Shortcuts in AppGrid are removed when pinned to the dash

Pinning a shortcut from the AppGrid to the dash shouldn't mean removing it from the AppGrid, what's the logic for this? Preventing duplicates?

It's Gnome Logic. I think there's an extension for it to stay...

1 Like

If you mean the application grid, then yes that's the default behavior, and it's unfortunately a GNOME thing.

However, the application menu – the one that launches through the Zorin OS logo – still shows all the installed programs.

1 Like

@Storm and @zenzen, these extensions :roll_eyes:, it looks we must install 1 per issue we find or for changing any single thing we don't like. Do you think GNOME promotes the use of extensions by giving these default behaviors to its products? Now that I typed it it looks very much true :grin:. @zenzen, I know but I replaced it with AppGrid because I prefer its Android app drawer style, bigger shortcuts and on main menu there are many buttons I don't use often or don't use at all. Another reason is that sometimes software has been installed in wrong categories (it's probably rare) making me think where the hell software I just installed was :laughing: while on AppGrid I already organized the view and folders to my liking :sunglasses::+1:.

What he meant is that if you pin the application from the Zorin menu, it is not removed from the list of applications.

Neither from the Zorin menu nor from Applications.

Yes, same result but different behaviors. Gnome stuff.

Through the "Main Menu" editor you can create menu items. Which will then be displayed in the Zorin Menu. This is the way I found to fix applications that do not have a installer (portable). First I create the menu item for her, and then pin it.

1 Like

I think that GNOME likes doing things in a particular way, with very little deviation.

Personally, I find their keyboard-centric workflow to be extremely efficient. For instance, when I want to launch a program, all I have to do is press Super, start typing the name, and hit Enter. For some of the most common ones, I just assign keyboard shortcuts so it's even easier: Super+Enter for terminal, Super+F for file manager, etc.

I've had this type of setup since Windows Vista and it works great for me. It completely eliminates the need to organize software; all I need is the name. The category, folder, position, pager, drawer or whatever else are meaningless details to me. The only one I care about the icon but that's just because it looks nice in the taskbar or when cycling windows – I'm currently using i3 window manager, so now even this is an afterthought to me.

However, with all this said, I see no reason why GNOME devs are so stubborn with restricting customization options. Everyone has different needs and workflows, and it's part of the fun to be able to change things around.


I also use the software search feature much for opening some (those few times I need any), it's fast and easy, for example if I need the terminal I just press Windows logo, type ter and press Enter, done. This is how some Android launchers I tried work, the applications browsing only works with the search instead of icons so when you want to open any you just tap the search bar, enter a part of the app name and relevant results will load. Some also list files and contacts.

Customization is one of my abiding thoughts :smile:.

Yes, it is a bit ... weird. But there is a Gnome Extension for it: Favourites in AppGrid - GNOME Shell Extensions

With that you have the Programs in the App Grid and on the Dock, Dash whatever. I use it by myself.

1 Like

This works for me on XFCE (Asmi or Z Lite) and always has. I do not know if KDE has this feature. I almost never scroll through the app menu, but type the software name (or at least the first couple or three letters)...

I suspect sarcasm, but the Gnome Devs have expressed disdain for extensions and a desire to eliminate them.
Tobias Bernard has expressly stated that users should not use any extensions at all but instead contribute their code directly to the Gnome Shell.
This is a very strange statement. On the surface, it seems like he is promoting a community driven project. However, on deeper inspection, you realize that by contributing directly to Gnome, Gnome Devs can reject any unwanted code and include only that which they want - unlike extensions where users can customize at will.
Secondly, it creates a Unified Standard within Gnome, keeping all users in lockstep on the same uniform D.E. experience which is very much in line with Gnomes heavily "Microsoft-like" thinking.
Rather than actually being community-driven, it cuts the community out almost entirely, leaving the vast majority empty handed and a few elites that can input gobs of code being permitted to under the onus of that code being accepted or rejected by Gnome.

At least currently, Gnome cannot block or disallow the extensions that they do not want represented on Gnome D.E.


I have wondered the same.
Gnome D.E. as a Desktop Environment is an amazing and great usable desktop. It easily would be one of my favorites.
As a developer and for fast efficient use, Gnome D.E. shines.
As a user, however, Gnome seems to slam on the brakes.

And Gnome Applications are remarkably inconsistent or buggy. Gnome Software Store is notorious for it being lacking in features, lacking in verbosity and being glitchy and buggy. It is so unreliable, it is the most complained about software manager on this and many other forums.
Some Gnome Apps rely on a windowed box whereas others rely on notebook stack, giving them radically different sizing and appearances.
Some Gnome apps have buttoned toolbars contained in the headerbar (in CSD's) whereas others don't and are a headerbar with a notebook hanging off the bottom causing different headerbar heights and those headerbars to blend into other widgets.
Some Gnome apps support features that Gnome has removed in standard; For example the Gnome terminal still containing a toolbar widget with "file - Edit - View..." while the rest of Gnome Apps do not have that.
Some Gnome apps have a split headerbar, like Gnome Control Center - which splits the headerbar inconsistently and breaks the flow of the design. The headerbar is divided into headerLeft, HeaderRight.

