As many users know, in the early versions of Gnome Shell, users who did not have graphically accelerated PCs could not run it correctly, nor could it be on virtual machines.
For this, it was implemented Gnome fallback, which gave us an experience very similar to Gnome 2, but apparently the developers of Gnome this option bothers them. You have to use Gnome Shell yes or yes, well Gnome fallback moves away from the vision of Gnome 3.
Thanks to llvmpipe, computers without graphics acceleration can run gnome-shell, and that is why the mode Fallback or Classic Gnome as some know it will disappear in Gnome 3.8. They rely on this technology even knowing that it does not work (or does not perform well) in architectures like ppc s390 arm and on other non-Linux systems (putting OpenBSD as an example).
So they let you see in this link, where they expose as "other reasons" the fact that the Fallback mode It has not undergone any relevant changes in terms of development and display errors appear since its first versions, such as notifications. Also no one use or test it and apps like Cheese o Empathy they will not work properly without GL.
But if they don't care about it themselves, who would do it? For users to feel comfortable using the classic mode, the guys from Gnome will enable a series of extensions to Gnome Shell to convey a similar experience.
When they eliminate Gnome fallback, a few modules will be affected:
- metacity
- gnome-panel
- gnome-applets
- notification-daemon
- gnome screensaver
- polkit-gnome
- nm-applet
As they are aware that all this can be a shit, they themselves recommend using other Desktop Environments as an alternative, for example Xfce o MATE..
Conclusions, they do not have time or desire to dedicate their efforts to improve Gnome fallback A good decision? That will be seen in time.
Good decision. if you want to improve gnome-shell you have to put aside the classic
Well I don't think ... gnome 2 was very good as it was so all the approach that they have from version 3 on are more errors than meeting points, a relatively substantial and progressive advance that desktop environments should have
I don't know about you but lately I feel a bit lost in the world of desktop environments in Gnu / linux:
You look at Ubuntu and its Unity and think that you can do almost nothing with it and all (and little) customization goes by third parties. As well as that its interface may not be visually pleasing to some.
Then you think of KDE you use it and you say wow! I can do everything with it, it is super customizable but it goes hand in hand with a thousand and one libraries that accompany the gtk to run the applications that were designed for gnome. You say: I put wing! I switch to chakra, everything goes fast and smooth (something "rare" in kde ... [not always, not flame-war please]) but you miss some applications written for gnome that you have to "mess up" to install them because they are not in bundles, then they are not in CCR and you end up in AUR and the dependencies are broken because the package names do not match (although they do exist, aur-ccr relationship). And at the end they take away the 32-bit support and you run away with your tail between your legs.
Later you try lxde and you say vah it's too simple, it consumes little but it doesn't look pretty.
You test xfce and you say, ummm interesting, the good thing about gnome, it's nice but gtk2 slows it down and some applications don't look right and it's not light at all, it's just not heavy.
From gnome-shell to say that I love some things, such as when it asks you for your password, replying to messages from notifications, the dynamic way of managing virtual desktops, but it also conveys that feeling of "capping" and extensions, although it's a hefty patch with the damn updates no longer supported.
I'm really expecting phanteon, from elementary OS, like May water because I don't feel comfortable with any of the current alternatives, which does not mean that they are not good and even less that they do not have a lot of work -free- behind them, it is just and simply my partial (and personal) opinion of the situation of the desktop environments of our favorite world -gnu / linux-.
In the meantime I'll painfully wait on my outdated wXP
PS: I have not considered linuxmint because I have never used it and it just seems like a correct evolution of gnome-shell but nothing more.
I fully agree with your opinion. I have tried the daily builds of ElementaryOS and it is simply spectacular, it even runs more fluid than XFCE and it looks much more beautiful. The only thing I don't like is the lack of customization with which the elementary team is building it, as well as its secrecy regarding dates and work cycle. Even with all these problems I think it will be one of the environments to take into account.
It is true that it is very light and beautiful, I love it. Also the applications are beautiful and it is quite stable not to be in beta yet. I believe that when it comes out it will be a success.
