Gnome 3 is bad because it's not a windows 95 clone with a legacy UI

post desktop

Then why did you install a fuckton of addons you're showing us in your screenshot? You're just confirming that the out of box GNOME experience is pathetic and needs third party patching to be somewhat usable.

I'm unironically loving 3.32. Everything feels very intuitive.

Something file picker something something thumbnails.

looks bad todd

Attached: IMG_20190424_223743.jpg (540x700, 83K)

I swear linux GUI devs are either trolling or severely retarded if they think design like that is even remotely accaptable.

Which ever autist was responisble of linux gui/guis should get beated to death so he never touches anything related to gui design ever again.

honestly gnome is fucking shit but it makes me actually focus on work because of how simple it is

That's not default GNOME 3. Nobody but the user to blame.

All the default Linux UIs are fucking garabge dude. Even the disgusting trash Win10 UI is light years ahead than any Linux abominations.

Fair enough, but default GNOME still looks better than what OP posted, despite the Adwaita theme being disgusting.

CPU time is cheap.

this

Same, Fedora 30 literally has had no issues on my laptop or desktop, the first time I can actually say linux has been issue-free for me.

KDE > Windows > Xfce > OSX > gnome

Attached: Desktop Environments_full.png (2304x1606, 301K)

Xfce > KDE > Windows > OSX > gnome

Gnome sucks because of extensions made in java script and they remove functions from it soon no themes and background pictures

gnome 3 is bad because it makes you press super all the time - good in theory, bad in practice; it's just ridiculous, tiring and removes any sense of a real desktop feel any office clerk or normal person is used to, it's more of a game than a de
also it adds overhead for videos and 3d but it may be only for wayland
and nautilus can rape you hdd or take forever to open a folder

old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/bjk3pf/gnome_332_is_awesome_but_still_needs_improvements/

Gnome is terrible, and even r*ddit understands that

>Xfce >> Windows >
fixed

Attached: xfce is butifel.jpg (1680x1050, 135K)

4% of cpu
Gnome isn't made with potatoes in mind
It looks nice, is functional, and is not buggy

Gnome is bad, because I can't even simply drag the god damn clock in the top right corner.

ur right it's a macosx and webos clone

only if your time is worthless

>want something nice, functional and doesn't eat battery
>install gnome
>battery life cut in half
>fan ramps up when just browsing

Perfect.

I'm on KDE myself

Attached: 1543904287629.webm (1920x1080, 1.25M)

>guys gnome is good removing features is good
>uses dash to dock, extension for tray icons, and a shitton of other extensions to complement for the missing features
>uses custom theme despite custom themes being bad according to the Gnome way(tm)
Why are you going against the Gnome way if it’s so good?

No, its just the whole "it can't do picture previews" part that sucks.

If GNOME is "horrible" then explain this:
>Get into Linux/BSD in 2012, hear that GNOME 3 is "bad"
>Try Xfce, it's crap
>Try Fluxbox, it's crap
>Try awesome, it's crap
>Try MATE/GNOME 2, it's crap
>Try KDE, it's okay but not great
>Try GNOME 3, it's great
>Try any other DE/WM after that and realize its crap

>still using DE after 7 years of linux experience
user..

well, Jow Forums is a board for neets.
Some people are even surprised when you tell them you actually use your computer for work.
Desktop metaphores are stressful for using more than 4 windows, alt tab gets crazy full and having a fixed set of workspaces you run out of space, plus there's an enormous ammount of useless information on screen and the keyboard shortcuts normally don't have workspace control by default and/or is hard to find the option to set the keybind. I like how gnome is designed, is kind of like dwm but without autism.
Though OP icons look like shit and I don't use a dock, in fact I don't use any extensions. The window list can be nice but I find it useless since most of the time I would just use the overview to get an idea of what I was doing.
GNOME is the best DE and Red Hat are genius for investing money in this DE, people can be more productive with less stress thanks to this design.

I have finally switched to KDE and I should have done so sooner. It’s pretty, it’s fast and snappy, very customizable, and has all the features you’d want from a DE and more. I just wish more programs were Qt instead of GTK, even though it doesn’t really matter that much. It needs a little bit of setting up because the defaults are still shit and the settings are still kind of a mess, but that’s about the only complaint I have.

