Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 23rd May 2014 21:51 UTC
Gnome Remember back when GNOME and KDE dominated Linux desktops? Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it? Yet it was only three years ago, in April 2011, that GNOME 3 was released. Its radically redesigned interface shook up everyone. Some eagerly adopted it. Others left GNOME.

In this brief review I take a fresh look at GNOME today, as it's currently distributed in several popular Linux distributions.
Permalink for comment 589485
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Sat 24th May 2014 07:00 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

Some observations:

1. All of this is valid for GNOME 3.2. Frankly, the changes to GNOME Shell since 3.2 are mostly neither user-visible nor substantial enough to be worth mention. ("Classic" mode is probably an exception, though I never used it, so I don't know whether it is different enough from preceding "Fallback" mode).

2. The only feature I was missing in default GNOME3 setup was minimizing. In fact I abandoned transmission-gtk and rhythmbox simply because of this "feature". Note, that with new style applications (Maps, Totem, Web, etc) adding "minimize" button really screws the experience.

3. I am a bit concerned with new style applications actually, because they make experience inconsistent – they make third-party applications (like GIMP) feel alien, while IMO the only value in DE is consistency.

4. The fact that GNOME Shell is built on top of Mozilla's JS engine is driving me nuts. Given that GNOME uses webkit elsewhere (including Web, default browser), full GNOME installation depends on 2 separate JS engines, which is ridiculous.

5. Actually, I don't understand the rationale for using JS for desktop applications. The rationale for its use in web browsers was already questionable, and reopening this can of worms once again feels foolish.

6. Otherwise GNOME3 is fine for me. I actually think it is improvement over GNOME2, unlike Mate and that Mint thing I always forget the name of.

Reply Score: 5