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."

15 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 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!
    2. 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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".

    5. 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'.)

    6. 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.

    7. 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
  2. why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  3. 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
  4. 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.

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

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

  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.