As for customization, not everything has to be customizable, that's something Linux users don't like but it is. The Elementary project has a goal in mind and design is very important to them. I also think that there are different themes for plank (although they don't work in the current version)
Perhaps at this time the main Linux distros (commercial + debian), should set a simple and minimal graphical environment similar to (or one of) Xfce, Lxde or Razor-qt, as the "lowest graphic common denominator" (which has remained bonico)
I explain:
-Although the distro has another default environment (RH-Fedora GnomeShell, OpenSuse KDE SC, Ubuntu Unity, etc)
-That involves a minimum of maintenance, packages, space in the iso, visual integration, ...
-Offering low system requirements (without extremes) and broad hardware compatibility.
-To facilitate the creation of manuals and creation of graphical scripts for the industry (installation and configuration, as an example; also manuals and courses for non-advanced users ...)
An option like this at the entrance to the login would reduce the "feeling" of fragmentation in Linux, and I even think that graphical environments would not have to be burdened with things like gnome-fallback and make profitable resources to advance and innovate.
Greetings
Gnome 2 you have been good while you have lasted, Xfce in the long run "if they wake up" will end up supplanting it, I am not for Mate (good fork but it does not convince me) or Cinnamon ...
I always liked Gnome, but when it made the jump to version 3, I started looking for alternatives, KDE4, of course, but since my computer does not have enough resources to build it, I am currently on Openbox, not very comfortable but it gives me the productivity that I need every day, well, I understand that they say "you have to renew or die" but how good I felt in Gnome 2, I'm nostalgic 😀
1s
Gnome 2 was like, soooo familiar, you could do things with it, you fiddled up and down and it didn't matter, it always felt comfortable, but as you say you can't even stay on it (it's out of date) and mate is not a viable alternative.
True, I have seen options like Centos that in theory brings support until 2020 I think, but it doesn't give me being so outdated because of a desktop that has already died, it's like trying to stay in XP (no flames please) because it's better than win 7 (as I have read) if support is stopped, whatever it is "has died" unfortunately.
It's not that it's better, it's what they're used to.
my first memory of linux is gnome2, I was amazed that the 2 panels ... .. hahahaha, when gnome3 started I did not like it at all, although by that time I was already using xfce, which as you say, if they wake up, they can end up as the best Economic option in linux, mate doesn't convince me either, nor cinnamon, kde4 has been like a forbidden romance xD, I don't have first-rate hardware ~ _ ~, currently, on my desktop pc I have xfce and on my laptop I use openbox (recently I changed it to awesome) of unity, I can say that it is very beautiful and aesthetic, I see that it has some functionality, but I do not see myself using unity in the day to day. so… .. xfce and awesome for me ^^
mmmm forbidden romance for two then xD, I've been looking at Awesome, for the netbook (I'm the other way around than you, Openbox desktop with Debian, Xfce netbook with Arch), but it seems to me that it has a very high learning curve, I don't know, I think it will be a matter of time until I finish using one of them, they have spoken well of Xmonad and ratpoison, but…. that's already a forum topic 😀
1s
gnome died with gnome 2
gnome 3 should be called something else, that's not gnome
I agree with you 😉
Gnome 3 Shell should be called "TheBefore KnownAsGnome Desktop"
certainly
I am now in mint 13 mate edition, I had to leave ubuntu because the graphics card was fighting all the time with unity or with gnome (I have an ATI) but now everything is going smoothly and without any screen freezing, I am looking forward to returning to ubuntu but not at any price, when they improve the desktop (both unity and
gnome3) I'll be back
I have some Nvidia to which I cannot demand acceleration for more than a while. So I plan to switch to Cinnamon when he has a more polished 2D session. In the meantime I'll be using Gnome Fallback on Debian Wheezy when I switch to it as it uses Gnome 3.4 (with Nautilus not decapitated yet) so I can leisurely wait as long as it takes for things to be more than ready.
It's been more since the gnome3 came out, I say it's shit, and the sad thing is that they screw it up more and more = (
I honestly don't like GNOME Shell at all. I installed it to test it on Ubuntu and I liked the fallback much better so I left the fallback and removed the shell. If it will no longer exist, I am sorry but I will stick with Unity. At least in Unity you can hide the side bar from it, use HUD with the "alt" button only, take out the browser only when you need it and, in my opinion, it is faster than GNOME Shell (at least in the latest version). The only one outside of GNOME Fallback and Unity that catches my eye is MATE. I don't like KDE either (too slow and the little buttons on the desktop that look like gelatinous jellyfish don't help); lxde and xcfe very fast and simple but they are not within my tastes. I don't know, the GNOME folks kind of committed suicide.
