That such.
This is the first collaboration that I publish in this space and I would like to return to a topic that has been analyzed on some occasions, it is about Gnome Shell and its future.
The truth since I have Linux i have used Gnome and I have always considered it an extremely practical, simple and configurable desktop. It is true that the Shell of this desktop has caused a lot of controversy due to whether it is usable, if it is practical, if it is configurable, if nautilus is disgusting, etc.
For example, KDE although it is a great environment (I personally love its look & feel) It is very heavy and I am a bit disgusted by the fact that any entry, sign or label is always preceded by the "K".
XFCE It is a desk with its own personality, very ugly but with a great advantage, it is completely customizable and you can get an incredible result on it.
LXDE y OpenBOX they're great (I actually use them on a Pentium III desktop PC with 512 RAM with Arch Linux and it works great) And although there is a lot to do bareback in the terminal, it is also highly configurable.
But to the subject we come to, I use GNOME-Shell Since it was presented and although in principle it was somewhat "complicated" to configure and customize it, it is on its way to becoming what it has always been, simple, practical and configurable. Use CSS for its appearance and integration has been achieved little by little.
As KDE, which at the time when changing to the 4.x series also caused comments, GNOME-Shell you are in a similar situation. I think that changes are difficult at times, but if we look and analyze the path of the industry, it points to mobility and more standardized interfaces and GNOME-Shell He has taken that point and I think time will prove him right.
As a note, I've been seeing that KDE is also preparing a Shell or fork similar to Cinnamon, so it might be asked, will it be stupidity and deaf ears to the community? or Are the interfaces of the smart phones (understand Android and iOS) Are they setting the standard for desks to be more uniform and ensure fluidity between the various operating platforms?
Look, I don't know if I'm old-fashioned (Although I doubt it I'm 20 years old), but that of cell phones, messages, social networks and all those webadas do not go with me, it is enough that a cell phone can play music and make calls nothing more.
For the rest there are the PCs, but it is my criteria and a shell is really great if we talk about Ipod, cell phone, Ipad or tablet, from there not even in a netbook is a good idea and I do not consider it practical, I practice it is configurable so that it can be at hand when needed, it should not be standardized because that will waste time when executing a program, although it is true you waste time configuring and adapting the environment but in a time that you will not spend again, as with shells you will .
So I think that a shell is great if you like social networks and messages, just to tell you that I don't even have Facebook, and if I use Twitter it's because desdelinux It has and turpial notifies me of the articles they are writing and I also follow anime pages to see what chapters they released today. XD
So a very nice shell and all but it does not work at least in my case.
With me a Kde or lxde is better if the hardware resources are few.
Lxde and Kde, outside of that maybe XFCE.
I don't like shells at all. But I'm a minority so you're most likely right, but at least I'll never use shell again until it's at least configurable like gnome2 or mate.
It should be noted that lxde and KDE are more configurable and customizable than gnome2 and mate.
By the way now that they mention it, cinnamon is a shell that is configurable, so they should follow that example, others are in diapers at least for me.
In general I totally agree with you, but the truth and being pragmatic the market rules (as well as fashion and musical trends, to make a crude analogy). For example we have the case of Ubuntu (nothing against it, let's be clear) it has been focusing on interfaces highly influenced by MacOS and iOS. Android has a "light and remote air" of GNOME Shell. Personally, the GNOME 2 interface is much better than the current one, but we have to evolve, for better or worse. I use GNOME Shell on an HP MINI 110 netbook with 2GB of RAM and 320GB DD with Arch Linux and it is fancy.
I have used both KDE and LXDE and I love them, but the taste breaks into genres and that is why I think that I am also one of the minority.
A cordial greeting and that you are well.
If tastes are going to be broken by genres, we are going to have a bad time. The best thing is that what breaks are the genres ... although perhaps, that great freedom is breaking us in some way.
Very good, really…. Ok, seriously, what about tastes and genres is that I use Arch, other Debian or Ubuntu or Mint or Sabayon or Elementary or openSUSE with the Desktop Environment (DE) or Window Manager (WM) that best fits you, with the icons, theme, etc. what else you like. Now, you make an observation that I consider very important and it is in relation to freedom. I think that this great freedom is sometimes over-exploited and how everything that gets out of control turns into debauchery.
