Brief overview of GNOME 3.16

** GNOME ** is one of the best desktop environments on GNU / Linux, and therefore one of the most popular. Although it is not one of my favorites, I do not stop admitting that it has a lot of good things, but also bad things and that is more or less this article.

The idea is not to lash out at GNOME. We must start from the idea that everything I will say below is only my personal opinion and that my tastes are not the same as those of the rest. We will see the good things, and the bad, trying to be as impartial as possible.

I clarify again that there is always someone clueless: THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION

I've been testing ** GNOME Shell ** a bit more in the last few days, and I can come to recognize its good and bad things, however, it still does not meet my expectations and I will also talk about that in this article.

As we know, ** GNOME 3.16 ** came out yesterday filling the hearts of the fans of this Desktop Environment with hope and longing. And what is the cause of all the fuss? Well, in the opinion of many, who are doing things well now, at least most of them.

### The bad things about GNOME 3.16.

I clarify, many of the things that I am going to mention regarding negative things can be solved or changed through extensions, however, I am going to refer to GNOME Shell as it is conceived by its developers, by default and without additions.

#### The windows interface

I'm not an interface designer, but you don't have to be an expert to see that the guys at GNOME have tried to get very close to the look and feel of OS X. Who's to blame them? Not me, because although this will be the first negative point, on the other hand it is something that I love.

What I am saying may be contradictory, so I will try to explain myself better. The appearance of the applications and the Desktop Environment in general I like, because it is precisely very close to the style of OS X.


GNOME You haven't been the only one trying to * imitate * or * copy * the * Apple * OS. With the same copy philosophy we have Unity, the only thing missing is to put the Dock on the left at the bottom, something that shares the GNOME Shell design, and in both cases by default, they cannot be moved from the place .

But okay, if the goal is to bring GNU / Linux users something with ** more style **, they have succeeded, however, copying sometimes has its disadvantages. As we all know, GNOME now * unites the title bar and window buttons with the tools menu *, in true OS X style, in something they call CSD. Ok, and what disadvantage does this bring?

Visually only a few, but technically if the application dies, the window dies and therefore we lose control of it. We cannot close it, minimize it, or anything like that. And this represents a problem for it to be a negative point? It could be, I would say, since an answer to this will depend on what we are doing at the time the window hangs .. * (Be careful with those who see pr0n sneakily ehh) * ..

#### The new system tray

Something that many users do not like is that GNOME does not allow to place the applications in the upper right corner of the screen, that is, in the area of ​​the panel where the system tray is supposed to go, but they have arrived in this version 3.16 with a solution: a small panel at the bottom left * that appears jumping * only when there are applications that use the system tray, and that we can hide or show.


So far the idea is not bad, why fill the top panel with icons? However, there are a couple of things that I don't like or that I find as a failure:

  1. It is located at the bottom left, when we are adapted that the system tray is on the right side, it does not matter if it is up or down, but on the right. This can be uncomfortable for some (myself included).
  2. If we hide it and the application that is minimized is not compatible with the * new notification system * we will not find out anything. For some it may be good, for me it is very bad, because the applications that I bring to the * tray * are precisely those that need to be there so that they notify me and are in a visible place.

#### We still don't have a task bar.

If we want to change the window or simply see that we have open, what should we do? By default, GNOME does not include the Maximize / Minimize buttons in the windows, since its developers may assume that we want to have all the windows open, one below the other or on separate desktops.

However to see the open applications we have 3 options as far as I know:

+ Go with the mouse cursor to the top left to show the * dashboard *.
+ Do the same but pressing the key Super L (the one with the Windows flag).
+ Or switch between apps using Other + Tab.

If you find any of these three practical or comfortable options ok, but to me it does not seem accessible or usable at all.

#### Silent Notifications

One of the great achievements of this version 3.16 are the notifications that now go to the top along with the clock. I'll talk about these later, now I'm going to refer to the notifications of certain actions that in GNOME 3.14 worked and now they don't.

