Oxymoron
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Jeff91 Feb 03, 2014 11:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:a normal user that uses Linux (Arch Linux at the moment) If you are using Arch Linux you are pretty far from a normal user. Normal users aren't going to have a good time maintaining/installing that OS. Just so we are clear - I think Arch Linux is great. PACMAN is fast and we need people testing bleeding edge software so it can become stable for the rest of us. You just aren't the average if you are using it. ~Jeff |
| gary_newell Feb 03, 2014 12:18 PM EDT |
Marius goes on to say that he uses Arch Linux for 10 to 12 hours a day at work and at home. Probably also doesn't qualify as a normal user. The article basically qualifies that Gnome is good because he can customise it to be the way he wants it to be. Marius continues by saying that Gnome is also good because it is used on Red Hat's Enterprise Linux and is the basis of other desktop environments including Unity, Cinnamon and MATE. I have tried Gnome 3 a number of times but I think Unity does the same things but better. Cinnamon and MATE just use the base and mould Gnome into an altogether different experience. I never used to like KDE but I've become a bit of a KDE convert so most of the time I use KDE, I use XFCE or MATE on my lesser spec'd machines. It also really depends on the distro I am reviewing at the time. |
| Jeff91 Feb 03, 2014 1:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:Gnome is good because he can customize Maybe I'm just spoiled by Enlightenment, but I never found any Gnome version that configurable. |
| lietkynes Feb 03, 2014 3:35 PM EDT |
The article is rather strange. It feels like click bait to me, where not a single good reason for it being "the best" is given. This is just a bunch of half-baked opinions that fail to convince anyone of anything. The title should be "Why I like Gnome". Colloquially, when you refer to something as "the best", it is understood that you are actually saying that you like it above all other alternatives. However, I feel that an article with such a title begets an expectation of apparent objectivity. While both cases are subjective, the latter entails you giving some semblance of a reason as to why Gnome is the best alternative for most use-cases. Obviously, I don't think this is the case with this article. Here is a TL;DR of my opinion of gnome, having used it consistently for the last few months. What I like about gnome is that it feels pleasant to use, as if it manages all resources fairly well. Applications and application events are managed and handled with grace and feel consistent. GTK has clearly evolved a lot, even if it feels like GTK3 is a non-update from GTK2. I use Numix as my theme, but in general interfaces are simple; easy to digest. The activities launcher is quite nice nowadays (used to be slow and unusable for type-to-launch people)...I don't need dmenu anymore. The Dock is superfluous for me, i don't use it and cannot comment on it. On the other hand, managing the desktop "your" way is a nightmare, and the Gnome people keep making decisions that are very narrow-minded. For my use-case, 90% of my time on my computer is spent on the home-row; I control most my desktop with the keyboard. Gnome doesn't seem to like this, and they put roadblocks by creating obtuse hotkeys. 1* Alt+Left to go back in Nautilus? No thanks, it requires me to stray from the home-row (you can fix this via the accels dot file) 2* Nautilus' type-to-search makes my navigation slow, and only caters to people very simple directory setups (I think Nautilus is completely broken) 3* Under activities, you have zero keyboard control without extensions 4* Having task icons on the message bar is broken. I right-click on dropbox, and the message bar collapses...great! (Need an extension to fix...) I have mostly gotten used to the gnome3 way of doing things, sans mouse-only features. Some of it works ok when you learn it...but as I showed, it is not an environment that everyone can "grow to be more productive with", as some people seem to claim. I use gnome because it is easy to deploy, and I have managed to work around the caveats to some degree...but the best? Unfortunately I don't feel like such a blanket statement would be productive. As a side note, Gnome is changing, and they seem to hate my demographic. It feels like my days in Gnome are numbered. Addendum: Gnome (x11) crashes once in a while, but it seems to recover fairly well...I don't know whether this is a pro or a con. It is certainly not common enough to warrant general avoidance. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 03, 2014 4:46 PM EDT |
GNOME is not so customizable. Once 3.10 broke all my GNOME Shell Extensions (which were coded for 3.8), that was enough. That and the Logout function breaking. And the lack of a screensaver configuration utility. I just couldn't be productive with so much change and so much breakage. I returned to Xfce and am happy I did. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!