming more and more less portable for all other platforms.


----------



## graudeejs (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm feel comfortable with Gnome3 as long as I can hit Ctrl+Alt+Fn and work with proper environment  (had to deal with Ubuntu laptop with unity at work)


----------



## fluca1978 (Nov 8, 2011)

I hate unity with a passion!


----------

