To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GNOME 3, or more specifically the "GNOME Shell," is an atrocity. That horrible environment is another discussion entirely, which I'd rather not get too much into (I've slammed it plenty in the past already, no need to again). And given that Ubuntu didn't even want to use it (they chose to use their own Unity that they originally designed for netbooks, after all) makes it matter even less in the context of this news item/discussion anyway.
But while already slightly off-topic... Between those two environments plus Microsoft's Metro, I honestly couldn't say which one is the worst (at least when talking about traditional desktop/laptop computers with keyboard and mouse/trackpad). Maybe GNOME 3, by just a hair? I don't know. Doesn't matter, they all suck and I refuse to use any of them. The KDE guys were the only ones who got it right by keeping a traditional-style desktop while simply adding an alternate GUI for those devices that were better-suited to something different.




Member since:
2011-02-10
Either way, I'm done arguing colors and bitmap editors... no longer an Ubuntu user myself so the horrible themes don't really phase me, and I've said enough about Ubuntu's lack of a bitmap editor.
A GNOME Shell user? If yes, then you loved that horrible/ugly icons, boring grey, wasting so much space, and the Activities area where you can view the launcher, are filled with so many icons that I can no longer see what's in there because it gets smaller and smaller as you run applications.
So, please understand that this is a subjective issue when it comes to design, but the consensus if you want to know is GNOME Shell is a design failure, compared to Unity.