MX Linux Forum

I am thinking about installing GNOME, I kind of like the "gnome classic" desktop better then which is what I have, Since MX-14 is working really well, I am reluctant to change anything, so I am wondering what risks (if any) there might be if I try to install GNOME, I see it is in the repository, so my guess it is safe enough.
If more info is needed, please let me know. Thanks in advance

I've installed both KDE and LXDE and so far, everything seems to be working well. Even if Gnome did not work well, you can always start your system choosing XFCE from the login window. To install Gnome, I'd use the metapackage installer instead of Synaptic, though.

If you like gnome-classic, you might be better off installing MATE desktop (also in the metapackage installer)

Ok, thanks , on "mate", I just finished downloading gnome, it is installing now, hope it works ok,...
I used synaptic. though, this will show how little I know, but I don't know where or how to start "metapackage installer ", didn't see it in the applications menu.

GarryRicketson wrote:Ok, thanks , on "mate", I just finished downloading gnome, it is installing now, hope it works ok,...
I used synaptic. though, this will show how little I know, but I don't know where or how to start "metapackage installer ", didn't see it in the applications menu.

It's been renamed MX Package Installer.

Oh, ok, I did see that ,"MX Package Installer." next time I will give it a try

Well it looks like it went well, I am using the "gnome clasic" just now, but also all the other options are there, XFCE, etc.
I had done some searching with startpage.com and google but did not find anything in relation to gnome on MX-14, so now maybe this will be able to help others too.
Seems to be working fine, at least on my system. thanks all

I did try it (Gnome Ultra). I found that there must be a 'secret' to using it. I never found a way to use a program, close it, and be able to do something else without going through several clicks to get to where I could choose another program. I'm sure there was/is a way but it wasn't worth the trouble for me to find out how.

Gnome 3 is a little weird to me. Very pretty but you really have to force yourself to learn new ways.

And if you want it to have a more traditional desktop feel, you have to:

1. get gnome tweak tool to add back the normal min/max buttons
2. add a shell extension that will make the dock be present all the time
3. install a file manager that has the functionality and settings menu you expect (Nautilus in its current state irritates me. It's so bare)
4. maybe add a shell extension to get a normal applications menu back

So much effort.

I'm still wondering what happened to the weather and other applets you used to be able to stick on the panel. And why the panel cannot display all active/opened windows.

I don't hate Gnome 3 (except maybe Nautilus); I just don't really get it.

I have Ubuntu Gnome on a partition, and it tries to make things easier by preinstalling a number of shell extensions you might want to use to get back some "traditional" functionality. And fair enough, they've done a good job. I'm fairly comfortable using Gnome on Ubuntu Gnome.

But the fact that a distro even has to do that to help users be comfortable with a so-called shiny DE makes no sense.

This isn't a minimalist DE. Why take away so much, and force people to search around for equivalents to put back in again?

On the other hand, I understand that if you are very comfortable with keyboard shortcuts/navigation rather than the mouse, you might really like it. That's not me unfortunately.

The more recent versions of gnome, gnome 3 and actually I have not seen the gnome ultra, but I don't like the gnome 3 much, the gnome classic, is what I have on my debian wheezy , ,.. now that I have it on MX-14, well I was getting used to the XFCE 4 , and now I am not so sure I like gnome classic better,...both have features I like, , ..I am not very fond of ICONS, when they are little pitchures, that I have no clue as to what they mean, to me those are like egyption hyrogliphs (sorry about the spelling) I prefer text, IE: Applications, accesaries, file mangager,...etc.

you might be better off installing MATE desktop

That would interesting to try it, actually I have never used it.
If I remember correctly, but please correct me, isn't both KDE and LXDE what they call "plasma" screens, like what is used in Linux Mint, if so, I really don't like it much, seems to hurt my eyes, this is not say they are "bad", but not to my taste. thanks all

I second the suggestion to try Mate if you like Gnome 2. Gnome Classic is only superficially like Gnome 2 while MATE is a fork of Gnome 2. You will probably feel more familiar and in control with MATE. The settings/preferences are found in the usual places.

KDE and LXDE what they call "plasma" screens, like what is used in Linux Mint,

That's not really accurate. Here's my very vague understanding:

KDE calls their desktop interface/environment Plasma. This includes their widgets. In KDE4 everything was glass-like and glossy. This look is toned down a little in Plasma 5, but there is still lots of translucency (like frosted glass) of windows and surfaces.

So "Plasma" is just the name of the environment.

But if you look at the underlying packages and programs that the different DEs build their environments on:

1. KDE uses QT-based technologies (NB. Gnome 3 uses gtk3)

2. As far as I know, LXDE is mainly gtk2 with built in compatibility for gtk3 apps. However, in the wings there is the eventual successor of LXDE called LXQT that is based on QT. Some QT bits might be familiar to those who use KDE, I guess, but overall the 2 DE are quite different.

3. Mint's 2 main DE are Cinnamon, which is a fork of Gnome 3 (so it's more gtk3), and MATE which is gtk2 with gtk3 support. However, there is also a Mint KDE edition, so you can get your Plasma there. :-)

Years ago I looked at what was available as a DE. For whatever reason I decided KDE was where I wanted to be. I've never regretted that decision. I'll not revisit that unless KDE goes belly-up.

