this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
73 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48186 readers
1218 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
73
Who uses pure GNOME (no extensions) (lemdro.id)
submitted 1 year ago by mfat@lemdro.id to c/linux@lemmy.ml
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I really like gnome and how it looks. However every time I try it I find myself in need of more functionality and so I install a bunch of extensions. For example I can't live without a dock and some sort of system tray that shows which apps are running in background.

Sometimes the extensions have small UI inconsistencies or use more memory than usual. That's why I totally ditched gnome and switch to KDE.

Also I tend to think it's been designed for people who are more comfortable using a keyboard. I'm mostly a mouse person.

Do any of you run pure gnome with no extensions? How do you cope with the lack of a dock and system tray?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah pure gnome would be great if they:

  1. provided desktop icons (like they used to);
  2. had an option to disable the activity BS on startup and go straight to the desktop.

But oh well, the GNOME team is more occupied with censoring comments on their blog and trying to re-invent the desktop environment experience with animations and whatnot instead of focusing on what really delivers productivity.

[–] kzhe@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Both of those would, to me, seem like negatives.

Desktop icons have no benefit for me and would look ugly. Opening in the desktop would mean that I would have to press super before launching all my apps, which would be annoying.

[–] brunofin@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Since GNOME disabled desktop icons years ago, I liked it so much that I disable them in every OS I use, even on Windows.

They are just ugly and make the whole system feel messy. I do t need that. I can use the search or a favourites thing in a hidden drawer like the start menu or the gnome dock.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why can't we just have toggles under settings (like we did in the past for desktop icons), works for you, works for me. Everyone will be happy.

[–] vox@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

you're using it wrong. (tm)
activity should be treated as the "default" mode of gnome (also you need to go to it do launch anything anyway)
also desktop icons suck

[–] turbowafflz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I get understand wanting desktop icons even though I don't like them personally, but what's the advantage of starting at the desktop instead of the overview? It seems like you would probably want to open an application when you log in so it seems more convenient to already be in the overview