An example of them is when we connect an external device, for example a USB memory. What happens, has someone found out that we tapped a USB port? NO, if we don't look at the little round dot that appears next to the clock, we won't find out.

Not even in the notifications preferences I see the option that allows me to add removable devices as part of the notifications (forgive the redundancy). And now, if someone is so kind, can you tell me how to unmount the removable device once mounted without having to open ** Nautilus **? There is no option for it anywhere.

#### Apps lacking options

Please, whoever comes up with the old talk that you don't need to do anything but browse, copy movies, and organize documents, and the simplicity of GNOME lets you do that, can save yourself the trouble of typing your comment. And I say it from the respect, that history is more than old.

[quote] Many criticize KDE because it has too many options, and I wonder which one would be better: to have options that we don't use, but have them for when we need them, or never have them, or when we need them? [/ quote]

That is just what happens to me with GNOME and its applications. Nautilus The poor man does less every day, soon he will have fewer options than Thunar y PCManFM, if it has not already reached that point. For example, try renaming several files at the same time. Nor does it allow me to see the size of a file without having to go to its properties or selecting it, just to put a couple of examples. Gedit It is another that is fair, but hey, quite a bit that has color highlighting for different languages.


The new very beautiful GNOME calendar, in the style of Maya the calendar of ElementaryOS, but managing our events contrary to what it seems (it should be very simple), can be a headache. I invite you to make a test, create an event for today, and that same event try to pass it for tomorrow, simply by dragging it. They cannot, they have to create a new one, put the same as the old one and delete the old one.

GNOME Calendar

And I could go on, but to finish with this section we have the ** GNOME Control Center **, which is not only too simple in some cases, but to get to certain options we must click more than in Windows.

#### Do we have to talk about the customization options?

Without * Gnome Tweak Tools * which to top it off is not included by default, we would have a pretty tough job with * DConf / Gconf-Editor * ahead to change, for example, the system font. It is a point that I will always criticize in the new GNOME.

#### Other details

The application or command launcher ( Alt + F2 ) does not have auto-completion, so we have to know the exact name of the application we want to launch.

### The good things about GNOME 3.16

But not everything is bad, it must be said. I repeat that one of the most interesting things about GNOME Shell 3.16 is precisely its interface and how simple it turns out to be. In general, and broadly speaking, it is a beautiful Desktop Environment within what it fits and includes some things that are less interesting.

#### Boxes or GNOME Boxes

A front-end for Qemu-kvm that deserves nothing less than praise. Something great considering that no one had ever thought of implementing such a simple tool to virtualize before. In this version it is simpler to use and more fun.


#### Interactive notifications


Something that I always liked about GNOME Shell, the power for example to reply to a private message by jabber from the notification itself.

The new notifications are not bad, but not being able to choose the ones we want to leave or close makes me very uncomfortable, some even disappear without one wanting to, or they remain stuck and cannot be eliminated (especially with Empathy's, which follows having bugs), but you are forgiven. They are very cool and are located in a good place, occupying a space that was previously underused.

#### Lock screen

Whether it is a copy of Windows or not, the GDM lock screen is beautiful, and even more so when we have notifications and can see them without accessing the desktop, although in part this can represent a serious problem for the privacy of users.


#### Screencast at hand

Another option that I have always loved about GNOME Shell is to be able to record our desktop with a simple combination of keys: Other + Ctrl + Shift + R.

#### Extensions


Without them I highly doubt that anyone can survive more than a week in GNOME Shell, well, unless they are not very demanding. The only downside is that right now many of the ones that work in GNOME 3.14 are already disabled in GNOME 3.16. But without a doubt they are something good that we must mention.

### Conclusions on GNOME 3.16

For those who love simplicity and simplicity, they will undoubtedly find the ideal Desktop Environment in GNOME. Applications such as the new IRC client, the maps, the calendar, from their austerity they know beautiful, clean.


I love many applications such as the weather, which are very well done. However, at the end of the day you discover that you have just enough to be able to work and you cannot fully squeeze the Desktop.