I do find that XFCE is very usable and that about 50% of my time is spent using it. Only because of MX being as good as it is (and this forum). But I run a pretty default XFCE in MX, as I still find it easier to do some things in KDE. And I haven't lost any of the speed that MX brings to the table when I use it with KDE. (I did not do some of the 'tweaks' that are in the KDE installation guide.)

lucky9 wrote:Years ago I looked at what was available as a DE. For whatever reason I decided KDE was where I wanted to be.

I do find that XFCE is very usable and that about 50% of my time is spent using it. Only because of MX being as good as it is (and this forum).

Soon enough (after MX-15.1?) I'll be updating my OS, and unless I change my mind it'll be MX-KDE. Even though using a 32-bit OS in this day and age just feels wrong, there's no real reason I need 64-bit. While Mint KDE 64 and SolydK 64 are tempting, I just can't imagine not being able to avail myself of this distro and this forum.

Sorry, guys, but you're stuck with me.

Argh.

I'm reviving this thread just to moan and whinge about my Ubuntu Gnome 15.04 installation. This was my trial Gnome 3 distro, and over the weekend it had the weirdest bug.

sudo apt-get update got stuck for a long time trying to download one particular source (I hadn't even got to dist-upgrade), and then I got a message that my device was out of storage space.

Whuh...?

I booted into another distro and checked - my 22 GB partition had only 160MB left when previously I'd used less than 8 GB.

I've never had this problem with any distro, Ubuntu, Debian or otherwise.

I sudo apt-get clean (or the equivalent clear cache command for that distro) before every update, and I only keep 3 or 4 of the most recent kernels.

Bizarre. I am assuming this is an Ubuntu problem rather than a Gnome issue.

I decided that if I still wanted to have a Gnome 3 distro in my system, I might as well try Gnome on Fedora, since Gnome more or less is their baby. However I was too lazy to want to work out how to install and set up non-free stuff and codecs, so I installed Korora instead, since it is to Fedora what Mint is to Ubuntu.

Initial opinion - not bad, although it takes some time to get a grip on how the installer is laid out.

Once installed, it can be seen that Korora has installed and enabled the same Gnome shell extensions as Ubuntu Gnome, so usability out of the box is comfortable enough. Of course I still think it's weird for Gnome developers to take away so much functionality and make people work to get it back, but whatever.

Fedora and its RPM package system is not something I'm that familiar with (su -c 'yum update' is about all I know for CLI commands), but the GUI package manager Yum Extender seems usable. I'll have to do some Googling to work out how to remove kernels and clear the cache.

I prefer Mate. I have a bit of trouble navigating Xfce but slowly getting there. I did get Mate up and going using Synaptic, but Not having great luck with getting the full version that I am accustomed to with Debian Stretch. There are probably some conflicts somewhere, probably user error.

Having just discovered "MX Package Installer" (thanks!) maybe I will make a fresh install and try that.

Awhile back, on MX 16 I believe, I installed MATE and it worked well. I'm using MATE on Debian Stable right now and it works great. I've tried Gnome Classic DE and it's kind of horrible and featureless compared to MATE.

I'm still using Gnome 3 on Korora. The same installation has been upgraded over the last few years from version 21 to 27. In the light of Korora devs taking a break, I just backed up my install and intend to remove the Korora repos, remove and swap the Korora release/issue.net files for Fedora ones. This is in preparation for upgrading to Fedora 28 maybe in August (that's my regular upgrade schedule), so I hope nothing breaks.

I have MATE running in PCLinuxOS. I'm not that keen on the DE, but with Compiz and the newish Brisk menu originating from Solus, it's fine.

One thing in MATE's favor is they backport their releases - 1.18 is currently in stable-backports, with 1.20 on its way

The only reason why I switched from Mate 1.0.2 over to XFCE was because of the panel differences. Everything that can be done with XFCE panels just totally amazed me, including the 100% translucent setting, several panels at the same time, and the fact that everything on those panels actually remained where it was put (after locking the panel). I still think Mate has the best (Caja) file manager because of a feature that none of the other file managers have ... music preview simply by hovering over a file. If Thunar had the auto-preview, it would be heaven for me (and anyone else who has hundreds of CDs with which to create music compilations).

.

Xfce has come a long way and has a reputation for being stable, reliable, and dependable, something rare in Linux land.

Yes, I don't really like the MATE panel. Whenever I want to change/add applets or shift them around, each time I've found the whole process very fiddly. Items seem to move to places you don't want them at. Or if you lock one applet, you can't slide another item past it.

asqwerth wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 3:07 pm Yes, I don't really like the MATE panel. Whenever I want to change/add applets or shift them around, each time I've found the whole process very fiddly. Items seem to move to places you don't want them at. Or if you lock one applet, you can't slide another item past it.

I actually like that they can be locked in place, sort of like KDE. For me there is not a huge difference between Xfce and MATE. Over the years Thunar has been a bit of a PITA compared to Caja which is quite mature. Xfce might be a bit easier to configure.