+which versions Gnome do I need?

Just upgraded to Ubuntu 22.10 with Gnome43 installed. Working fine.
In the list of programs installed, I see Gnome Application Platform version 43, and Gnome…42, and Gnome… 3.38.
Why are versions 42 and 3.38 still installed after upgrade to Gnome 43?

Hi @ard ,
I have Gnome in Debian 11. It is version 3.38 ( way behind as usual for Debian).

dpkg -l
ii  gnome-core                            1:3.38+3                         amd64        GNOME Desktop Environment -- essential components
ii  gnome-desktop3-data                   3.38.5-3                         all          Common files for GNOME desktop apps

but there are some components still at 3.36, eg

ii  gnome-menus                           3.36.0-1                         amd64        GNOME implementation of the freedesktop menu specification

and some at 3.34

ii  gnome-tweaks                          3.34.0-4                         all          tool to adjust advanced configuration settings for GNOME

So I do not imagine Gnome is ever one monolithic version.

Ubuntu may be different.



thanks for the explanation in Debian. I now think Ubuntu is same as I have loaded Gnome43 and Gnome42 adn Gnome 3.38, while the systems indicate that I am now running on Gnome 43…


Read the section on Gnome

1 Like

Comes across as rather arbitrary, and opionated (opinions: everybody has one and they’re as common a-holes)… I don’t agree with all his opinions, but he does have a point, or several.

BTW - Ubuntu hasn’t been top of the desktop market share for yonks now (I’m not referring to distrowatch, which is also another bullshit arbitrary metric).

And - I’ve been using Linux since 1995, and UNIX a bit longer, and I prefer Ubuntu - and it will continue to be my main desktop Linux choice… Despite cutting most of my desktop stuff over to MacOs these days…

Everything’s just easier with Ubuntu, compared to my most recent wandering in the wilderness of distrohopping (elementary, garuda, manjaro, fedora) … I’ll stick with Ubuntu… and I really couldn’t give a rat’s arse about snap or systemd (I LOVED SYSTEMD :slight_smile: :heart: )

1 Like

I agree. I just put it up to get some info on the Gnome versions question.

It would seem most large apps, especially DTE’s , are made up of many packages, each with its own version. The version of the core package seems to be the one people speak of when referring to the app.

My annoyances with Gnome 4 far outweigh the occasional niggle I have with Quartz and MacOS… i.e. give me the complete consistency of MacOs any day… but I’d 10,000x Gnome 3 or 4 desktop than Windows 10 or 11…

i.e. Whatever the Gnome Devs did with Gnome 4, was such a shitty move, they regressed the Gnome, and with it, the Linux desktop (except for the non Gnome users out there) experience back 10 years IMHO…

I really wish someone coulda funded and channeled and evangelised Unity and MIR - then we wouldn’t be having these issues - the divorce between SNAP applications and file operations, and the default file manager, are so extreme - it’s almost like they’re DIFFERENT OPERATING SYSTEMS!

Sure - if Unity and MIR had persevered and succeeded - we’d probably have two Linux ecosystems - Ubuntu, and everything else… Like these days - there’s still FreeBSD, but don’t forget, OpenBSD and NetBSD are still “alive”…

But - having said that - I will continue to use Gnome 4x and Ubuntu where I’m not using MacOS - because it’s easier - because I like “out of the box” stuff for my GPU, I like finding the fix for my issue on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd hit in a search engine (things are dire if the answer’s not on the first page of hits!).


I am having a trial with GhostBSD in Vbox. Its a sort of home desktop version og FreeBSD. I have Mate (the default DE), but it has most DE’s.
For me the biggest negative is ZFS … thats why I have it in Vbox.
I cant see how a ZFS distro could be used in a multiboot computer.
ZfS wants to own the disk.

the divorce between SNAP applications and file operations, and the default file manager, are so extreme

Are you saying that when you use a snap app, something strange happens to your filesystem ? … or it does not interact properly with the file manager? I dont understand, but if you really mean that, a snap app would be unusable?
A snap app runs in a container, so I guess accessing files would be more complicated…it is for docker containers… you have to declare
the files you want to use with what is called a virtual mount option, at the time you run the docker image. You cant change your mind and add more files later. If snap is like that, I can see the problem.

There’s a considerable (and jarring even) difference between how a SNAP application implements file management (open or save dialogs) and other better behaved applications do - and even more so - nothing like using the default file manager (nautilus I believe)…

This also breaks a whole bunch of stuff - e.g. you can use a SNAP’d web browser to integrate with Gnome Shell Extensions…

It’s less of a dog’s breakfast, and more of a pig’s dinner time…

1 Like

I can understand why.
The basic idea of a container is to isolate everything. So when it comes to file access, there is a conflict of methodologies.
A docker container deals with this by requiring all files accessed be declared in advance of running the container. That sort of cripples any interactive workstyle.
Not sure shat snap containers do, I have never tried one, but I get the gist of what you are reporting.
Do you know about flatpak and appimage… are they containers too?

Hey @daniel.m.tripp , I’m a Ubuntu newbie and my main Linux desktop box is running v20.04 (I’m trying to hold off upgrading to v22.04 as I don’t feel I need to yet).

Being the curious :cat: that I am, I hope you don’t mind me asking why you love SYSTEMD. I haven’t come across this app before.

  • What do you love SYSTEMD?
  • You mentioned it in past tense, is SYSTEMD going away or did you find some better solution?

Hi Mark,
Systemd is a modern replacement for init, but it does a bit more than init did.
init is the first process that runs after the kernel starts up when you boot. Init is responsible for starting all the daemon processes ( called services in some distros).

Some of the important distros that use systemd (stands for system daemon) ar Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat, OpenSuse.

There is controversy over systemd. Some (me included) say it is too large and complex and that it breaks the Unix philosophy of one task one process. Others (eg @daniel.m.tripp ) are happy with it.

There are altenatives to systemd. Some of the distros that offer alternatives are Devuan, Void, Gentoo

Ubuntu does not offer any choice of init system, so you are stuck with systemd. You need to learn its commands to be able to start and stop services.


Hi @MV02,

I been using Linux Mint (which is based on Ubuntu) for about 4 years on both my laptop and desktop.
So, I am sure I am using systemd. Not a heavy user of the PC, but have not seen any problems that I know of with a system that uses systemd.

Read a couple articles on the internet about systemd vs init, but my knowledge of Linux is too limited to appreciate the difference. Basically, what I got from the information is what @nevj said. For those who do not like systemd, they can install a Linux distro that uses init instead.

Ubuntu and Mint uses systemd and I am fine with that.


1 Like

@easyt50 's experience is what most users observe.
Systemd rarely gives any issues.
It is more a matter of whether one wants to learn a mountain of comands, or use something simpler.
If you dont ever want to start and stop services, you can just ignore it.

1 Like