121–130 of 194 posts
I still can't understand why Canonical doesn't just put out a Gubuntu similar to Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc. That way, they can keep pushing Unity forward while making it reasonably easy for uses who prefer Gnome to choose that option. I know it's possible to get gnome running (I did it on my netbook, which is running 11.10 - my desktop is still on 10.10), but the method feels unnecessarily hacky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GNOME/KDE development model is pretty strange. They release a new major version that changes everything so they spend years fixing and stabilizing, and then they release another major version and repeat the process. XFCE does a better job. "XFCE4" has been around for 7 years and they provide small improvements but don't make any radical changes. Unity was pushed out before it was ready. I understand the need to g…
They release a new major version that changes everything so they spend years fixing and stabilizing, and then they release another major version and repeat the process. This is inevitable when you either set your sights too low (and after a while realize that your current architecture will never get you where you need to be) or develop too slowly (so by the time something is finished the market has moved on).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Search engines who do not share the income generated by our users, are removed from Linux Mint and might get their ads blocked. Wow, that is insane... With that sort of mentality, the next logical step is to gain market monopoly, pre-install a version of adblock with custom filters, and start charging the entire Internet to show ads.
If Google blocked Mint Linux from its results in response, it wouldn't be much of a threat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great comment. But allow me to disagree on comparing Gnome 2 to OSX. In my opinion old Gnome was exactly what you're talking about: "driving off the road". It wasn't like Windows or OSX, it was its own thing, the best desktop environment, in my opinion. The only element reminiscent of OSX (only visually, not functionally) perhaps was the menu at the top. Unity, on the other hand, is the exact replica of Gnome 3, just…
> Frankly, I'm not even sure it's possible to "drive off teh road to a new place" when it comes to desktop UX Sure it is. 3d file managers[1] never took off. With todays hardware they'd be a lot nicer to use. Users have been limited to quite small (sorry about my incorrect terminology here, I'm going to go read some man pages) total virtual screen size within which their windows were located. Now graphics cards, and…
The screenshots of FSV on that site show me a 2D interface that's been extruded into cubes and displayed isometrically. Usable, but the 3D is superfluous. All the other 3D file managers appear utterly unusable.
What on earth is going on in this screenshot of Tactile3D: http://www.tactile3d.com/overview/screenshot_orbis_9.jpg?
Or this one of TDFSB: http://www.determinate.net/webdata/img/TDFSB2.jpg?
Personally I found it a bit snarky. By the same token I find that UI wars are the most vitriolic, after all they are the way you talk to the machine day in and day out. Screwing with that, screws with everything. I have found Ubuntu's strategy interesting because it seemed clear that while KDE was following general guidelines around Microsoft OSes to be more accessible, and Gnome was following general guidelines arou…
The GNOME/KDE development model is pretty strange. They release a new major version that changes everything so they spend years fixing and stabilizing, and then they release another major version and repeat the process. XFCE does a better job. "XFCE4" has been around for 7 years and they provide small improvements but don't make any radical changes. Unity was pushed out before it was ready. I understand the need to g…
It's funny that problems that have bedeviled the Linux Desktop haven't really changed over the last 10 years. Poor release QA, "almost there" hardware support, painful transitions from X to Y. Nothing ever really stabilizes.
I don't have any issue with a distro refining the user experience, trying to appeal to a more general market. However, the initial Unity was such a half-assed, buggy release that my confidence in the maker of Ubuntu was destroyed.
Pissing off base/sophisticated users in attempt to attract doesn't look like a good omen for future success.
One of Paul's imperatives is to make a few people very happy rather than a lot of people kind of happy. That in mind, I think this is a good move for Canonical to move to Unity in 11.10. If people want the user-friendliness of GNOME, they can go to other linux distributions. But Canonical is doing well with open source technology - they've actually moved linux to something beyond the more savvy users and hackers - it…
What? Have you tried handing a laptop running Unity to someone used to Windows 7 and asking them to complete a few tasks?
I wish Ubuntu well. Wouldn't a customised GUI stack including Wayland and Unity be great? BUT like Windows it isn't!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going for Debian, will try gnome shell to see how far it has come since it's beginnings and once I find out it sucks (most likely outcome) I will install XFCE.
I'm writing this on Debian Sid (unstable), which as of few weeks ago has GNOME 3. It works pretty well - has some quirks and bugs, but overall I think it's a great improvement over GNOME2. (This is on my main work computer).
While people argue over distributions, Gnome 3 is the silent winner. You may not see it now, but in ~2 years the choice of distribution will be mostly meaningless. Because finally: Linux is going to be standardized through a unified interface - both beautiful and stable. In fact, in 2 years the only reason people will still be running other operating systems, is because those have the app marketplaces. Why is that? MacOS is already getting cheaper each version, they do not intend to make money with it anymore. It doesn't make sense either, nobody wants to pay more than once for something, and by that, I mean that people expect to run Windows or MacOS on their phones, tablets and everywhere without having to think about something as pesky as a licence. Windows will make money by selling applications and appliances in their Windows Store, it's the freemium model we know from games. In fact, they will make more money than before. Most people don't even know that Office is a paid application suite, now they actually get the opportunity to pay for it. This may seem small, almost idiotic to us programmers but people can't pay for something they don't see. So here we have it again: Linux is going to be behind, but not because it lacks functionality, ease of use or beauty. It will lack apps.