There are others that I couldn't test like Music, because they gave me an error when trying to launch them with Python or something like that, and Empathy, I could never open a chat window with a friend. I think there are also some inconsistencies in terms of design (which is clearly aimed at tablets), because while we find huge buttons in the windows, the scroll bars are very narrow.

But generally speaking, with each release GNOME is becoming more focused on its goals and offering a more successful product. That I do not like it, that I do not find it productive, is just my appreciation, I know that many users feel comfortable. There may be other benefits that I have not yet used or do not know, I will see them with the day to day, anyway I hear suggestions and criteria in the comments.

The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

70 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *



  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   ivanbarram said

    The opinions expressed in this blog are the sole responsibility of the person issuing them and do not necessarily represent the thinking of



    1.    elav said

      Exactly U_U

    2.    daryo said

      my opinion is that gnome is made by graphic designers leaving aside the computer

  2.   lfelipe said

    It seems right to me that gnome does not have a taskbar, it is super vakano to carry the tip of the mouse and see my windows in real time.

    1.    elav said

      We can also do that in KDE, for example, and I still have the taskbar 😉

      1.    lfelipe said

        My point is that I love GNOME, I have tried all the flavors of shell's and no one takes away the taste and admiration of such a project like this.


        Excellent Page.

    2.    Martin said

      It is clearly not intended for those of us who handle several text documents at the same time. I mean, the behavior that GNOME naturally proposes is not very practical for handling many documents at once.

    3.    Miguel said

      I feel like an astronaut in limbo looking for his spaceship if I don't see the taskbar.

    4.    Tile said

      Gnome is cute, I have always liked it, but the idea of ​​doing something more and more minimalist each time, sometimes seems absurd to me, I hope it doesn't end up like OperaCoast (moving based on gestures and keystrokes)

  3.   rhoconlinux said

    Or is it that OSX Yosemite copied TODOOOOOO from Gnome ??? !!! ^ _ ^

    1.    elav said

      It can also be hehehe.

    2.    karlinux said

      You are absolutely right the window was a copy of osx to gnome and not the other way around, if not look at release dates

  4.   Chuck daniels said

    I don't agree with some opinions as a regular Gnome Shell user, but they are respectable. In my opinion, I believe that the philosophy of this desktop is to provide the basic and necessary to be able to work, and if you want to extend it, you can very comfortably with the extensions (which can be installed directly with a click from the relevant page).
    As a point of note, Calendar is a new app that is in the testing phase, a kind of preview, and will definitely be released in version 3.18 of Shell. They have also added another for Ebooks.
    Good review and good article, keep it up. 😉

    1.    elav said

      Thanks for the comment Chuck Daniels. In fact, I agree with what you propose, and of course, you have every right to have your own opinion. Every user is different, and needs vary. Perhaps I am already adapted to certain things that GNOME does not offer me.


    2.    Martin said

      I agree, although the concept of Working will vary from one to another. As a lawyer I need to have documents open at the same time and easily navigate through them. Even the Unity system makes me uncomfortable in these cases. Even more so if I have to go to Activities or combine keys; or if I need to minimize windows. Of course, this is the concept that GNOME offers out of the box.

    3.    Tina Toledo said

      The thing about the extensions is very good but ... has the problem of incompatibility of libraries and APIs been solved?

    4.    ZombieAlive said

      Yes, but the people of Gnome shell do not integrate many things that are standard and there are others that not only lack options but are not very intuitive, things as basic as changing the wallpaper or appearance. GNOME Tweak Tool is an unnecessary app since its features must have the gnome control center. And the other thing is that gnome control center is more limited than necessary. And many more things that the user does not control. Gnome shell on Fedora starts from 600 megabytes to 1gb of ram on a 4gig machine and there is no way to solve this. It is a desktop that has been in beta for several years now, not even integrated gnome-screen-saver or gnome-session-propities or many more options that are like betas.

