GNOME Work Is Underway For Sharper Background Images

[ermo]

Given the choice between GNOME Shell and KDE Plasma Desktop, I would have traditionally chosen GNOME Shell.

However, these days the only place I rely on GNOME Shell is on my HTPC because the big interface elements lend themselves well to couch-surfing, the GNOME applications are so pared down and simple and because the virtual desktop animation is nice (I've set my system up to autologin to a GNOME Shell session in which Kodi is started in full screen automatically).

My proper Linux desktop PCs are Plasma now and I really like ngraham 's push to get all the papercuts in KDE fixed. The work on achieving gvfs feature parity via kio-fuse in the upcoming Plasma Desktop 5.18 was the clincher for me.

My old must-work-no-matter-what-as-a-backup laptop is MATE with Brisk Menu, which is basically a lightly refreshed GNOME 2 experience. This is a compromise because I need to be able to test the functionally of certain software on all major DEs as part of my maintainer duties.

[Mez']

We all know Cinnamon is based on gnome3 and thats a good thing and nobody cares if their team is small or large. What really matters is the final result, Cinnamon is a beautiful environment that is easy to use and comes with little clutter. Exactly what I need.

And I am not the only one thinking like this. Look at the statistics, once Fedora came out with gnome3, it almost lost all its user base... they bottomed out in popularity. Eventually they had to create "spins" with alternative desktops like Cinnamon and Xfce, to get back some of their users.

Even Redhat employees don't like gnome3...

I personally find it ugly and as said above, modern would be the last thing that pops to mind about it.

But my opinion doesn't matter (and yours doesn't either), what matters is that everyone is happy that you like it and that it is best for your own workflow. The point here is we all have a choice and we don't need to try and convince others what's best for them. It's actually just a matter of personal preference, and several others prefer Gnome, Unity, KDE, XFCE, Budgie, etc... because they deem one of these what suits their workflow better. We are lucky to have this choice. Please embrace it instead of going in a vain and worthless argument on which one's better. And on this I'm not pointing the finger on you specifically.

[jo-erlend]

Are you joking or is this sarcasm?

There's no inability to use desktop icons in the Gnome desktop but you need to use an extension for that ?
In that case I think we can also say that Gnome supports desktop icons very well by letting you delete it and install another DE that really supports that.

No, you don't need to use an extension. Your file manager can provide the icons, as it always has in Gnome. Gnome removed this from their FM because it was unmaintained and nobody was interested in supporting it, while they said the feature was blocking other things. Personally, I think that the desktop space should be managed by the desktop shell rather than a file manager or web browser, but if all you want are the Windows 95-like icons, your FM provides that for you. Caja is a fork of the traditional Gnome file manager and it still supports desktop icons.

So when I compared this to being able to run Firefox on KDE, I was being quite literal. KDE has its own web browser, but you can use other web browsers if you want to. In the same way, Gnome has its own file manager, but if you want to use another, you're more than welcome to.

[gedgon]

Gnome Classic [...] its the default on Redhat.

No, it's not.

[Mez']

Personally I find the GNOME3 user interface rather horrible, a sad copy of MacOS, very unfriendly to power users and developers. But I do appreciate that the big players like Redhat and Canonical invest in a common desktop. Maybe in the future they'll invest in a more user friendly interface.

Until they change their interface, I'll keep using Cinnamon, which is modern, friendly and usable for my work needs. It is also my goto choice for all enterprise linux desktops that I manage and never heard any complaints (unlike gnome3's interface).

I'm glad Fedora comes in a Cinnamon spin!

Personally, I find MacOS a sad user interface. Again, it's just a matter of personal preferences.

I don't believe Gnome or Unity were trying to copy here. The paradigm is way too different. But even if they did, I'm really happy of the outcome, it's so much better (to my taste that is) on every level. And in any case, if we are able to avoid the overpriced bling bling design of Apple and buy something sober and classy instead, it's a win big enough.

[Britoid]

It's almost as if people are allowed to have preferences.

[whitecat]

But at least Android lets you place icons on your homescreen or change basic settings without third party tools , a luxury that you cannot find with Gnome.

Have you found a way to launch apps for the desktop icons on Gnome 3 ?
If yes, please tell me how !!

[jo-erlend]

Have you found a way to launch apps for the desktop icons on Gnome 3 ?
If yes, please tell me how !!

I'm not sure what that means, but if you want icons on your desktop, including shortcuts to apps, you can just switch your file manager from Nautilus to Caja (fork of Nautilus). It still supports this. It's possible you don't even have to switch. Maybe you can just use Caja as your desktop manager and use Nautilus for normal file management. But anyway, Caja is nice.

[Charlie68]

Whenever we talk about graphical interfaces, there is a rush to what is more beautiful, practical, standard etc.
In truth, some users prefer Gnome Shel, others KDE Plasma etc. as it should be, there is no standard in GNU / Linux and if you ask any application developer it will confirm it!
Then we can pass Gnome shell as the standard since in the enterprise world it is the only DE supported, but in that area it is often very relative in DE. For example, in the company where I work, computers with SLE Gnome show nothing more than a full screen business application and this happens in many enterprise realities, in the server sector there is no graphical interface. Among other things, in the business environment the "classic" version of Gnome is used, which is very different from the Gnome shell, even if it is the same thing. But I imagine that few desktop users are interested in an enterprise deployment, also because usually the applications supported are much less, than those available for workstations.
If the companies decide the standard, ok! For years IE has been the standard browser, even if it was painful, but this is not my yardstick.

[dragon321]

A javascript hack to get basic desktop functionality. This does not even work out of the box without extra commands in the terminal. I thought Gnome is supposed to be user friendly?

That's not a hack. Desktop icons can be achieved in many ways, not only by transparent file manager sitting under all windows (which was real hack in case of GNOME). KDE do it in similar way. Basic functionality? For what? Managing files or running apps? There are better places to do it.

What commands this extension needs? I don't remember using commands when I installed this extension.

Either is built-in and properly supported or it doesn't exist.

It's developed by GNOME developers. It's not unofficial. Can't really see why it's bad because it isn't builtin. Not everybody wants to fill desktop with icons so having this as option is better idea for me.