+ 100, ha ha. I was going to think something very similar, for something we use the same distro and the same browser.
thanks but it was just my opinion XD
On the contrary, thanks to you, personally I consider that the diversity of ideas and approaches is something that allows us to feed back and learn. I believe that divergence, differences allow us to understand each other better and, most importantly, these differences are what feed us and make us do a better effort and work.
A cordial greeting and that you are well.
That such.
Affirmative, I use the gnome shell in its version 3.4.x with some extensions and under the Arch Linux core, which for a netbook behaves luxuriously. For good friends and KDE users, I recommend you see Rafael Rojas' blog as he posts a customization of this environment that really looks luxurious.
Basic PC and OS specifications: HP Mini 110 Netbook with 2 GB of RAM and 320 GB of Hard Disk, Intel graphics, Wireless broadcom 4312. Linux Operating System Arch x86 Distribution.
Well here at work I have an HP Mini 110, with 1GB of RAM and 250GB of Hard Drive with KDE 4.8 on Debian 😀
In theory it should work without major problems since KDE requires at least a little less than 800 MB of RAM. For someone who just chats, surfs the net, does office work and some basic graphic design is fine, but if you load compilers, photo retouching, multimedia editing, web server, databases, vertical solutions, peripherals such as scanners and so on, then things start to get complicated.
If you load the above that you do it with an ATOM processor from a netbook with a 1024 × 600 screen, then you go from pureblood to turtle. Of course, if you make some adjustments to KDE it can be configured to have a better performance.
I already had KDE on my netbook once and I never had any problem and I have no complaints about it, the only thing is as I already mentioned, I have been a gnome user and the truth is a matter of taste and perhaps customs.
I have seen KDE running with 512MB of RAM without any problem 🙂
@Adoniz, a shell can have many uses depending on how it is made, for this there is ergonomics that seems not to be fashionable to apply.
Devices such as tablets, smartphones, etc., should also have a meaning, but it turns out as a certain character said several years ago, the computer industry is more controlled by fashions than fashion for women. So we find unfinished entities like the Surface claiming the living revolution when it would be good as another prototype, the iPad in the same way wanting to replace the desktop, phones that do not know if they are phones, tablets, UFOs or a cross of all that, the Gnome made for tablets without working on any, etc. Between so many back and forth, users are made into mincemeat: We are cut off freedoms that should be inherent. Do we have to hack our devices to manage them as we want? The cutting of basic functionalities around hasty mutant concepts to mark the new path is excused (this thing is modern and the other thing is last century like Windows 98) and our pockets are squeezed in pursuit of modernity.
For my part, until I get out of this gigantic mess with something moderately serious or coherent, I will not have a single smartphone, not a single tablet, nor will I use a single Shell.
Look, you are right since most shells have no reason to exist.
The only one who apparently tries to give up diapers is Cinnamon is the most mature of the shells and that leaves a lot to be desired with respect to shells.
And with regard to the gnome for cell phones and it is not installed or works in any phone it still made me laugh.
I am not against the change, only against the change that in the end hurts if there was a configurable shell at least like xfce or lxde, that day I will install it on my machine and as you say if I add other things it will stop being a shell and It will become a better environment, but what did we do to achieve that? As you said, hack although linux only modified a couple of files, we installed more things and so the shell ceases to be a shell for that grace, I better use the wink bar, but that's will cause XD virus.
In short, my point is that the shell is like a fashion that is imposed not something that is really practical.
Although I admit that the best shell so far is cinnamon although I don't use it very often.
You have defined in one sentence what I think of Shells for Gnome3 🙂
LOL
The kde shell is for tablets (if you mean kde active). But I think that the fundamental difference between kde and gnome is that the complaints regarding kde were more due to instability than lack of options. Also, it seems to me a failed criterion to try to impose the same workflow on everything, tablets, cell phones and PCs.
"I think it is a failed criterion to try to impose the same workflow on everything, tablets, cell phones and PCs."
Tell the Canonical guys and see if they listen to you ...
Well, in fact, they have already started working on it. Right here and on wegupd8.org they mention the integration between Ubuntu and Android. The truth is I am not a believer in coincidences and Cannonical follows closely in Apple's footsteps and tries to establish something similar and that it pays the necessary dividends. What I have tried to comment and expose is that there are trends but not impositions, so it does not surprise me that kde or members of its community do experiments with BE: Shell (even as an alternative configuration).