    5.    rare case said

      You're right; Gnome developers present you with a basic environment with the possibility of extending it with functions, which make it more practical. Although they do not focus on offering a graphically wide environment of options. Because then it would no longer be minimalist. But that does not take away the possibility of looking elegant and modern. By default it is pleasing to the eye and can be improved with various GTK and Shell themes, which are not few.
      Perhaps the custom factor plays an important role in choosing a desktop environment. Since I have a PC I use Linux and I have not used Windows or Mac for long periods.

  5.   Chaparral said

    It has always been said that comparisons are hateful. And this can be the example. It may be that kde is more practical, but it is heavier and Gnome-Shell, lighter and faster. With their strengths and weaknesses, both desks are valid, in my humble opinion.
    You already said it at the beginning is your personal opinion.

    1.    elav said

      I do not want to enter into comparisons, but to say right now that KDE is heavier than GNOME, or slower, may be a fallacy the size of the Sun. Although of course, we should see what you call "heavy" in this case.

      I never said that GNOME was not valid, I said (in other words) that it does not solve me, that it is not the same. GNOME is a great Desktop Environment, but it's not for me.

      1.    Spacejock said

        I already said, KDE with Konqueror at 1.2 GB.
        Gnome with Firefox half.

    2.    Od_air said

      As Diazepan once said: "Both are completely heavy and heavily complete."

    3.    ZombieAlive said

      In KDE with Fedora I started a maximum of about 800mb with the homerun launcher that only ate about 250mb and in the same distro but with gnome shell or cinnamon the desktop would start me if or if about 1200mb minimum about 900mb without the chance to lower the resources of the environments. I have 4-core CPU and 1gb Nvidia graphics and 4 RAM I don't think it deserves a bad performance with these resources in gnomeshell or in Cinnamon.

  6.   mmm said

    so that the windows "Do the same but pressing the Super L key (the one with the Windows flag) appear." That seems great to me, because I have everything with the Win key, and everything through the keyboard and I don't need to go anywhere with the mouse. After Key Win I see my windows in real time, and also if I want to open something I just type a little and that's it… I like that a lot.
    Of course, I like to minimize and etc…. (which I change with configuration tools)

    "You can't squeeze the desktop to the bottom" ... what would it be to squeeze the bottom of the desktop? Greetings and thanks!

  7.   sausl said

    Gnome more and more beautiful but further away from a traditional desktop pc very destined for a touch screen has some extensions that help but are somewhat neglected
    I prefer cinnamon although both are bad on my pc .-.

    that's why i stay with kde

    1.    ivanbarram said

      Hold on old KDE, nothing else matters ... hahahaha

      Cinnamon has been polished a lot in the last time, being a very functional desktop, even more so than Gnome itself, although a few weeks ago I installed Mint to a cousin and the truth is that I found it "heavy" ... Finally it ended with KDE, obviously it He was very grateful coming from Windows ... a pity that after 5 days the desktop was unrecognizable from so much hand I had put into it, not to mention the colors he chose to personalize: facepalm: for tastes, colors.


  8.   santiago said

    gnome or kde…. openbox rules bitches 😛
    I always preferred some wm, not because my pc is violet or not very powerful, I can run kde without problems but I like the simplicity, I have a menu to open applications, the time, the system tray, and the taskbar I am complete , in any case, if I need a desktop I resort to xfce

    1.    ivanbarram said

      For me the most hipster and minimalist are computers with prepicked cards ...

      Those people who use Gnome, KDE, WM, are sooooo mainstream ...

  9.   ufn said

    Just reading the article would be leaving me the hypothetical desire that I might have one day to try a monster like this. When I want to see something aesthetically beautiful instead of starting Debian I start my Windows Vista with Aero and all the chirimbolos and I recreate the view. And if I want to do everything else, then Debian with Mate Desktop. The change for the change in itself, without clear objectives, without any need, without solving any problem and instead bringing various headaches, why ... If the controls were on the right, what could be contributed by changing them to the other side? Why abandon what works? Take the example of Windows 8 and its Metro or Modern interface ... it is not popular, it is not suitable for working in an office and they had to rush back to the start menu of a lifetime. I will then continue with my Debian with Mate Desktop, the same in appearance but even better than the old Gnome. Everything goes where it should go, everything works, you can work. "If it works, don't fix it"

    1.    Dylan said

      Hahaha no, the window buttons are on the right as always. I guess elav changed them to the left for some reason.