I don't know why they criticize gnome-shell and unity a lot, we have to evolve, we cannot stay with the typical classic menu, although it is comfortable, light and adapts to the needs of the user but does not have that beauty that some users look for. Personally, I really like gnome-shell, (minimalist, renovating) for me it is something new, something that I had never experienced, I think that is why I am on Linux, because they risk changing things and not staying with what Same as always
The point is to keep the desktop metaphor. Of course, environments have to evolve and there will always be successes and mistakes, but one of the likes of GNU / Linux is being able to have options. And the truth is there, Mate that is the preservation of Gnome 2, Cinnamon seeks to have what Gnome 2 with the advantages of Gnome 3, very attractive Unity that I still have faith that it improves, Gnome Shell for those who like like you, KDE which is very versatile. I know that they have dispersed more than necessary but something good is coming out in the end.
I am a supporter of the popular "It works, DON'T TOUCH IT!" I will never understand that concept of "EVOLVING BY THE FUCK" that some have.
the custom is short.
I feel that what Ubuntu did with Unity is partly good, combining the Gnome shell with the gnome 2 bar was good for me (especially details such as notifiers), but they made it much heavier and impersonalizable than itself. Gnome shell… ..and then that side bar that cannot be removed was the last straw. Then Elementary came along and Unity improved, but these insist on being an exclusively Ubuntu-based distro rather than launching as a free desktop to be used on any distro. (The Ubuntu 13.04 version is going to be released and they still do not release their version based on 12.04 xD)
Returning to the topic, the only thing I feel that Gnome is missing as it is at the moment is that if it is not going to handle the workbar as before, then spend more time developing extensions.
I totally agree with you. I come from KDE, and after trying Gnome Shell I prefer Gnome, its simplicity has captivated me.
We have to innovate, we cannot spend our whole lives with the classic desk. I don't understand how some find it so difficult to adapt and accept changes.
What is not customizable? Well, it is true that it lacks polishing things, but right now you can do a lot with Gnome. I don't know what level of customization you mean, but Gnome Shell can be modified quite a bit to make it your own.
I don't know about you but I feel like I'm starting to see a certain pattern here, I'm not saying that this is wrong, but I don't like the way things are going, where were those times where I could do wonders with my Pentium4 of 3.8 GHz and my 2 GB in RAM ?, times when installing 6.0 was a wonder, or Ubutu 10 was the end of the world, without having to worry about migrating my architecture for the operation of such shell and OS, of course I am speaking of only 2 years ago, now it turns out that if I need to use a more practical and efficient Shell or the next generation of the one I already have, I have to have a computer with graphics acceleration, I wonder, am I using Windows? I say, because when WinXP users stable for approx. 7 years emigrated to Vista and they ran into the great disappointment that was as such. However, something that happened with Win7 back in 2009, where you practically have to completely migrate the architecture for it to work, that is, buy a new computer because the one you have no longer gives you the width, I insist I do not say that It is wrong to update your computer equipment to the constant advancement of technology, but that was the joke of using Deian, Mint, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. With Gnome, KDE, XFE, Mate, Cinnamon, etc., practical graphical environments and operating systems that any decent or merely decent architecture supports or supported.
I insist I do not say that this wrong.
Pentium 4? Come on, at this point it is not very expensive to build a computer from scratch buying Atom processors that already include graphic acceleration more than enough to run GShell or KDE, MATE, CInnamon, etc.
I have a P4 with 4GB of RAM (the most it can hold) and I have no problems managing Mint with XFCE for EVERYTHING ...
Man!!! 10 years ago they said something more or less similar, but they were not talking about pentium 4 that had already been on the market for a couple of years but about pentium (the 1).
That the current software continues to work with hardware from 10 years ago is a great achievement, do not want everything to stop for something like that.
XFCE is urged to move to GTK3 to become the ultimate GTK desktop.
hi i currently use ubuntu 12.04 and i have to use gnome gnome fallback because
1- I feel more comfortable because I am not distracted by so many strange things that have the effects
2- the more effects the desktop environment has, the more resources it requires
it is a pity that this desktop environment alternative is not being developed further
There is something very evident in all this, and it is that in one way the large desks are trying in one way or another, to get closer to mobile devices.
