Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Giving GNOME 3 a GNOME 2 Look

Posted by Soulskill on from the fighting-change-by-any-means-necessary dept.

nanday writes "GNOME Shell Extensions have done more than any other set of features to make GNOME 3 usable. Nearly 270 in number, they provide a degree of customization that was missing in the first GNOME 3 releases. In fact, if you choose, you can use the extensions to go far beyond Classic GNOME and re-create almost exactly the look and feel of GNOME 2 while taking advantage of the latest GNOME 3 code."

38 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. As someone who uses GNOME 3... by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I dont understand the problems that people have with it. I spent an hours learning it, I kept an open mind and ended up really liking it.

    That said - 90% of what I do requires a shell so maybe Im missing something....

    1. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I personally must say the same, it gave me a lot less problems than gnome2. All in all, it just worked. I didn't feel the need to configure much, if anything (made middle mouse click be minimize windows).

    2. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by miknix · · Score: 2

      For starters, the quality of the extensions is lower than Gnome 2 applets - specially the system monitoring extension. When a single extension crashes in Gnome 3, the whole panel goes MIA, unlike Gnome 2.

    4. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by lvxferre · · Score: 5, Informative

      The hate against GNOME 3 has mixed origins. Some are natural, as "they changed now it sucks" reactions; the fact GNOME 2 was/is great also doesn't help at all. Some are because the software is new and nowhere mature. But some are genuine complaints from the users for GNOME 3 not actually improving their experience, but getting in the way to do common tasks - the devs confused "simple" with "simplistic" and are completely deaf for users' requests (some as simple as putting back in 3.7 a background configuration already present in 3.6.

      As for me, I just moved to MATE when the whole thing happened and I'm quite happy with it.

      --
      Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
    5. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These are the people who think that Win95 was the apex of UI design. Leave them to their retro revelry.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by jbolden · · Score: 2

      /. has become ultra conservative when it comes to interface changes. Any substantial change of a piece of software is going to involve some things getting worse in exchange for more things getting better. Which means complex existing workflows likely will have to change. They don't like that even though existing workflows usually stifle innovation.

    7. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by jbolden · · Score: 2

      In all fairness the Gnome 2 userbase was not the desired userbase for Gnome 3. So being "deaf" was part of the design. Gnome wanted to shift its target market.

    8. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there is nothing you are missing I don't get the upheaval over Gnome 3 either. Some people just can't stand anything changing and there is a certain small subset that group that likes to kill time by searching for crap to get angry over and make a lot of noise about it. The rest of the Gnome 2 traditionalists have simply realised that there is a growing collection of (how many is it now?) Gnome 2 forks out there and they are only a yum/apt-get away. Mate for example is now at version 1.6 and there is a Linux Mint LiveDVD that comes preinstalled with it.

      I'm not someone who froths at the mouth and gnaws my desk every time something changes. Even the perpetual shuffle on Windows only annoys me (OK, so what is the Nitwit Neighborhood called in this release?).

      But Gnome3 took away critical desktop assets that I used every day and all day. THAT is what the upheaval is about. It didn't change them, it removed them and left nothing comparable in its place. And that is what had me screaming in rage.

      I switched to Cinnamon, which replaces some, though not all of what I lost, and I don't mind the fact that it looks like Gnome3 at all.

    9. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Ignacio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So then they shouldn't have called Gnome 3 "Gnome". Just like Microsoft shouldn't have called Windows 8 "Windows".

    10. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering.
      Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.

      Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane.
      (Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)

    11. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      What finally did it for me was the "you shouldn't even be allowed to have widgets or themes" attitude of the Gnome devs. I'd tolerated Gnome shell despite its flaws up until then. With that kind of vision, we're eventually going to be very much at odds eventually, as I think Linux is all about options, and I like configuring my desktop to look and work the way *I* want. It's the same as iOS. If you think you'll be always be happy with someone elses' design, then by all means, stick with it, otherwise, get out as soon as you can.

      I moved to KDE and wish I'd done so earlier. It's fantastic, and doesn't get the attention it deserves from the Linux community.

    12. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some people just can't stand anything changing

      Again, for the 100th time, I must patiently explain that it's not the change itself that's the problem.

      The problem is when the change takes away features and functionality, or hides them.

      For example, Windows underwent a significant amount of UI design change between 3.1 and WinXP, and almost all of it was an improvement.

      But we now have a new generation of UI designers who are operating on the theory that if you hide or remove features and functionality, it will make the interface better. We've seen the dismal results of their work: Canonical Unity, GNOME 3, and Windows 8 -- all resoundingly criticized for the hiding and/or removal of features, and for abandoning the crucial principle of discoverability.