  10.   Jairo said

    I agree with you almost in everything. It is undeniable that it is a very beautiful desktop and some applications look spectacular, such as the weather and maps, but it is not very efficient to work. Nothing efficient should I say. Why do they insist on making the user use the system as they think it should work? Any other DE gives us the possibility of adapting it to our tastes and needs. In my case, my KDE is completely different from the way it comes from the factory because I adapt it to my needs.

  11.   Paul said

    “GNOME is one of the best desktop environments on GNU / Linux, and therefore one of the most popular. Although it is not one of my favorites »we started the post badly, Gnome is not one of the best, simply one of the most popular. The best desk is the one that each one chooses, that is more popular is not synonymous with better.

    1.    elav said

      If it is better or more popular only part of the appreciation of each one, not for that reason the post starts badly. However, if it is for me one of the Best, in fact, for me there are only TWO BEST, KDE and GNOME, the others only use applications from these two.

  12.   developer.js said

    If I'm not mistaken the Gnome Shell Client Side Decorations arrived a year before OSX's CDEs. So it was OSX that was inspired by Gnome Shell, not the other way around. Find out a little better ...

    1.    elav said

      Que? Maybe the term CDE came first in GNOME, but in OS X it's been a while, but a long time ago, that title bar with toolbar integration. Anyway, if you have any sources with which you can better argue your comment, please do not send them.

      1.    Od_air said

        I don't know if it's worth:
        There is a link to an article from 2011 in which it is seen that this change has been planned since that year.
        I was also looking and apparently I appreciate this feature in OS X Yosemite, the previous version of this OS is Mavericks and as I could see there they had not yet been implemented. As OS X came out in 2014, or not? And Gnnome Shell 3.10 came out in 2013, in that version CSD was introduced. So if I'm not mistaken, Gnome came up with it first and OS X used it later. Of course I only looked for blog article dates and images to say this, I am not fully aware of the history of these two. I may well be wrong, if so, correct me.

        By the way elav, it is CSD not CDE (Client Side Decorations according to developer.js)

        1.    elav said

          Let's see, they may have copied the Epiphany design as the MuyLinux article says, maybe not, however, having the Close / Minimize / Maximize buttons at the toolbar level is something that if I'm not mistaken is been around for a long time on OS X (though not all apps). Anyway, it doesn't matter if GNOME introduced it in 2011, it came to implement it in 2014/2015 .. therefore the first one to strike, hits twice .. dos

          I already corrected the CSD, I am always wrong and put CDE, which I got from here, hence the confusion.

  13.   Devil's lawyer said

    I think the concept that animates this desk is confused. KDE will have many options, but why do we want them all installed and taking up disk space, with all their associated libraries, if we are only going to use 20% of them?

    Gnome is very minimalist, so much so that we can miss many utilities. But that's exactly what the extensions are for, to accommodate the desktop to the use we want to give it.

    It seems to me that the GNOME approach makes more sense, the only thing that happens is that it is poorly executed, because with each new version the old extensions no longer work.

    If this compatibility problem were solved, you could have installed whatever is useful for the way you work, which results in having a lighter and truly modular desk, adjusted to the use you are going to give it, and not the amount of useless straw that KDE has and that you have to swallow with it whether you use it or not.

    1.    Juan said

      Yes, but since it is free software and each part is done by whom and when they want, the KDE approach is better precisely because when everything is in place with the system, when they remove it you make sure that they have tested everything or most. While with Gnome, when they release it in beta to find bugs, as the testers do not use many extensions and do not see it explicitly in the menus, they are left without even working in the new version.