I insist, that's why we use OpenSource and the distro with the DE or WM that best suits us and satisfies our needs.
That such.
Here you may be a little ignorant, but the blogs and forums I comment on are right here and uL (we use linux) and these implementations are on desktop PCs and laptops.
I think the trend that I mention is more following the example of Apple with its various options, PC, laptop, mobile phone, iPAD. If you have used Mac or any device, you will notice that their interfaces are more uniform, which provides a standardized multiplatform environment (as far as possible) and that its users like. Not in vain the sales of "manzanita" products have exploded and have attracted PC users to their environment. Given that you have to earn money either from sales or donations (in the case of open source and the FSF) it is understandable and logical from a strictly "business" and "innovation" point of view that most try to follow those who points offering something similar but at more accessible prices.
An advantage that we have in this world of free software is precisely that, that we can choose and make our decisions without having to use something to force (Microsoft style). I use the gnome shell for 2 very simple reasons:
1.- I like the environment (I am one more member of the minority that supports the shell) and I find it very pleasant and for my work (as an IT consultant) it is as fluid and practical as it was with gnome2.
2.-I am a consultant and unfortunately you have to adjust to many things since most of the clients are proprietary users (understand Microsoft and Apple) and therefore when trying to provide them with an alternative environment, this has to be similar since rule (and from experience) resistance to change is a factor of failure to try to implement alternative platforms by 90%.
Let's see, let me make something clear because I think it is important .. With a good appearance, that is, some other beautiful theme, Gnome Shell can be beautiful, but yes, as long as you have a PC with good resources ...
Is GNOME / Shell really that heavy? It's okay that it needs a little extra for graphics acceleration, but saving that point - and let's face it, these days _all_ machines come with a decent GPU - I think GNOME / Shell is pretty light on system usage.
Martín is correct, the truth is that the only thing that I have personalized from the shell is the theme and icons, otherwise it is by default and it works very well, and as I have mentioned I run it from a hp mini 110 netbook
"Today _all_ machines come with a decent GPU ..."
And those of us who do not have a machine "from today" but one from a few years ago? We don't have so much fun to say ...
Well, I have it in an HP Mini 110 Netbook with 2 GB of RAM and 320 GB hard disk, Broadcom Wireless 4312, Intel graphics.
The distro I use is ArchLinux and it works wonders.
Exact. The problem of KDE it was stability in its operation.
That is correct, but there were also many disagreements between the compatibility of some applications from the 3.5.x to 4.x series, for example KDevelop, KOffice and the integration of Firefox to QT (just to mention a few).
Gnome Shell when it came out in its first stable version was also plagued with errors, so the configuration was the least of it, in addition to the fact that the applications with GTK3 were practically symbolic and the compatibility with GTK2; fortunately this has been corrected and solved with the passage of the new revisions of the 3.x series.
Anyway, we'll see what happens with revision 6 of the shell, which promises a greater stabilization of the environment, some new features and benefits.
Responding in general to what has been said in this thread that GNOME has had performance problems, bugs and lack of configuration.
I don't know if my memory is playing past me, but I think I remember that the GNOME team had its rhythm, that is, they were not in a hurry and would take things out when they were ready, and it was the people who were rather in the rush to get them and things, for the agitation of having "a nice new toy," and so on. Among this group was Canonical that by depending on GNOME and needing GNOME to give "its graphic novelties" to "stay current in computer advertising", it was pushing hard, then it finished off by removing its shell based on GNOME and that was when the GNOME "had" to start releasing things for their own sake.
I think that if they had been left to their own pace, they would have taken the time to come up with better, more complete and solid things, before launching the new GNOME3.
I've never been a minion minder, but Cinnamon won me over.
That such.
You know, I have rarely used these gnome shell forks (both matte and cinnamon). I'm going to do an installation with this interface. From what I have read and seen in various forums and blogs, it is a good reinvention of gnome2 which in principle I love. I'm going to prove it.
Well yes, it is one of the best Shells that currently exist for Gnome, and it will continue to improve.
Totally agree with you.
I use Debian and look at Cinnamon with pleasure. But in your case I would wait for version 1.6 to evaluate it more adequately, or only if one knows what is doing to compile the version in development, which is 1.5.X.
I come from several years with linux, I used openbox, gnome 2 ...