Attached: 7D60BA62-E1E2-4FA0-84CC-39DFBB90253C.png (3497x4947, 977K)

It's a great foundation to retrofit towards your needs. But wait, ricers will hate it because they're too dumb to write code to do that.

Also it doesn't crash persistently like KDE.

The main reason I'm not on KDE is that when I disable compositing on it, the whole taskbar freezes visually (apparently an nvidia problem that they don't care about fixing). Makes it completely unusable. I'm currently using cinnamon and everything justwerks.

I can tell by the pixelated webm and the stuttering.

>multiple applications for the same shit
>windows vista widgets
>krashes
>programs don't follow the config you set. ie: konsole not using 80x24 size
>multiple ways of doing the same shit in screen, broken gui contextual menus, etc
they would benefit from deleting shit more than gnome, seriously there's shit that is broken and unmaintained.
Plus qt and gtk themes mix up very badly, kde supposes you only use qt. whereas in any gtk desktop like xfce, lxde or gnome it just looks fine

sounds like a problem with something else

Extensions make Gnome run like shit because muh javascript and they look like shit too.
>great foundation
You must be kidding

image being so retarded that you cant change gtk theme in kde, when there is a settings page for your gtk theme

>kde supposes you only use qt
KDE has settings for your GTK themes built-in and maintains GTK versions of their default themes. Stop talking out of your ass.

>reddit

>Jow Forumsunixporn

extensions are most below 100kB. I can't say the same about those kde widgets and docks

Someone sucks at writing efficient software.

Gnome, like wayland or DWM is minimalist and modular by design, meaning that it provides the minimum you need, which you can then extend to your needs, this avoids bloat that you dont need or use,

that's the problem, it's treated as a different kind of program and the window decorations change. as well as the cursor. feels like windows vista or like you are infested with some kind of malware switching trough windows with different styles

Yeah, the Gnome devs. Feature set of a minimal WM while eating a gig of RAM.

Don't want to use an Apple System 1 clone, sorry.

I've tested it on Arch, Ubuntu, Solus, etc. All have the same problem.

You sound like a fat neckbeard who can't manage their money and are stuck with their old ThinkPad.

>KDE has settings for your GTK themes built-in and maintains GTK versions of their default themes.
Yes, but do they work...?
youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

that's the only problem with gnome, and I agree.
But for me they can keep deleting useless code form gnome and I'm happy. The only things I use and like from gnome are the core features it will always have.
It's mostly written in javascript and C, as about the same code in javascript as there is in C. I hope in the future it's mostly just C

Still waiting for nice, minimal titlebar-hiding extension with whitelist.

yeah, this is also why I said that. I set the adwaita cursor for both, but in like a minute qt applcations start ignoring it and start using the cartoonish kde breeze cursor.
Some things just don't work in KDE because it's so big some code just goes unmaintained.
Meanwhile I can safely say every function in gnome currently works

Sure they do. No where are the settings for Qt theming in Gnome and the Adwaita Qt theme?

Yes, I never had an issue with it. Qt apps on gnome on the other hand look like shit

nowhere because windows shouldn't have a mix of decorations, what is something you gain from using qt (previously proprietary) versus gtk?
It's just special snowflake way of doing things

>multiple applications for the same shit
I don’t even know which applications you’re referring to, but only install the one you actually use then?
>krashes
>programs don't follow the config you set. ie: konsole not using 80x24 size
Works fine for me. I used to have the panel crash when I tried KDE some time ago, but I haven’t had a single issue now.
>multiple ways of doing the same shit in screen, broken gui contextual menus, etc
Don’t really know what you mean.
>Plus qt and gtk themes mix up very badly, kde supposes you only use qt. whereas in any gtk desktop like xfce, lxde or gnome it just looks fine
It literally comes with a matching GTK theme that you set from the settings. Using the default Breeze theme for both Qt and GTK they look exactly the same.
>they would benefit from removing stuff
I agree with that. The settings and stuff were clearly designed by a programmer and not a designer and the UX could definitely use some work.

>what is something you gain from using qt (previously proprietary) versus gtk?
Good applications.

they look fine

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-05-05 16-25-13.png (1600x900, 208K)

>minimal
>manages to be the heaviest, laggiest most sluggish DE

Qt runs much faster and better, GTK is cancer and much harder to develop for. Qt is simply the superior toolkit

KDE > OSX > Gnome > Windows > XFCE

You can't honestly tell me you think windows looks better than OSX.