      1.    Devil's lawyer said

        Hello John. Exactly, the system that implements the extensions is a disaster, but that does not mean that this idea of ​​modularity, of extending the desktop with extensions is bad.

        It seems better to me than the KDE one, which is all together, whether you use it or not. I give an example ... Baloo, many people do not want to use it because it consumes many resources or because they think it compromises their privacy.

        Wouldn't it be better to have the option to install or uninstall it with one click, as an extension?

        I don't think the problem with the extensions has to do with the fact that it is free software, I think it is due to bad planning or not being able to attend it properly.

        Before releasing a new version, it is Gnome who should adapt the old extensions so that they work correctly, they are on an official page for something, I suppose that if they do not it is due to lack of resources.

        What I wanted to highlight in the comment is that KDE and Gnome are two very different desktop concepts, so it seems to me that the comparison is out of place.

        It's like comparing lxde with kde, they are two antagonistic concepts that seek very different objectives. I don't see the point in saying, kde has this functionality and gnome doesn't, well, yes, it doesn't, so what? is that that for you is very useful I do not use it at all, so ...

        1.    elav said

          Baloo can be deactivated with the press of a CheckButton 😉

    2.    fistro said

      It's true, KDE with all that disk space ... as now hard drives come so tight!
      Gnome extensions are a mess, because since you depend on one that does not update from one version to another, you have to wait or roll up your sleeves and learn how to make it work ...

      1.    Devil's lawyer said

        Hello Fistro, it is not a question of the space you have available on the disk, it is a question of having it occupied with what you use or want to use. For example, in that space occupied by the kde options that I will never ever use, I prefer to have the starwars trilogy, the lord of the rings, the hobbit and the matrix for example. As you can see, it is a matter of preferences nothing more.

        About the extensions, I completely agree with you.

  14.   Eugenio said

    First I congratulate you on the article, everything related to Gnome fascinates me. I currently have Ubuntu Gnome 14.04 installed with Gnome 3.10.4 environment. My question is if when I update the Gnome version I lose stability or the recognition of the function keys of my notebook ...
    Thank you!

  15.   lfelipe said

    I stay with GNOME for life….


    1.    elav said

      Good for you 😉

      1.    TUDz said

        elav how cute the plasma theme of your screenshot. Could you tell me the name? Greetings 😀

        1.    elav said

          It's AIR, but the tray icons are from a Plasma theme called KDE5.

      2.    Snow said

        First :

        the second that a Plasma (kde) user talks about GNOME it is as if you put a racist in front of a black man ...,

        third: I consider GNOME as Firefox a very complete browser in which you add extensions to improve its use and make it more personal, exactly like GNOME or can you imagine a firefox that includes all the extensions similar to what is Plasma (kde )? , I go for the first option ..

        fourth: a system that sometimes consumes you even 1g of ram and in its most recent version full of bug, I don't think it should be called the best ...

        1.    elav said

          I do not know what this comment is about, however I answer:


          Second: With GNOME or any desktop environment I have always been impartial. I know how to recognize the good and bad in each one.

          Third: The analogy does not apply in this case, because it is not that Firefox has many extensions installed, it is that Firefox can be customized to the point of putting the URL bar at the bottom, the navigation buttons to the right, the tabs on the left, for which extensions would not be used, but would be something native to the application.

          Fourth: I suppose you mean KDE 5. Well, right now I have GNOME Shell installed on my work computer (with 8GB of RAM), and KDE 4 on my Laptop (with 6GB of RAM), and the performance of KDE it is much better, like consumption with the same applications open, say: Chromium, Keepassx, Dolphin / Nautilus, Synergy, Konsole / Gnome Terminal ..

          It is logical that KDE 5 still has its bugs, it is a completely new development, but does not GNOME have them?

          In short Snow, a sterile debate what you are trying to start.

          Regards and thanks for commenting.