Lately I tried unity (ubuntu), cinnamon, mate, Kde, xfce, lxde, gnome shell ..
The truth is that the only thing I like in terms of aesthetics and operation is gnome shell ... I find it comfortable to use, nice, without errors, I do not see against it. And as I said I tried all ...
To the gnome shell I do not see the need to go around retouching anything of appearance ...
BUT yes, I put like 10 extensions ... for example, so that the icons in the bottom bar are ugly at the top, like those of pidgin or skype, weather, alternative alt tab and a few more things.
That's exactly what I mean, your shell is no longer a shell.
Better install kde and remove the effects you will see that with 512 of ram it flies.
😉
I have 8gb of ram, I don't need to get effects 🙂
KDE I do not like aesthetics, functions, start button, panels, etc etc ... Gnome for now I like EVERYTHING, with the extensions I am 100% satisfied
If you know that you can change the appearance until you can put it with the same appearance as the gnome shell, the start button just look for a nice one on the internet and you change it.
But if you have, those are your tastes, I am not saying that you are wrong, only that the gnome-shell does not seem to me. XD
😀
haha okay, but if I already have to go looking for themes and that's something else ...
the gnome shell FOR NOW, as I have it it serves me
Like you, I have used linux for several years now and have been through almost all DE or WM things like KDE, xfce, lxde, openbox, fluxbox, iceWM, etc. on various distros such as Ubuntu, kubuntu, opensuse, suse, sabayon, archbang, crunchbang, pclinuxos, mint, pc-bsd, ghost bsd, mandriva, mageia, fedora, red hat, turbo linux, alinux, debian, mephis, antix, etc. . and as a rule it always returned to gnome (2 and then 3) with Archlinux as a base.
I also have a lot of extensions to be able to give it a more personal touch and that it adjusts to my needs both for leisure and work and I have no complaints.
Well, for color tastes, of the gnome shells that I tried, the one that I liked the most was pantheon (I think it is the least configurable, but I find it very comfortable) the one I liked the least is unity (it is very heavy and when I wanted to search for something in the dash everything appeared except what I was looking for) Gnome shell does not displease me, but I have to add several extensions to make it to my liking (also extension developers and theme creators are very unhappy because these are broken every update, half-left. one of the best gnome shell theme creators stopped making themes for this very reason) Cinnamon I tried it, the truth is that I neither like it nor dislike it, I was quite indifferent.
Oh Pantheon, I forgot .. Great job from the Elementary guys.
In truth, Elementary OS is a distro that I have always wanted to try. The minimalism taken almost to the extreme by this team is something of an anthology to me. The applications like the email manager, the file browser, the browser and other things are really very good. Although I differ in some respects, I think it is a good alternative for someone who wants to have gnome but without so many "steroids". I think that as I will do with Mate and Cinnamon, I am going to do an installation of this distro (based on Ubuntu, by the way) because since it came out I have been made the one that offers a look & feel almost at the same level as the one offered by KDE.
I would love an Arch based ElementaryOS, ROCKS!
And why not take the path that Chakra took with Arch? EOS become independent from Ubuntu.
There are distros that are thundering on their own, such as Mint or Fuduntu, for still wanting to keep up with Ubuntu and Fedora, respectively, (I am a ubuntero, but not a ubunctista), I stopped using Mint, among other things, because they preferred to put aside the stability that they had with gnome2 for being coupled to the new gnome shell that Ubuntu put.
on my pc it is the other way around, on KDE4.9.1 I have akonadi + mysql and nepomuk configured and it still feels much more fluid than gnome shell.
Sure, if you make adjustments to some of the features of KDE you can have an extremely fluid and stable environment. In fact in the 4.9.x version of the series the guys at KDE have put a lot of effort into quality control and compatibility even with GTK-based applications.
Rafael Rojas makes a KDE installation post with ArchLinux on a Dell netbook and his result is great and flawless without wishing anything to gnome and the shell.
Again, KDE is one of the best environment out there today, and although BE: Shell is still immature, the idea is essentially the same as gnome. As I mentioned, the "trend" indicates a greater integration between the graphical interfaces of both mobile devices and PC's (very Apple style), if you do not check the notes of the CEO of Cannonical (that is Ubuntu), which although very criticizable and questionable (by some and others) point in that direction; we will see in time whether this is so or not.