Now try changing your gtk theme to a dark theme

Why does it matter if Qt was previously "propertiary" when it hasn't been for a long time?

>manages to be the heaviest, laggiest most sluggish DE
That would be Cinnamon.

>mix of decorations
>GTK and Qt are "decorations"
truly shows you how informed the average gnomelet is

Gnome extensions are Javascript files, KDE extensions are C++. Are you really comparing how efficient they are by their filesizes?

so snake oil? both transmission qt and gtk do the same exact shit. In fact I could live my live without knowing what gtk or qt is, no sure why you care like one is better.
I've heard so, I haven't looked into how qt code looks but gtk certainly looks like webdev shit.
meanwhile plasma shell uses more ram than gnome-shell. There has been regressions when gnome has started to use more ram with time, for example in 3.22. Those are not even release quality, I used dwm in the meantime, that shit doubled in ram like in 2 hours or as you opened applications I don't remember.
Still gnome has the superior design, whenever they make a good release I use it. Usually all fedora releases

Eye cancer > KDE

Cold boot kde uses 500mb of ram while gnome uses 1gb+

No. Even Cinnamon manages to do better, and it’s a shitty fork from Gnome being worked on by a few developers in their free time compared to a DE being worked on by a shitton of developers from Redhat and Canonical. I’m amazed how Gnome still manages to be so bad with all these dev resources.

that's not gnome-shell, that's whatever pajeet distribution you are using

>snake oil
There's tons of good Qt applications that have no GTK equivalent.
qBittorrent
Scribus
lmms
Qtractor
All of the JACK tools
Krita
Kdenlive
Calibre
QtCreator
Dolphin :^)
Wireshark
OBS
My point is that you generally need both Qt and GTK so your desktop should provide themes and theming settings for both.

>Even Cinnamon manages to do better
Not in my experience. I find it somewhat difficult to find recent benchmarks comparing the two, but the last one I saw also showed GNOME 3 as the clear winner.

>t. ricing NEET who doesn't do anything productive

Attached: 200mb.png (3000x2000, 2.03M)

>Global window menu, even with dual screen
>Dock showing only apps instead of windows
>No proper minimise and maximise

OSX is ok if you only run one "app", like on a phone or in the 90s. If you actually want to be efficient it's horrible

Attached: OS market share_diagram_small.png (5000x3305, 1.03M)

That's Gnome Shell user. Gnome isn't just the shell.

Cinnamon uses more ram than gnome and is slower retard
that has nothing to do with them being written in qt, retard

Unironically this

so? if you complain about booting with 100MB more than LXDE just use dwm or buy a new computer. Ram is not equal to CPU usage. In fact any DE gives me the same battery life.

>but the last one I saw also showed GNOME 3 as the clear winner.
Same. I was pretty surprised. It's why I no longer shit on Gnome users. I feel like my KDE struggles with even pretty basic stuff sometimes.

>just buy a new computer so we can write more shitty software so you need to buy a new computer so we can write more shitty software so you need to buy a new computer...

I don’t know about benchmarks, but in my experience Cinnamon feels more responsive than GNOME. Atleast GNOME with extensions that’d match the features Cinnamon provides, like a dock or panel and tray icons.

by far the most retarded and heavy handed baitpost i have seen on this shitty board yet
why are you dumb niggers falling for this

I can't even set kde to use the japanese kana kanji layout. Certainly not good for uncommon setups
>waaah 200MB plus cached applications that I will use anyway but I can disable if I weren't a retard
>how will my toaster even survive
works fine on old hardware. But even old hardware has like 4GB of ram

>Gnome
>200mb
We're talking about Gnome 3 here, not 2.

...

>what is caching
>what is top
>what is free -hm

Wowie zowie, 1GB. That's a lot for your aging thinkpad. Go donate plasma two times and you'll have enough to buy a new RAM kit.

...

>>waaah 200MB plus cached applications that I will use anyway but I can disable if I weren't
>>how will my toaster even survive
looks like you're having a hard time reading the thread

>literally the only argument footfags have is to just be a consumer whore.
They really did get some inspiration from Apple.