Skip to main content

Topic: GNOME Shell (Read 80 times)

GNOME Shell
Historically I use either KDE or XFCE, but like to check in on other DEs. So the other night I downloaded the Fedora 35 ISO to experience the newest of GNOME in the pure state. It seems very clean, actually overly so. Compared to other desktops it seems like it takes an extra step to launch applications, view your files, etc, The problem comes from having to access everything from the "Activities" button in the top left of the screen or with the Meta key. Other desktops, of course, have one less step by being able to access commonly used applications from a panel or dock. While pressing an extra key doesn't seem like much, it becomes annoying very quickly.

Of course, this can be fixed with the extension "Dash to Dock".  The result superficially resembles a Mac.  But one should not have to install extensions that can break every 6 months to get basic functionality. Also in the "horizontal workflow", you can on see one virtual desktop at a time.

Another thing is the high RAM usage. When I booted the ISO, it was taking 2 gigs of memory without any applications launched. This isn't that much of a problem on a machine with 16 gigs but does seem awfully heavy.

What does anyone else think? Am I right, too critical, not understanding something?
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: GNOME Shell
Reply #1
Some time close to the beginning of the century I also installed Fedora with all the possible desktops. I tried most of them, maybe all of them. The most functional ones seemed to be Gnome and KDE. I sided with KDE and I have not looked back to Gnome ever since. Note that it was the time when Gnome was still considered absolutely fabulous by most Linux users.

If you want to use (mostly) Gnome apps, then reasonable desktop environments are Mate, Cinnamon, Budgie and Xfce. Personally I am on tiling window managers for a few years now.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: GNOME Shell
Reply #2
Another thing is the high RAM usage. When I booted the ISO, it was taking 2 gigs of memory without any applications launched. This isn't that much of a problem on a machine with 16 gigs but does seem awfully heavy.
Wouldn't RAM usage always be a lot higher than usual in that kind of environment?

Personally I can't stand modern Gnome. For me, the old Gnome 2 provided the perfect balance of simple without cruft but not too simple. And the reason I've been less satisfied with Xfce 4.16 than with all previous Xfce versions I've used over the past decade is because of Gnome (or rather, Gtk 3) infestation. You might say they're taking other DEs down with them. It's actually making me wonder if we'll see a Qt-based Xfce at some point in the future, although apparently Qt has its issues as well.

In the meantime KDE has changed into a thing of beauty. For at least two years now, Plasma has been the cream of the crop as far as I'm concerned. I've also diversified more. On my Xfce desktop I've started using a few KDE apps like Muon instead of Synaptic, because Muon only asks for a password if you want to install or uninstall, not to search for information.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: GNOME Shell
Reply #3
This guy managed to make near-vanilla Gnome to work for himself.



I would not be able to do it. I absolutely must have at least windows titlebars and/or a proper taskbar. And a systray. Why remove titlebars and menubars? In fact, why remove anything ever instead of making it an option?

Quite happy with my current setup of i3wm. It has titlebars and systray. The theme I use works across Qt and Gtk. I do not need to care if any particular app I am using comes from Gnome or KDE. A few of them are part of Xfce goodies. Yeah, no reason to use Gnome.


  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: GNOME Shell
Reply #4
In fact, why remove anything ever instead of making it an option?
For maintenance it can become a bit of a headache if you don't keep things at least somewhat streamlined. But yes, they seem to be very... proactive... about removing things.

  • Barulheira
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: GNOME Shell
Reply #5
I'm quite satisfied with LXQT. Light, simple and resembles good old Windows.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: GNOME Shell
Reply #6
LXQT is Openbox window manager plus LXQT's taskbar and config utilities.

I was also very satisfied with Openbox. I used Openbox in Xfce for a very long time.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: GNOME Shell
Reply #7
I dabbled in Openbox in the past, worked fine.