The problem is in the way they do it. Unity and Gnome Shell for example, are heading towards that goal and KDE the same, but from a more intelligent way I think. Why? Because the first two mentioned above do not have a variant for each user.
KDE has the Desktop option, the Netbook option and to top it off, the Tablets option. They are maintaining all 3 at the same time which enables us to have 3 different flavors with the same potency in common.
If Gnome had done that, I think they would be much more successful today, as Desktop users would not have felt abandoned.
Amen
Personally, I consider that gnome shell is not love at first sight because I only started using it in the version of fedora 15 and it really was a shit, but right now it's not much advanced but it does improve a lot in some aspects but In a certain way, Gnome is as if it were competing with the great KDE, which in every sense is the best free desktop there is, and well, right now I'm on fedora 17 with the gnome 3.4 that comes and I consider it good and not It bothers me because I like to have a desktop that does not remind me of the stormy past with windows, but something I do say is that, I also miss gnome 2 and that it kills it is not going to replace the true expectation of gnome 2, so soon I like gnome shell and I keep using it with my other Kubuntu partition 😀
[provoking]
Gnome 2 was rubbish.
And KDE too.
And Windows, in all its versions.
And we can argue whether Gnome 3 or Unity are barely less garbage than the previous ones.
Just because we have learned to cut through the desktop and use its flaws to our advantage does not in any way mean that the desktop "worked." For anyone who wants to read them, the reasons why the designers considered Gnome 2 to be very broken are perfectly public (a notification area that mixed millions of nonsense concepts, constant distractions and interruptions, inconsistent behaviors) and I see them as quite unquestionable; Another thing is that they have managed to do something better.
But when normal people are terrified of switching desks because all their HARD-learned tricks stop working, it's because the desk was poorly designed from the start.
[/ provoking]
Well, you are right with the notifications issue ... now there are things that are very successful but others that do not catch on and that is the way to show the applications and the null customization that gnome-.shell has
I consider myself a normal user and I have no terror of desktops. I have tried all of them, I contend that Gnome2 was the best, I currently use XFCE.
Well, I like GNOME Shell, I will definitely try 3.6 shortly or with Fedora 18 🙂
I hate Gnome Shell and Unity and I left Ubuntu for that but if they have decided to stick with Unity it seems normal to me that they don't want Gnome Fallback.
Also, I continue with the appearance of Gnome Classic and I am on Xubuntu, I installed ambiance and anyone who saw it would say that it is Ubuntu.
Rubén, don't be a gü… You speak as if Ubuntu has decided to abandon Gnome Fallback.
All this heavy learning curve for some has to do with the dragging paradigms of windows with its start menu, taskbar and list of windows, now that gnome and canonical propose that there are other ways to use a pc people are resisting to continue working as with windows. For those who require an OS on a less powerful machine, there is lxde, xfce and a rest of window managers, the objective of gnome was never to be an ultra-customizable desktop, that's what kde takes care of. Many criticized the lack of proposals in GNU / linux, now that there are, they want everything to be as before.
Yes, but one thing is to spend few resources and another to go to lxde which is super basic and xfce which causes indifference because it does not stand out for anything
I also feel XFCE is very simple, I have tried MATE and it is very good, how to say, copied from gnome 2, although now what I like is gnome shell, in mate I felt the same as gnome 2, you just have to look for the alternative that we like it, if you liked gnome 2, mate is the same, but with another name.
It seems very good to me that they want to innovate, and hopefully in a while they will improve Unity a little more and I can return to Ubuntu (with another computer, of course), but for now ... Whenever a new version of Ubuntu comes out I install it and test it At least a couple of weeks but I always end up going back to Xubuntu because I work much faster than Ubuntu. It is not about learning. Besides that my computer cannot with Ubuntu.
Correct everything you have commented k1000
Dropping "fallback mode" doesn't just mean there will be no more classic GNOME session. also some GNOME modules may disappear, such as: metacity, gnome-panel, gnome-applets, notification-daemon, gnome-screensaver, polkit-gnome and nm-applet »
It's exactly everything Canonical uses to bring your Unity to life ...
On the other hand, it is good that they eliminate all those things if Canonical is really dedicated to developing its OWN desktop environment and stop using tools borrowed from Gnome ...