But as I have said, the great advantage that those of us in the OpenSource world have is that we have the possibility to choose and have control of our environment, either with a DE or WM that best suits our tastes and needs. .
By the way I will test the Kde shell when it is more mature maybe I will change my mind about shells.
I've been using gnome shell in mageia 2, and it's really good, it's just a matter of getting used to it, the problem is that they changed everything, and people hate changes.
GNOME Shell has a future, at least in the medium term. It is a very special environment that certain people like. Would survival be a success for its developers? Hope so.
I don't understand that some compare the KDE 3.5-4.0 transition to the GNOME 2-3 loop change. I want to remember that GNOME 2 was the most important and used desktop of GNU / Linux. The GNOME developers brought that project to a standstill by launching GNOME Shell and third-party alternatives based on GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 (MATE) appeared. GNOME Shell has few users (compared to GNOME 2). GNOME has lost its dominance.
In KDE the last versions 3.5 coincided in time with the first 4.x. When they left KDE 3, the time had passed to adapt to the new environment (the problem is that it was very green). Forks did not bloom everywhere. Dropouts were recorded but over time users were recovered.
Personally, I prefer GNOME and KDE to follow the current path. I think it's the best for everyone.
According to fashion maybe but I see ridiculous the gnome-shell on a laptop or worse there on a desktop pc.
Gnome-shell great for phones (It doesn't work on any of them), tablets and Ipad but nothing else.
Nothing to see, GNOME Shell is spectacular, super usable and practical, that is, you have to customize it a lot - which speaks well of the shell as it shows its flexibility.
Of all the GNOME Shell that I saw so far, the cutest was Mint 12, removing the bottom bar and moving the applets to the top one and configuring fonts and with some extensions installed is really incredible.
Just what you put as an advantage "removing the bottom bar and moving the applets to the top one and configuring fonts and with some extensions installed is really incredible" I take it a disadvantage.
Difference from Opinion I suppose, but as I have said sources and extensions that should go by effect, KDE has them, mate it has them, Cinnamon being a more or less mature shell has them and Xfce and even lxde has them.
But as I say they are differences of opinion nothing more.
greetings and good luck with the shells that you will need: p 😀
@Martin, what you tried was Mint Gnome Shell Extensions (MGSE) that was a good lifesaver at the time and to replace it was that Cinnamon was born. Do you realize then all the work that is required in Gnome Shell to have a decent desktop? And still, quite a few things were still missing. I'm not going to go to the trouble of making my own MGSE every time I install the Gnome Shell, even if it sounds over the top.
Gnome Shell is handy to use with both keyboard and mouse, and is much lighter (less than 300MB) than KDE (even without nemopunk services and stuff), it has gained in stability but not as much as it had in gnome 2 and It runs on simple PCs (2 × 1.65 GHz and 1,7 of RAM is nothing to write home about) and now in openSuse and fedora 3D acceleration is not even required
I have used GNOME Shell and it is worse than Plasma on my computers (even on my netbook). But better performance won't make you want to use it. It is such a radical approach that it gives me hives (installing extensions for basic functionalities seems absurd to me). However I understand that there are people who accept the new "desk" with enthusiasm (a matter of taste and priorities).
I am a satisfied Gnome-Shell user and I think that regardless of whether I like the environment or not, the important thing is the "Gnome 3 effect". The appearance of the new version of Gnome produced two effects, on the one hand diversification: new graphic environments appeared, from Unity to Cinnamon that enriched the ecosystem (some will say that it is fragmentation and they will regret it), that is, more possibilities to choose what that you like (and more flamewars too 🙂). On the other hand, it gave more push to other environments such as XFCE, LXDE and even KDE (although I'm not sure about this, I don't have usage statistics). That is why I think that the appearance of Gnome 3 has been positive, for those who like it and for those who don't, although some deaths were left on the way :). Greetings from Argentina.
I appreciate the existence of Unity and Cinnamon as consequences of Gnome Shell, so we all have what we like. The only thing I don't appreciate is the bad way of transitioning to Unity in Ubuntu back in the day.
@RudaMacho: what a railing you have !! 😉
Regarding the interface (GNOME Shell) and the web integration of the desktop, I fully agree with you, although I must put on the table the Nautilus issue that reminded me of the other one right here when I defended the work in GNOME 3, I am not following the roadmap GNOME and the truth is that I do not know where they lead Nautilus, but what is certain is that they have no forgiveness for having capped and gutted it as they did in the last version (3.6), hence Nemo, Files and who knows one or another fork ...
