Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tom's Hardware Tests and Reviews Fedora 16 and Gnome 3

Posted by timothy on from the love-it-or-hate-it dept.

New submitter LordDCLXVI writes with a review at Tom's Hardware that starts out with some loaded questions about GNOME 3, as included in the newest version of Red Hat's Fedora: "While most other distros are passing up or postponing GNOME Shell, Fedora is full steam ahead. Does Red Hat know something the rest of us don't? Or is GNOME 3 really as bad as everyone says?" Writes LordDCLVXI: "This massive article amounts to a full-blown guide to Fedora 16 'Verne' and complete dissection of GNOME Shell. It begins with an installation guide, with instructions for enabling third-party repos, proprietary graphics drivers, Wi-Fi, Flash, Java, multimedia codecs, and 32-bit libs. Next up is a GNOME Shell tear-down, including customization options and methods to 'fix' the Shell or mimic GNOME 2. Finally, Fedora is benchmarked against Ubuntu 11.10 and Windows 7. [While the author] adds to the voices criticizing GNOME Shell, he also points out that the extensions can empower distributors to create unique, yet compatible layouts. One of the most fair and constructive critiques of GNOME 3 — definitely worth the read, and even makes GNOME 3 worth a second look."

12 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. I went with XFCE by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since the Ubuntu version of Gnome3 didn't work right because of my AMD/ATI graphics card, I went with the XFCE4 Spin when I installed Fedora. Runs like a champ!

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:I went with XFCE by rish87 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same here, I went with XFCE years ago and haven't looked back. It's not that I am opposed to new directions in UI development, I've just never felt Unity/Gnome Shell offered anything useful. For someone who spends most of their time in linux with a maximized terminal and screen session, when I DO have to interact with the desktop, I want it to be as small and light as possible. I know there are lighter environments, but XFCE is a good blend of efficiency and usefulness IMO.

    2. Re:I went with XFCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I use a mix of XFCE and OpenBox. OpenBox and KDE are apparently one of very few desktops these days that can handle 4+ monitors correctly. Even that stock XFCE window manager doesn't work correctly. What a shame.

      GNOME 3 can't do it at all. If I load it on my 4 monitor setup (two twinview screens) it gets all screwed up with only half the screen rendering and the rendering is done on the opposite monitors from where the actual mouse clicks are detected. It's seriously broken.

      10 years ago this setup worked perfectly. It's sad to see so much software getting worse with age.

    3. Re:I went with XFCE by nschubach · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been debating moving back (xfce, or KDE) for a while now. I've given Gnome3 a good 4-5 months of good attempts to use, but I find that multitasking is not the forefront of the interface. Yeah, you can "snap" windows to the edges and see more than one, but it's just not the same somehow. Maybe it's because the windows mostly open full screen? Maybe it's the added complexity of having to hit Shift + click to open a new instance of something instead of bringing up the old one (that still bugs me the most...) Maybe it's not being able to "pin" (or favorite) an application to the launcher if it doesn't have a .desktop file associated with it. Why can't I run a Java app from the prompt and make that pin-able? Maybe it's the annoying bottom bar notification? (I prefer mine up top... been trying to get used to it, didn't put much effort into seeing if I could move them back up to the clock...) It mostly pops up when I don't want it to (when I have to click on the scroll down button.) Maybe it's all that combined. I just use the machine as a web browser anymore because that's usually full-screened anyway. I tried developing on it, but it feels clunky to do so.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:I went with XFCE by RDW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you liked Gnome 2, then MATE is an obvious choice:

      http://mate-desktop.org/

      It's an active fork of Gnome 2, and is included in the current Mint distribution, though you can get a more recent version from the developers' repository (which also supports Debian and Ubuntu):

      http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/download

      Third party rpms for Fedora 16 are now available too.

  2. Not stable enough by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 5, Informative
    here is a list of things on gnome in Gentoo before they can make it stable and unmask it.

    http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GNOME/GNOME3_Stable

    In other words, its not stable enough on Gentoo

  3. Cinnamon - what Gnome3 should have been by Dakiraun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even though it's barely out of the gates, I tried out Cinnamon, a fork of Gnome3 by the folks that brought us Mint Linux. MUCH better than the base Gnome3.