  16.   Od_air said

    Two things:
    1 - For a KDE user to say that he doesn't like Gnome, it's like a rooster getting angry and scolding a duck for not singing in the morning.
    2 - I feel weird when I read these posts in which they say that Gnome does not work without extensions and I see that I use it without extensions and almost without themes. XD

    1.    didaz said

      Totally agree

    2.    Spacejock said

      I also agree with that. People are not aware of how desktops work, and to say that an environment like GNOME does not work without extensions, is not productive, etc ..., is synonymous with ignorance and ignorance, with all due respect. There are many, many of us who use GNOME 3 without extensions. I have it without extensions, because as it comes to me in Fedora is to install and work, installing any application that I need, codecs and full stop. I don't need to configure practically anything, I change the background and full stop. I am a systems technician, and of course I work with documents, books, virtualizations and the console, it is what I usually use, and it does not suppose a trauma, I work comfortably with all of them. The move from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 was a blow to many, including me. I remember that I tried to give him many opportunities at the beginning, back in 2011, but it is true that that philosophy that he brought with him did not convince me. That is why I was going back to KDE (which I had been using even since 2010) but there was something I didn't like. I recognize its benefits, the power of its applications, but it seems to me (indeed, as some say around here) that the problem with KDE is precisely what distinguishes it, its customization and configuration power. They make it a somewhat weak system, certainly less robust than a GNOME. Regarding memory consumption, simply with Konqueror open, KDE already consumes 1,2 GB. In Gnome and Firefox half. Then you customize KDE as you want for a while, but it is true, that sometimes it seems that some customization "forgets" it once you have rebooted the machine. And of course it has nothing to do against the perfect integration of social networks and / or accounts and desktop like the one that GNOME has. This is a great step of this last desktop, about which little is said: the perfect integration of desktop and networks that Gnome has, and that in a few seconds makes the system automatically manage and synchronize documents, photos, storage, emails, favorites , contacts and calendar and tasks. It's amazing. Finally, when I returned to GNOME and checked its benefits, its more logical changes than those that came at the beginning of its branch, and its paradigm as such, I stayed with it. One realizes that I did not need a taskbar, documents, minimize or maximize, everything integrates perfectly and in a minute, and I realized how many configurations I save with this environment. I already say, they are different desktop paradigms, but I think that in terms of resources, currently, Gnome is much better, I also believe that it is more robust and more integrated, and of course the integration it offers with mail, calendars, online accounts, is from then the best I've ever seen.

  17.   shattered said

    I find it great that people use this or another desk or like they don't want to use either. If someone uses it it will be because they like it, I don't think people are masoch to the point of using something they hate day after day. That said, now I sponge my opinion and you could even say, rather than opinion feeling I have when I use Gnome: Gnome makes me nervous, Gnome creates stress. And all because of the way it handles the windows and the panel. Maybe it's a personal nerve problem I have, but just looking at a screenshot of Gnome gives me goose bumps and a cramp runs up and down my spine.

    1.    mmm said

      Yes, it is definitely your personal problem. Good luck in the analysis.

  18.   alexishr said

    infumable! I prefer mate desktop

  19.   Ignacio said

    It is true that they changed the way of use a lot, and someone who has just tried it collides (and very strongly) with that. But once you use it for a while you start to like it.
    The issue of not having a taskbar for example. In my house I have Gnome Shell and windos7 at work, you can't imagine the number of times I found myself taking the mouse quickly to the corner to change applications or open something, and staring at the screen confused when I didn't get a response. It sounds strange, but when you get used to it, it is even faster to find things that way. It's like looking at the task bar xD

    In general, the things you point to are matters of taste, but what I am going to agree on is the Nautilus-Dolphin theme. Nautilus has nothing to do there, Dolphin crushes him.

    1.    Spacejock said

      The same thing happens to me. You don't realize how fast and intuitive GNOME is until you have to "deal" with another system or environment. Also working with the W7s, I saw myself many times taking the mouse pointer to the upper left, hoping to see my things open, but no, I had to search and fiddle with the taskbar.