The GNOME 3 effect is not good. What a mania to confuse fragmentation with diversity. If GNU / Linux is an ecosystem then GNOME Shell, Cinnamon, MATE, Unity,… compete with each other in the same ecological niche, wasting resources and getting in the way. A fragmented habitat causes a loss of diversity in the long run. There are not too many developers and there are not enough users for so much project. That fragmentation will slow down the progress of all GNOME desktops. As they do not collaborate with each other things will get ugly.
If there are not enough developers then how is it that the different shells work correctly, with this I mean that the projects advance in stability and performance. If there are not enough users, then some environments would not be used by anyone and therefore everyone has at least one happy user :), even DWM;). The different shells have a point in common, Gnome 3 and there they can collaborate, on the base that supports them. To paraphrase RMS "There is no other desktop environment but Gnome 3 and Gnome-shell is one of its Shells";).
On diversity-fragmentation is one of the consequences of freedom, I'm sorry little dictator :). Greetings, good vibes.
That they work properly is your opinion (respectable). What you cannot know is how GNOME 3 would progress with a single graphical interface. GNOME 2 did well, GNOME 3 we'll see. I have not written anywhere that they cannot collaborate, what worries me is that I do not see a firm intention to collaborate. A clear example is Nautilus. Nautilus is morphing into a GNOME Shell only app. The rest of the "shells" will be forced to spend resources reinventing the wheel because they have not had them.
Diversity is not synonymous with fragmentation and debauchery is not freedom, I am sorry little demagogue ;-). It's cool, of course.
I do not know if you know that dwm has thousands of users, I myself use it 90% of the times that I am on the road to save battery and it is a mass, it is very configurable but much lighter than for example Awesom3 which is also very good but in comparison it is a leviathan.
Well, maybe I am a little sad (and too late), but after reading several here I only have one doubt. What is a "Shell"? What is the difference between a desktop environment and a shell? And what must you have to say that "Unity", "Gnome Shell", "Be :: Shell", "Pantheon" are or are not a shell ...?
The only thing I can think of is that using "Enlightenment" at the beginning of your first session gives you the option to choose the type of desktop, offering several types of presets: "Desktop", "netbook", and others. I think that if Gnome gave a choice between some options and the user chooses "whatever the hell he wants to do" it would help and win many users.
The problem that I see in Gnome Shell is that to configure your environment we have to resort to many extensions and options that I think should already be included by default.
Exactly at last one that understood me.
: )
You know, you touched a point that I did not consider and it is the definition of a shell, something that I will do a few more days. Regarding the configuration you are right, it would be very convenient and I would love to see it (KDE has a traditional Desktop and Netbook mode option). According to the gnome time lines, this integration and extension compatibility will be supported by default until series 8 (3.8.x), so we will have to wait a bit.
@khourt
Well imagine a turtle, the parts of its shell would be the Shell, which works in the most superficial layer but nevertheless gives it a special ability with possibilities that common skin does not offer and that define it by characterizing the development of the entire animal. In other areas it has normal skin that uses it calmly.
I do not know if it has something special that is programmed in javascript, but although the concept of having an outer layer is a plus with the potential for a thousand things, among them it can also be difficult for its own hardness until having to change for another like hermit crabs. So everything is defined by its sophistication and focus.
What will happen when the meat adapts to the form in which it is contained? The same thing that is happening to Nautilus, but it is enough to have another one to re-form it…. and some patience.
«Well, maybe it makes me a little sad (and it's already too late), but after reading several here I only have one doubt. What is a "Shell"? What is the difference between a desktop environment and a shell? And what must you have to say that "Unity", "Gnome Shell", "Be :: Shell", "Pantheon" are or are not a shell ...? »
o_O
* cough * http://lmgtfy.com/?q=que+es+un+shell+en+linux
ugly xfce?
this is a lie
if in fact it looks like the much loved GNOME 2
but it is more customizable and lightweight
The truth is the intercace and default theme (outside the buntu family and derivatives) is pretty ugly. For example if you use openSUSE or Archlinux the issue is horrendous. What is really remarkable about this desktop environment is that the level of customization is extremely complete. A few days ago I tried the new version of opensuse and manjaro and customized it in such a way that it was almost identical to KDE and it looks beautiful.