    To keep things short, one could say the biggest point of contention with Gnome3 was how radically different it was from Gnome2, moving from a task-centric way of managing the shell to an application centric method. While great for a novice, this tended to frustrate a lot of power users. Cinnamon allows more flexibility in the shell's method of focus on tasks and applications, essentially letting the user pick whatever point on the scale they prefer. It's a good approach - perhaps the best approach.

    I don't know if it's offered for Fedora or Red Hat based Linux's in package form, but you could build it from source if need be.

  4. Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And it's sad that most /.ters won't read the review, because it is truly very complete. At one point you read

    Another side-effect presents itself after a few weeks of regular use.

    or

    I needed to open it on the Dell Inspiron Mini 10v to access my DropBox account [...] Back on my desktop, KeePassX reported that my password database was locked

    and think "a review that actually tried to use the fucking thing for weeks intead of just installing, looking around for a few minutes and writing about it? What the hell is happening to tech journalism?". Gnome Shell didn't, but Tom's Hardware scored a few points with me today.

  5. Re:Why say Tablet UI? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can someone please explain to me the whole GNOME Shell/Unity is a tablet interface meme?

    Single-tasking full-screen apps with no application menus, and masses of enforced mouse movement to get anything done? Clicking in the corner of the screen to switch windows doesn't cause RSI when using a table, but it's horrendously bad design when using a mouse.

    Unity is fine on my netbook when I just want to check email or look at some web pages, but it's a total cluster-fsck when I try to get any real work done; I'm continually having to move the mouse all over the screen to switch windows, and the stupid task bar is continually blocking the left side of the screen when I move the mouse over there and don't quite stop before the edge (e.g. to use the 'back' button in Firefox).

  6. Re:Why the keyboard hate? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it really that hard to use the keyboard instead?

    It's a GUI, dude. If I wanted to be using the keyboard, I'd use a CLI.

    And yes, having to move my hands between mouse and keyboard all the time because they've totally fscked up the mouse interface for no good reason would be incredibly annoying.

    You see, here's the thing. Changes are supposed to take what we have and... improve it. When you do that, users are happy and start using the new features and few people complain. But all these new GUIs are a big step backward for desktop users, merely to support a tablet market which does not exist. Android and iOS own the tablet market right now, Microsoft might get a small market share, but no-one is going to be pushing Red Hat tablets any time soon.

  7. Re:Gnome 3 by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Totally agree. Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface. I don't understand why Fedora wouldn't just go with KDE as the default since it's still a desktop interface (assuming we are limited to the big two managers, Gnome and KDE). KDE (finally) runs great.

    I agree with this sentiment. That's why I went with KDE. On my desktop, I have a desktop interface, on my netbook/ultrabook, I can use the netbook interface and on a tablet, the new plasma active. Three different UIs for three different purposes, but underneath it all, one desktop environment to learn.

  8. Re:Divisiveness for Fun and Profit by dslbrian · · Score: 4, Informative

    I agreed with his review as well. Frankly I found his tolerance far exceeding my own when it comes to GNOME3. Pretty much everything he said on the "Why it Failed" page is spot on. I thought this was insightful regarding their target demographic:

    So, when the power users are leaving, GNOME doesn't really seem to care. After all, GNOME 3 isn't designed for them. But what the GNOME Project leaders don't seem to understand is that new Linux users are like vampires, or werewolves, or zombies. Stick with me here.

    New Linux users don't just spontaneously pop into existence, they have to be "bitten" by someone who is already involved. Average Joe, who needs to use his computer and doesn't care how it works, doesn't wake up one day and, out of the clear blue sky exclaim, "You know what? I think I'm gonna screw around with Linux today.” New users are typically converted by a friend or family member who gets them set up and interested.

    By gutting GNOME of every power user-oriented feature (a functional desktop, virtual desktops, on-screen task management, applets, hibernation, and so on) it's losing that intermediate-to-advanced crowd that's responsible for bringing users on-board. The power user demographic isn't going to recommend and support GNOME 3-based systems if they've already jumped ship.

    Just how does GNOME intend to put the GNOME Shell into the hands of new users? By chasing away its current base with a brand new interface designed to be "easy," and with no clear strategy for acquiring an easy-seeking audience, GNOME simultaneously shoots itself in the head and foot.

    And finally:

    Using GNOME Shell is an exercise in supreme frustration. After spending the first month with this interface, I wanted to crawl into a corner and die.

    Just the reaction the GNOME devs were hoping for, no? I kind of wonder how long Fedora will stick with it given that.