    13. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Shark · · Score: 2

      I may be naive, but I think adapting the workflow to the interface is backward. The interface is there to allow you to work, it should adapt itself to *your* workflow. With Gnome 2, if you wanted a pannel on the right side of the screen, you put a pannel on the right side of the screen. If you wanted a taskbar on the left side, you put a taskbar on the left. If you wanted the notification area in a specific corner, you put it there.

      People cling to Gnome 2 because it at least granted them the freedom to adjust the interface to their workflow and the ability to do so was built into the interface. You had various components and while the default layout was alright, it was only that, a default layout, you could lay them out however you pleased. Now it's all integrated for the sake of integration with no real benefit except perhaps if your workflow happened to meet the dev's vision.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    14. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering.
      Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.

      Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane.
      (Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)

      The original Gnome 3 theme did have a large title bar and extra padding, but that was resolved long ago. Besides, there are a myriad of themes with different sized title bars and widgets to choose from.

      As for dynamic workspaces, you can turn those off and use fixed ones, if you like and you can even add back the maximize/minimize buttons. In reality, Gnome 3 is pretty flexible. It's a shame it was released when it was because of outside pressure. If it had matured a little longer so more of the pieces were in place, it probably would have been much better received. KDE4 had the same issue, it's early release wasn't meant for every day use and they lost a lot of users, too.

    15. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.

      That's strange, because apt-get install xfce or its equivalent usually only takes about 10 minutes unless you have a really slow connection.

    16. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Lisias · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dont understand the problems that people have with it.[...]

      Ergo, you don't understand the way people uses computers. :-)

      I *create* things on my computer. Each "task" is done using a Code Editor (for code), an Text Processor (for requirements), a bunch of Browsers (for references, searches when in doubt and task and bug tracking) and sometimes a graphical editor (for, imagine that, graphics processing).

      Some tasks need a subset of all above. Some others, need them all. And having a workspace based on applications is the very dumbest idea of all times - producing content is a multi-hole, multi disciplinar, task.

      Gnome 3 tried to force down end-user, consumer solutions into professional's throat. Bad idea - not even Microsoft succeed into this (see Windows 8.1).

      My solution to the problem? I just switched for Mac OS X. I found it was easier to work there than to wait 1 or 2 years until Gnome realize the huge mistake they did.

      (And NO, I WILL NOT USE KDE - I don't like Windows-like environments, or I would use Windows at the first place!).

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    17. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Some people have work to do and use their computers as tools to get shit done. Not all of us have time to continually waste re-learning the newest fad desktop paradigm pushed by UX designers who need to continually justify the existence of their jobs.

    18. Re:As someone who uses GNOME 3... by jma05 · · Score: 2

      Sometime ago, I was reading the mailing list post where the devs discuss removing the minimize button. The lead removes it, tests it on two, just two devs, whom he admits are atypical users. They are not happy about the change, but say they can live with it. So he removes it. Huh?

      I thought that the Gnome foundation was big on HCI... and this is what passes for testing radical changes to on one of the most established UI conventions of the universal WIMP interface for the most popular Linux Desktop at the time? I am all for trying out new Window Managers and interaction metaphors, but you just don't mess with a mainstream UI without a lot of testing and feedback, especially for Gnome, which was not meant to be an adventurous desktop, but rather something you used without thinking too much about it.

      I ended up with Cinnamon as well.

  2. gnome-shell only bad for geeks by deaf.seven · · Score: 2

    I've installed Ubuntu with gnome-shell for 3 computer illiterate friends.
    Once I've explained them that they should always work with the super key (on most keyboards windows key) and if they want to start something just type it into the startmenu (I also installed gnome-do on F4, because it's a little faster and I like it better), then they didn't have any problems with it at all.
    (One of that friend actually tried out unity too and even liked it!)

    I remember when I first upgraded to Ubuntu 11.10 (I think it was that one where gnome2 was removed and unity & gnome-shell were available), I was really disappointed and I really regretted having upgraded.
    But I gave it a shot and I started to like it. I often like to use it on my laptop when I'm traveling. (On my desktop I use the i3 tiling window manager, strongly recommendable)

    The point is: I believe it's mostly the geeks that have used static panels with static start menus for the past 10+ years that have the most problems with gnome-shell.

    1. Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      Well, that was it for me - Unity completely violated my work-flow, multiple documents open on a very large monitor, with focus-follows-mouse. It didn't work for me on MacOS, and it didn't work for me in Unity. Then I got a new laptop and installed 12.10 on it... I don't like how small laptop screens have gotten (4x3 ratios actually give more pixels and more useful vertical space); in this case, I only want one window at a time because of the screen size, and having the launcher on the side (and no app-bar, or whatever you want to call it) saves crucial vertical space. So I got accustomed to it on the laptop... which helped me get accustomed to it on the desktop. I still hate the Mac UI, and I still have problems with Unity configurations (I just don't feel like spending so much time tweaking and still not getting things just right), but I find it usable, at least. I have a feeling I'll be spending a lot of time tweaking the UI today because now it's in my head. Thanks, slashdot.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:gnome-shell only bad for geeks by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Why you think that displaying the mediocrity of your friends on slashdot legitimates GNOME 3 is beyond me.

      it's a form of "it's just not for you".

      fyi, his friends would have been just as happy if not happier with icewm. it's not like they had any choice. it's a mystery how his friends know what magic to type into the start menu - which gets us to the why a gui was a wonderful addition to pc's, you didn't have to magically know what apps you have for a task.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  3. why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this will invite a flame or three, but the proper response here is Mate.