I insist, by default the theme is horrendous but personalizing it in a radical change.
The truth and being honest, the default theme is horrible, no matter what distro we are talking about (except those derived from the * buntu family that already come with tweaks and adjustments to the default theme from what I am telling you). Of course, a virtue that XFCE has is that its level of personalization in appearance, since from my particular point of view it is one of the most complete and that makes something ugly look wonderful. GNOME2 wasn't that horrible in its default theme.
what I mentioned a while ago below XFCE in its original theme if it is ugly but the Xubuntu theme for XFCE if it is very beautiful and as it is functional it is too much to say, it is very, very good XFCE.
What is the window theme called?
On my laptop I love gnome-shell, I was more like a month with xcfe but the truth is that I always stay with gnome. : B
PS: What is the gtk theme that you have in the photo that nautilus is divine with him? 😀
Good!
I use Xubuntu 12.04 on my computer as a single system and let me tell you, XFCE in its original appearance is really ugly but xubuntu makes its appearance more pleasant, XFCE really conquered me in addition to being very fast, practical, functional and With everything included, it is a very good desktop, I have been using it for 2 months because before I was in fedora with gnome shell and let me tell you that fedora is great and well I was trying to give gnome shell a chance but the truth is that XFCE conquered me Maybe it will be because of the good memories of gnome 2 that XFCE brings me, oh and I probre that of openSUSE 12.2 with XFCE and the truth is very good, recommended for openSUSEROS! Cheers!
By the way, I don't know why here on the page it recognizes me, it's like Ubuntu instead of Xubuntu. I thought that it already recognized the distro independently.
Because it is Ubuntu, with the XFCE environment configured and optimized, it is NOT a standalone distro.
It seemed to me that there in the comments there was a comment about making guides on another shell (or it was in the other topic), but since the comment thread is a bit long I don't remember exactly where. Just as asking you do not lose anything I leave a suggestion to see what you think.
I do not know if someone somewhere has already done this, but I think it would be a bombshell to make a good guide to install GNOME3 and its different Shells and perhaps even MATE could be used too, of course the idea is to be able to have them installed and test them all at at the same time, like the one that one day they log in with KDE and another with LXDE, etc, since with so much controversy between them so people could compare raw and on their own to draw their conclusions and perhaps even kill so much unfair prejudice once and for all. You better than I know which are the ideal distros for this type of task, which also seeing the majority audience of the blog I think it should be between Arch and Debian. Testing, Sid?
For being something that I think it has not been done or at least not abundant there, it would be a fantastic material for the blog; Also, I personally would be delighted with such a guide since with this war of shells for the first time in many years, versionitis is biting me from trying new software and the truth is I am feeling like a newbie, like a villager lost in a city, I don't know where or how to start (especially when I come from "super old" Lenny, which would force me to change distro).
Finally, I think that with this variety of Shells, GNOME3 (and GNOME in general) is quite strong, the bad thing is that each one at the time of promoting themselves all throws to their side and denies GNOME as if they were something independent and clear for sell themselves as the best and buy them from them, remember the disqualifications to GNOME3. It would be more humble and beneficial for everyone if they were sold as new add-ons and options for GNOME, but the ideal world does not exist and even less in the linux world where so much selfishness prevails.
Apparently the issue of bad fame is something that creeps with everything ... KDE is no longer as heavy as it was at the beginning of the 4.x branch, you do not need a machine to run it decently, in fact GNOME- Shell has more hardware requirements than KDE.
And it is not true that all KDE programs are preceded by K in their names (such as Choqok, Akregator, Amarok, ShowFoto…).
I sincerely believe that Gnome Shell was killed by Unity, many people do not understand the difference between the two, it is true that Gnome Shell is little "customizable", but when you grab Gnome Tweak Tools and the extensions it becomes something else Many complain that it only brings one button, it is something that now that I have gotten the hang of it, it is unmatched, with the right button I minimize, double click I maximize, super key, I see the windows that I have active, the other time I read that Someone complained because they did not distinguish between 8 apps, because they can be organized on a desktop, I don't think anyone uses 8 windows on a single desktop, well I went with the message extension, but Gnome-Shell has a future, I will continue to use it while I give the resources
And well, my comment.
