From Fedora Project Wiki

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:


I am not against this at all. I am probably stating the obvious, but Gnome-shell would still need to be just a ''yum install'' away and should not become a second-class UI like KDE used to be in Fedora. Personally I quite like Gnome shell, but I know far more people who don't. I also have an issue with its weight, but Cinnamon does not solve that either.
I am not against this at all. I am probably stating the obvious, but Gnome-shell would still need to be just a ''yum install'' away and should not become a second-class UI like KDE used to be in Fedora. Personally I quite like Gnome shell, but I know far more people who don't. I also have an issue with its weight, but Cinnamon does not solve that either.
Cinnamon may have started out as 'using the GNOME 3 stack', but at this stage, they have full-scale forks of GNOME shell, mutter and nautilus.--[[User:Mclasen|Mclasen]] ([[User talk:Mclasen|talk]]) 13:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:06, 25 January 2013

David Dreggors:

I disagree, I think the Gnome 3 shell is a fantastic UI. The workflow is fast and quite intuitive as well. Besides, that is what spins are for. If you like cinnamon grab (or make) a cinnamon spin.

Further, I would submit that once you start actually learning and using the keyboard shortcuts in Gnome 3 you will also enjoy it. Just because it is different than what you are used to does not make it evil or bad.


Chris Cowley:

I am not against this at all. I am probably stating the obvious, but Gnome-shell would still need to be just a yum install away and should not become a second-class UI like KDE used to be in Fedora. Personally I quite like Gnome shell, but I know far more people who don't. I also have an issue with its weight, but Cinnamon does not solve that either.

Cinnamon may have started out as 'using the GNOME 3 stack', but at this stage, they have full-scale forks of GNOME shell, mutter and nautilus.--Mclasen (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)