Me too - I really like GNOME 3.

After installing I had to go back to GNOME 2 (on a client - installation problems) and if felt old and boring - like going back to Windows XP (from Windows 7)

I have mac user walking around in the office and asking me what kind of a desktop environment is it, being genuinely (positively) surprised that it is actually GNOME desktop on Linux. Well. And I have other Linux desktop users (like Xfce or something even more 'geeky', even TWM) that are genuinely surprise that I can just plug in another display and have it work without touching the command line (not that I can't use CLI xrandr, but why would I).

> that are genuinely surprise that I can just plug in another display and have it work without touching the command line

I use XFCE on my low end/old laptops. I don't need to touch the commandline either nor did I a few (1-3) years ago.

I'm curious - did you set up "full" Gnome 3 with Gnome Shell, or is it the default Ubuntu install (with Unity)? If the full thing, what made you pick that over Unity?

I "just" did a default install with the expectation that Unity would drive me crazy and that I'd end up replacing everything, but in the end I found it very suitable for how I work (browser + terminal with tons of tabs maximized; leaving one workspace free for the rare other apps I end up using)

I usually do an "apt-get install gnome" on top of the default Ubuntu desktop. I used to run GNOME shell builds even before it was generally available and got to love it. I'm sure that given time I'd grow to not mind Unity, but for me GNOME feels designed as a more coherent whole than Unity. The vanishing top menu on Unity also sucks, IMO.

I love it, because it feels streamlined and gets out of the way. I don't really care to participate in flames (the sort that Benjamin linked from his blog post), so I'll just voice some support here.

I am with you. Moving back to Gnome2 or XFCE just feels a little odd to me. I constantly find myself pressing the super key to get to the activities overview and then I get a little disappointing when it's not there. There are still a few tweaks I would like to see implemented, but I like it better then every other desktop shell I have seen.

exactly. I really like GNOME 3, apart from a few things I can fix with extensions. It's sad to see it losing momentum.

That said, Cinnamon is a really nice fork of it, that has the features most users are missing, and while it does bring back some of the win98-ess, it's good to see it evolve and become more stable, I'm still undecided between the two and switching back and forth every once in a while.

If you ask me, I think GNOME should drop most of its peripheral software, and stick with just making a really really stable and sleek desktop. Most people don't need email and calendar clients anymore. I just want a simple yet configurable desktop, a great file manager, a good text editor, and a console. The rest should be external IMHO, and the desktop should provide easy integration points.

I would love to see this happen aswell

Ditto, best launcher I've used, love the overview, the workspace switching on only one monitor, it just gets out of the way well and it's freaking pretty.

If only it was less "shiny". I just can't stand the visuals. First KDE 4, then GNOME 3. Made me use xfce.

Heartening to read your comments and others who agree. I find GNOME 3 preferable to Unity. It's the most "Mac-like" of all the Linux desktop environments which is meant as a compliment. I recommend it to everyone also. (vs. Unity)

I really like Gnome 3 too -- I moved from OS X Lion to it, ironically I think because Lion's bugs and annoyances provided that same opportunity to switch that many cite in the Gnome 2/3 transition.