  4. Lubuntu Fan by misfit815 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gnome 3 is why I switched to Lubuntu (LXDE) and I've been very happy with it ever since. But if you have to jump through so many hoops to make your software behave like you want it to behave, then something's fundamentally flawed.

    --
    Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
  5. Mate Cinnamon and Gnome3+Extensions by tuppe666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know this will invite a flame or three, but the proper response here is Mate.

    Mate http://mate-desktop.org/about/
    "MATE is a fork of GNOME 2.
    It provides an intuitive and attractive desktop to Linux users using traditional metaphors."

    Cinnamon (although same as Gnome 3 with extensions) http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/
    "Traditional layout, advanced features, easy to use, powerful, flexible."

    Can you not see the difference. The real question is why use Mate.

  6. Re:a couple years late by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to use ubuntu. Took one look at Unity and switched to xubuntu.

  7. Apple stuck in 90's by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    Since then I've bought a Mac and never been happier.

    Ironically I have used Mac regular, and back 8 years ago would recommend them (when the top end where reasonable value and their software shined), today they look and run like overpriced dinosaurs, with gimmicks like cylinder cases with no real innovation. Now I use Gnome or XFCE and both are better, and its lightening fast. In short the MAC is overpriced brand trash.

    I'm not even alone Mac sales are being crushed dropping 22% and 2% over last two quarters, yet Linux usage continues to rise.

    Your trolling. The topic is about Gnome Shell (Default) vs Desktop Metaphor (Note I don't add traditional before it) and not about Apple who have lets be honest have abandoned their Desktop.

  8. Gnome 1 rocks by water-and-sewer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just for fun last week I reinstalled one of the first distros that really got me cooking on Linux: SUSE 8.0, running KDE3.0 and Gnome 1. And you know what, I think Gnome 1 is the version that worked for me - sawfish windowmanager,hugely tweakable, some cool themes, and so on. Yes, the apps were in an earlier and less-useful state, but as a desktop, it was pretty cool.

    I had a fun time going down nostalgia lane with apps like Balsa and Spruce and even the early versions of Nautilus file manager (long before they went nuts on the "spatial" metaphor etc.) and even early version of the Pan newsreader.

    Maybe it's nostalgia, but that was a pretty good desktop. Gnome 2 never really floated my boat. And Gnome 3 can wither and die, as far as I'm concerned. It makes me so unproductive it drives me to turn off the computer and go read a book or something.

    --
    If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    1. Re:Gnome 1 rocks by water-and-sewer · · Score: 2

      I installed it in a Virtual Machine, since my modern hardware would be unrecognizable to a distro from 2001. But it's freaking FAST. Imagine all those fat libraries that used to be thin, from the era when your distro came on a set of CDs instead of online repositories, and you accessed the 'net over a telephone line.

      To be clear, I like the modern apps better - things like clementine and kontact and I guess even evolution. But as a desktop, Gnome1 was tweakable and useable and interesting and geeky (and gasp .. unrefined) in ways that I find useful. And sawfish as a window manager was really interesting and hugely configurable. Gnome2 may have been more refined but it was also less tweakable. And to this geek anyway, the reason I run Linux is so I can tweak to my liking. Any distro (ahem Gnome3) that reduces my options in order to guide me to some developer's personal vision of computing nirvana makes me say "no frikkin' way." If I wanted untweakability, I'd use OSX.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
  9. GNOME 2 is better for most users by mo0n_sniper · · Score: 2

    So the greatest accomplishment of GNOME 3 is to be able to look and feel like GNOME2. Doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

  10. Re:While we are at it by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The software you are loking for is called FVWM95.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  11. Cinnamon still missing window previews in pager by caseih · · Score: 2

    Cinnamon and Gnome 3 still are missing one vital feature from Gnome 2 and Mate. That is the key feature of showing window previews in the pager. This is a powerful feature that helps make virtual desktops a bit more easy to use. Seeing a bunch of boxes with numbers in them is far less useful. This sort of thing has been available in old X11 pagers for about 20 years or more. Why can Cinnamon not do it too? I rely on this feature to mind me what apps are running where.

    1. Re:Cinnamon still missing window previews in pager by IANAAC · · Score: 2

      Cinnamon and Gnome 3 still are missing one vital feature from Gnome 2 and Mate. That is the key feature of showing window previews in the pager. This is a powerful feature that helps make virtual desktops a bit more easy to use.