If you spend enough time reading Gnome bug reports and the Gnome responses to these reports, your eyes will get wider and wider until eventually, you shut down the computer, go sit in a dark room and play "ABBA Dancing Queen" until you pass out.


The Problem of Gnome is the same like the good Thing of Gnome: The Developers have their Vision how the desktop should be. They have her Point of View. And to have that clear Vision is a good Thing.

But now comes the Point that someone (in fact the Users) should use the Desktop. And when the Users say that is good, but ... and then tell Things what could be better or could add and Stuff like that and the Developers say simply ''No.'' ... that doesn't work that Way.

So, when the Developer's have developed a Desktop where they say ''Yeah, this is great!'' but the User uses it and thinks ''Where is this?'' and have to add Extensions then it isn't great. And I don't mean any special Stuff. Only common Things like a Theme for a more individual Look.

A personal Example: I have installed an Extension which sortes the AppGrid in alphabetical Order. That is nothing what I should have to install from a Third-Party Developer.


Using theming is a great example, as Gnome deliberately seeks to inhibit or prevent user theming entirely. This is a long standing issue with a lot of history.
With the changeover to Gnome 3, the Gnome devs deliberately made drastic changes to how .css styles themes causing all GTK3 themes previous to those changes to break. This continued in iterations until Gnome 3.20, when Gnomes stakeholders made Gnome sign a pledge to stop breaking theming.
Then an Open Letter was addressed from App makers to Gnome asking Gnome to "Stop theming our apps". Only to have it come out that the signatories of the "open letter" were the Gnome devs themselves. They wrote themselves a letter. Saying they were the app makers. In response to this, the Gnome Devs said, "Well, we do work on other projects and we deny that we were speaking for Gnome..."
Then Gnome 4+ introduced LibAdwaita.

So why all this stubborness? Because they want it their way? That would make a poor business model.
The answer is a common one.


Appearance of a D.E. is the brand image. Much like how Zorin OS's appearance is its marketable selling point.
Gnome devs see Gnomes UI as their Brand Image. Rather than seeing themselves as the provider of the desktop environment as a component, they see themselves as providing the end product. They do not want distros independently tweaking Gnome on their products. They want Gnome to be uniform across all machines. Which leads us back to IBM and RedHat.
In order to market a recognizable product as a brand, it must be uniform across all uses.
If the end user is not the one paying for the development, then corporate interests are.
For any distro to switch over to exclusivity to Gnome, this is shortsighted and based on the hope they can resist Gnomes efforts to create uniformity and standardization. It weakens our alternatives and empowers Gnome to dominate the market, the way YouTube, Google, Microsoft and others do.

1 Like

I tried KDE again a few weeks ago, and it did have this. I can only think of Elementary OS (I guess saying Pantheon DE would be more accurate) that doesn't do this out of the box.

One reason I dislike KDE is because it's too complex; it takes a lot of time to find what you're after unless you already know what you're looking for. On the other hand, I like having all the options available without installing anything else.

This isn't entirely unrealistic, with Cinnamon bringing support for Wayland soon, and COSMIC being close to being released...

Yes, the Gnome Discussion is ... difficult. I personally like the Gnome Desktop because of the minimalist Style and the Menu Structure. But I use Gnome only with Extensions. The Vanilla Gnome Desktop (the pure Gnome Desktop without anything) isn't mine at all.

Mint is a good example. Mint uses the Cinnamon Desktop. The Desktop is developed by them. And the Cinnamon Desktop exists because they don't like the Gnome Way and they did her own Thing. Pop OS starts his own developed Desktop, too. The Cosmic Desktop. So, it already happens.

An Alternative for me would be Budgie. It looks similar to Gnome but is more open and customizable and brings more built-in Stuff with it. But on this are Gnome extensions not working. So, You have to finde Programs when You want add some Functionality.

  • Gnome is good because it supports extensions that add missing features.

  • Gnome is bad because it lacks basic features that need to be added by extensions.

Both phrases express what I think of Gnome.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were a standard for the quality and maintenance of extensions. Maybe a curation.

But besides having many, some for the same purpose, it's all in the "Install and see if it works" basis.

At least so far, none of them have broken anything, so that even after uninstalling it would leave something out of place. (at least not that I know :joy:)


Yes, that is a good Summary for this. I agree to that.