I have always said Gnome is a RetHat project and more and more they are standardizing the environment so that no one uses their tools or modules since Gnome is on the way to becoming a proper distro "Gnome OS"
In the world of Free Software EVERYONE can develop their own and I know that Canonical can achieve it and design their own without using anything from Gnome 🙂
I would like to see a Unity with its own tools and modules and not depend on Gnome at all.
It's more or less what was in my head, RedHad and Canonical have not gotten along because one company is complaining that the other does not provide enough in the Linux world, a large part of Gnome is sponsored and maintained by RedHad since they It shouldn't be funny that a distro maintained by a company becomes so popular using its own tools (the gnome ones), on the other hand Canonical is being selfish, it doesn't want anyone else to benefit from Unity, but it does benefit from other projects; Gnome without going any further. With the arrival of winter I will be preparing the popcorn and the Coke without moving to move too far from my computer to see how Canonical and its Unity will respond with this news lol, and see how ATI and Nvidia will react with the quality of their controllers, lol this It reminds me of the Samsung-Apple case with jokes and trolls.
If at first (Starting Linux with Ubuntu 10.04) I knew that Gnome would reach this situation ... I would have opted for KDE, but since I was quite new to the Linux topic, I was guided through the forums with the typical "Gnome vs KDE" and Gnome came out winning in most of the cases, but now it is not easy to migrate, since most of my applications are made for GTK.
How ridiculous that Canonical "doesn't want them to benefit from Unity" sounds ridiculous to me ... What are you basing on for saying that? And what benefits would those be?
I mean Unity can only be used on Ubuntu and the distros based on it. Maybe this in error but for now I do not know an independent distro, without any relation to ubuntu and that works under unity. and when I say that it needs other tools I mean the Gnome desktop environment, and "jamin-samuel" has already commented on it above:
»… Some GNOME modules may disappear, such as: metacity, gnome-panel, gnome-applets, notification-daemon, gnome-screensaver, polkit-gnome and nm-applet”
It's exactly everything Canonical uses to bring its Unity to life… «
If no distro (outside of Ubuntu) uses Unity, it is because no one has really taken an interest in that environment. And there are many circumstances that influence that lack of interest.
The idea that Canonical does not want to share Unity is spreading thanks to people's ignorance. For example, the following link explains how to install Unity on Arch Linux:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unity
And there are people who work on Debian, Fedora, openSUSE, ... to try to get Unity to work correctly outside of Ubuntu.
It was time.
A big one is leaving, even so I feel comfortable in openbox
If we unite that Debian returns to Gnome Shell…. it might not look so bad anymore. Gnome has a lot of future, but we are still in the process of change so things are missing. But steps are taken to achieve a distinctive aesthetic and functional integration. The applications that are gradually being incorporated for me are successful and all cut by the same integrating pattern (for example, electronic books can be read without additional software and managed in the same way as the rest of the documents). KDE is long, more mature and offers more options when it comes to dealing with touch devices…. which are the future of computing (I am not saying that the PC disappears)…. but Gnome seeks even more simplicity with a universal interface. And he is succeeding… although perhaps too slowly. I went from finding myself at a crossroads because "I liked Gnome 2" to loving Gnome Shell and knowing how to wait for its evolution, correct in my opinion. And always thinking that I can choose other alternatives that are there like KDE …… although not so much the new paths open looking for sensations similar to Gnome 2, which for me are a waste of time and resources and a field of confusion for new users. There should be clearly different desktops and not those derivatives that are actually more of the same, but worse.
What has me in a lifetime is the evolution of Ubuntu, which seems to not get off the donkey of Unity. Ubuntu is the distribution that has always made it easy for me and it is difficult for me to find a Debian alternative (there is none with the "tweaks made in Canonical" that make, for example, the sources look good). Fedora did not quite convince me so I continue with Ubuntu Gnome Shell (or gUbuntu) with the hope that Gnome meets the objectives and releases its own distro (by that time the environment has to be quite successful). ElementaryOS ...... seems too "closed" to me, although I recognize its good work and success in opting for Gnome Shell "tuned" to differentiate itself, which Canonical should have done.
"As they are aware that all this can be a shit, they themselves recommend using other Desktop Environments as an alternative, for example Xfce or MATE .."