  20.   Thaizir said

    How is the consumption of ram going? last time I used gnome it was swallowing 1GB with no application running.

    1.    Dylan said

      gnome-shell, generally for me, consumes between 70MB to 180MB, with a usage of more than a week. This is, of course, on a PC with several GB of RAM. I have reviewed it in other more limited ones and its consumption is even more restricted (between 50MB), in a quick test.

      The most RAM consuming thing on a regular PC is the web browser. I've seen Chrome take up to 3GB to use. Perhaps there is an application that starts in conjunction with the desktop and is taking up that much memory.

  21.   Chuck daniels said

    Reading some comments I get the impression that some people have not tried Gnome Shell for more than half an hour. It is a rather abrupt change of paradigm and the first thing that would be to learn how to use it, that later you prefer one or the other is another story.

    I have seen that there are people who think that if it is very slow or if it does not work with many open documents. This is simply not true, perhaps they have not found out how to do it in Gnome Shell, I can assure you that everything is within reach of a shortcut and one or two clicks at most (I usually work with 6 or 7 open terminals, 6 or more PDFs, browser, mail client and various text documents). I personally use dynamic workspaces to organize by program types and I make intensive use of the SUPER key (Windows on most keyboards) to navigate between them, select windows or open new programs / files.

    The main difference that I see between KDE and Gnome Shell in terms of the design philosophy is that the first has all the available tools and you can disable them or not use them and the second you have the basics to work with and you can add new tools as they become. necessary.

  22.   oscar said

    Well, I am a designer and I don't like Gnome ... for me the king of simplicity is still xfce.
    There are details in the design and placement of the buttons that make me run from there, maybe I'm too used to Xubuntu XD

    a greeting!

  23.   Faustino Aguilar said


    So many desktop environments and me here using Canonical's Unity 😐

  24.   Jorgehms said

    A comment that I always read everywhere is that Gnome is oriented for tablets and not for desktop ... In fact, it is not 100% true. In Gnome they are thinking that the desktop takes advantage of the capabilities of the touchscreen (which are increasingly popular), although I understand that this is not 100% yet (the migration to Wayland is missing). But if it works perfectly for a laptop or desktop using the keyboard. Of all the desktops that I have used, Gnome is the most "keyboard friendly", with which it is easier to open applications (Super + application name + enter), switch between aps, change desktops, respond quickly to messages, etc. That is a great advantage that few comment

  25.   edgar hdz said

    GNOME! Since birth ……

  26.   Roman said

    Hi, something I have always used, is no longer in GNOME 3.16.
    Something as simple as being able to "link folder or file" from FILES !!!

    I always have my partitions:
    / Home
    / data (where I leave all my photos, videos, etc)

    So, I always create a folder link on my home to / data / Documents (for example).
    Well, that basic option is gone!

    To solve this lack, I had to enter my home in Debian on my other Linux (Debian) and "copy" the links created earlier, that way it works.


    1.    DanielrHat said

      The option to create links remains, you just have to drag the folder or file with the middle button and drop them where you want the link or links (it can be done with several files and folders together)
      ps: when something cannot be done by graphical interface there is always the alternative of doing it by terminal, in this case with:
      ln -s / data / Documents $ HOME / Documents /
      this way everything in your Documents folder will be saved in the data partition.

  27.   jorss said

    To unmount a USB drive without having to open nautilus (files) we simply move the mouse pointer to the bottom of the screen (anywhere below) for a second and the notification bar will be displayed, we simply select the USB drive and press the dismount button and that's it

  28.   rare case said

    In my opinion they are achieving what their philosophy is concerned with. And I love it because it is not only modern or trendy. Minimistic interfaces are beautiful but can also mean less of a load on the processor.
    You could describe your virtues to Gnome in two words: minimalist and practical.
    Its practicality also depends on the extensions you want to add.
    I do not ask for more than what this environment offers. If I was a fan of graphic effects or high customization, Gnome would not be my favorite environment.

  29.   Legion said

    Many copied ideas to gnome shell