If I consider that Gnome, both in the shell, and in (thanks to Ubuntu that resurrected it) its "normal" or "Classic" version have a future, those who are newcomers are not going to struggle with shell, but those of us who have become used to it for years to the normal Gnome and that no matter how much we try XFCE or shell we do not finish coupling, we will be happy with this continuation of the environment.
I would like Debian to take this version that optimized Ubuntu for Wheezy instead of going crazy about setting XFCE as the main DE !!
Is Xfce really that different from GNOME 2? I always believed that gnomers would find it indistinct to use one or the other - saving the advanced features that GNOME has.
As much as KDE from the Windows desktop.
They have some SIMILAR functionalities, but there are add-ons that can become infumable, such as the network manager in xfce (or wicd), the stability of some programs due to lack of libraries in xfce (lack of integration, then).
And well, at the time when Gnome 2 went to 3, xfce was quite delayed, it meant a very strong setback, even today I feel that it is still behind gnome, however the distance is already little, but enough not to settle with what that environment can offer me, much less if I am seeing that there is the option in gnome3 to use the classic style: with adding-deleting of panels, drag & drop of applications to panels, customizing the panels ... everything that I always had. gnome, but with the stability and progress of gtk3 in gnome 3.4.x
On my 2006 computer (1gb of Ram and a core 2 duo, integrated graphics) and I have used linux in various distributions (Open suse, fedora, ubuntu, chakra, elementary, Kubuntu, debian, ubuntu, I tried XFCE but found it too minimalistic Not to mention Openbox, E17, the kind that take hours to configure and seem to be in Chinese for someone with little knowledge of these. With Unity I didn't have much luck, it always crashed or had 100% CPU errors. KDE was clean, attractive and its apps I loved, but horror, very slow and unstable. It may sound capricious but I like to have elegant and attractive interfaces on my computers, with an arduous but simple design.
After all the tests and experiments, GNOME fell in love. It was the only one that didn't freeze, as well as being straightforward and extremely productive. It goes beyond fanaticism and others but it is the only one I can work with without distractions.
I can accept that what I said may sound annoying, but I think Linux users should put their focus on modernity, simplicity, that environments are for everyone; more empathic, and that capacity is the only one that will allow us to advance technology to a more human point. Make the computer a space for the WHOLE family.
So that grandfather, mother or friends who only know Windows (or who hardly know computers) can enjoy themselves without fear or ignorance.
GNOME Shell is not for everyone and personal experience is not universal law.
My Gnome 3 is nailed to me. Not everyone can afford a powerful team to run Gnome xell. I think Gnome shot himself in the foot. They could at least have given the option of being able to continue using the old desktop while the new one is debugging. But no, they were charged to force the user to use the new one overnight. The result .. The flight of users to LXDE or Mate.
The main problem is that we are forced to use something that we do not like and we are not offered another alternative if what one wants is to continue with the usual distribution of work. Forcing the user to change the distribution because the one you were using is already running out of support (Now… there is the Gnome Classic. Another birria to get out of trouble.) With what all that implies.
Gnome3 is a great multimedia alternative for listening to music, watching movies, or browsing inet. A 19-inch tablet. That's it. Get to do something that needs to have several open applications and windows, then there it becomes complicated, impossible. That is why the complaints that it is not productive. It is not at all. Not to mention Nautilus .. I can't even horizontally resize the windows, or reposition them something as simple as that. They decide that the windows should be like this because it is how they fit. But they don't look good on me because the texts stay in the middle. Either I prefer it to the right because I am left-handed or I can't see my left eye ... They decide that the window in which I work should occupy the entire screen and the others that I have open are not necessary, that they interfere. And they who know if they hinder me or not? What if I want to make a summary of a text and read it while I am writing? I have to be with the mouse in my hand all the time. Opening closing, minimizing, expanding continuously… So?
They decide what should go well for me and what should not, because they believe that it is the best for me. As if we were silly. I can no longer decide what to put on or what to take off if I don't like it. It is imposed on me. Linux is no longer so free after Gome 3. If gnome 3 prospers it is because the main distributions have opted for them as well as Unity, which is even worse. Not because users in general have accepted it with open arms. It has been imposed by force.
So the migration from Debian and Ubunu to Mint ..
And at the opposite end KDE SC redefining the meaning of flexibility and customization.