I think what they are aware of is that there are people who are reluctant to change at all costs, and for that they have those options.
At last that old interface is going to end because it is the only interface that is adapting little by little to the appearance of the new touch PCs is gnome shell, an idea that started from scratch, but foresaw the new future forms of the PC and I The truth is, I believe that the people who attack these changes have closed minds and do not know how they arrived and remained in the world of linux and free software
I imagine that you have used this "old interface" a lot since it seems that you speak with knowledge of the facts about the great advances that Gnome 3 has made with respect to version 2.
As far as I remember as they have said above, until about 5 years ago a machine was not needed to run a distro, it is not the case today with its "new environments oriented to touch PCs", they are leaving many people unhappy and on the sidelines.
I do not consider myself "closed" and I can tell you that I have been in this Linux world since Mandrake 6.0 (1999), I can talk about desktops, distros, versions without any problems, but I think something is wrong ... 😉
1s
I really like your comment, what I'm wondering is even if Gnome 3 with its shell may (in my opinion: yes) seem much more beautiful than the previous one, what will have marked the gentlemen gnome-shell designers to throw themselves into the world of touch interfaces when it is easy to admit that most of us do not have touchscreens and not because we have old laptops or desktops (which could be) but because a large number of touchscreen computers are not being sold right now and therefore The advantages that such a design can provide to its users are wasted, as well as hinder those of us who use the current input devices, see the mouse or keyboard.
Why did they do it? There are many ways to innovate and they chose a beautiful but not functional path
It's not that it's really pretty, but that anything is prettier than the native Gnome 2 look. Fortunately, a few minutes are all it takes to make it beautiful and have a combination of functionality with elegance and lightness. Gnome 3 is simply "less ugly" visually and less customizable.
If you want you can continue with your pentium 2 and gnome 1.0 and if one day you get bored of gnome 1.0 you can install windows 98 that also runs on your machine while I will live in the present and for the future. Even microsoft realized that it was time to forget about its old interface and adapt to the evolution of the pc
I have neither pentium 2 nor win 98 but thanks anyway, yes, I have to say that thanks to the changes made to Gnome 3 and Unity, today I use Openbox,
And there is something that I must thank the era "Touch" (read touch) thanks to that, I'm setting Awesome, what do I mean by that?
That it is never too late to continue learning and thanks to the setbacks of these two environments, every time I get closer to excellence without having to spend a single penny (Euro) every time a new version of Ubuntu comes out, as I see that it is you This is the case and that of many others who have forgotten that GNU / Linux was never on the same line as Windows, that with each version almost necessarily had to change computer due to lack of resources, apart from fighting viruses everywhere, that if «you were to the last »: D.
If you follow this step, Ubuntu will be at the same height as Windows, that's why I don't use it, neither one nor the other, but the Ubuntu topic is to be discussed in a forum, not here
1s
@coco, how bad it is to criticize people based on stereotypes.
@ Windóusico, I already read the entire Arch Wiki; And if it's true, the problem is porting Unity to other distros, not that canonical is unhappy about allowing other distros to use it. But hey, I'll see how this mess of Gnome ends in relation to Unity, CrossOver offering free 1-year versions for those who register, steam to get to Linux; and much more ... I think I will have an interesting Christmas. A hug xD
By the way, I want to congratulate the administrators of this blog, and say that in addition to being magnificent, I also like it for being subjective on the part of the editors. I like the way you express yourself in your articles with a certain naturalness. One thing, could you implement a voting system for comments? something like… »only those who are registered can vote; those who are not registered only have the right to comment without being able to vote »something more or less similar. Thank you
Noooooo !!! What will we do without gnome fallback?
those with older computers should use gnome 2.3?
Gnome 3 should go a lot further than it does with each version. That's the problem. If they made great strides, users would end up waiting for each new release and becoming fond of the system. Something similar to what happens with Android. Gnome Shell has made almost no progress since its inception and to top it off it loses functionalities and makes its extensions incompatible with the same shell! They should change course and above all make it more professional and visual for the average user
Too bad of gnome 🙁 that's why now mate: 33
Gnome depends on the needs of each person, if the classic mode or the new versions works for you.
The Gnome panel has three menus of its own:
Applications, Places and Desktop.