      Maybe I'm misunderstanding... I get this feature with Gnome3/Gnome Shell, although I installed an extension to get a better version of it, called Workspace Navigator. It actually provides a better overview than Gnome2 did for me. If I forget what's where, I just hit the super key and can see what's running on each virtual desktop.

      Truthfully, I like the idea of having extensions. I only install the functionality I need. I also like that I don't have to deal with Compiz in Gnome Shell. While it was fine with earlier versions of Ubuntu, the version of Compiz that ships with Ubuntu (at least with 12.04) is really garbage.

  12. Re:a couple years late by Mashdar · · Score: 2

    I used 12.04 for a long time without Unity by installing the gnome-desktop package, which IIRC was Gnome 3.

    I've recently switched to Mint 14 on MATE (modified Gnome 2) and have not had any regrets.

    I did have to bind ctrl+alt+t to open a terminal, though :)

  13. Better Alternatives Exist by trickstyhobbit · · Score: 2

    This issue is moot. Cinnamon, MATE and XFCE all offer the ability to regain your old functionality and work-flow . Maybe there are needs I don't understand, but all three of these alternatives have worked really well for me, particularly XFCE.

  14. Why not just use gnome3 classic mode? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Informative

    It will be default in RHEL 7, so it will be supported going forward. Gnome extensions seem to break with every other release.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  15. TFA doesn't tell the whole truth by mar.kolya · · Score: 2

    TFA doesn't tell the whole truth. You cannot get Gnome 2 Look and Feel with Gnome 3. You just cannot. You cannot have workplaces in a grid, you cannot move and place your applets way you want, you cannot even have sensible task bar - one that is from applets doesn't even have context menus on buttons to allow one to move application to different workplace. It's like you spend couple of days tuning Gnome 3 and still get 'something' that is very far from what you've already had in Gnome 2 for many years. But that's only for starters. Then one can remember that with Gnome 2 often comes compiz with lot's of features and lots of eye candy. And that all begs a question - what exactly the purpose of the Gnome rewrite? It seems like their main goal was to copy all bad features from macos. And it was would have been perfectly fine if they didn't so badly break Gnome 2 with all their library changes. It's like one of the most popular DEs just seized to exist overnight. You upgrade you Ubuntu/Fedora/etc and... your desktop is no more. And you were so much used to it. I'm not against innovation in any way... But would it be better to perform experiments in the labs, not in schools/factories? Ubuntu with their Unity is much better in that sense - they did not take your choice away. But Gnome 3 did - and that's main problem.

  16. Gnome3 is only part of my problem by Michael+Meissner · · Score: 2
    Right now, I have 3 systems. An aging dual core Dell D620 laptop with Intel graphics, a new dual core Lenovo E430 laptop with i3 chip and Intel graphics meant to replace the Dell, and a HP Pavilion p7-1233w Fusion A8-5500 Quad-Core 3.2GHz with builtin Radeon graphics that replaced 2 other desktops that went belly up.

    The Dell is stuck at Fedora 14. Anything newer brings in gnome3 and the system crashes when a 3D operation is done. I've tried Fedora 15 and 17, and could not get it configured to avoid the crashes in the Intel graphics system. I configured to use the fallback system, but something isn't right, and it still crashes. So I've kept it locked at Fedora 14.

    I could run Gnome3 on the HP, and I hated it. I don't want windows bouncing around, I want to have 8 workspaces that I get to with keyboard shotcuts, I want focus to automatically turned on as I move the mouse over the window without clicking, I want to have static panels with drawers that I can specify where each thing goes. I eventually turned on the fallback gnome mode, and it allowed me to configure many of the things I use all of the time in Gnome2, but there are still lots of things I can't figure out how to do with the time I spent looking at the documentation. I played with Mate under Fedora 17, and I wasn't happy with it. While gnome fallback mode is a pale imatation of gnome2, eventually I will want the stuff I've been accustomed to having in my desktop for the past 10 years or so. I have the commands and shortcuts burned into my finger tips.

    I've been trying off and on to get Fedora 18 installed on the Lenovo, and every so often the screen gets garbage on it, and the system hangs. Because of gnome3, this time I went with XFCE, and while it doesn't have everything I had in gnome2, it had enough that I could tolerate it for the time being. I have tried all of the BIOS configuration options, tried it with/without the Intel video driver, but I'm giving up on Fedora. Instead, I plan on installing Centos 6.4 (essentially RHEL 6) using the basic video driver. I had this working at one point, but decided to give Fedora one more try. Before buying the laptop, I did check around and did not find people with the kinds of problems I've been having with it. I really, really hope I don't have to load my Windows 7 OS that came with the laptop and run Linux as a virtual machine.