"For the last 12 months, I have used Ubuntu 8.04, 8.10, and 9.04 as my primary OSes. I remain a very happy Linux convert, but I worry that Ubuntu is being unevenly developed. Certain areas have seen great improvements over the last 12 months, while other areas have languished or been largely ignored. The purpose of this article is not to whine or rant, but to bring some perspective to the evolution (or lack thereof) that Ubuntu has experienced between versions 8.04 and 9.04."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-08-15
But then again, I represent a minority here where wallpapers are starting to be a new metric to evaluate operating systems. Over and out and sarcasm off.
[1] The editor and not the original author.
It's not only about the wallpaper, it's about how the entire thing looks and feels, it's about the entire DE.
For some people GNOME might be better and for some it might be KDE etc.
Member since:2007-02-17
Well i don't think even Gnome 3 will change anything. The gnome-shell is a rather convoluted concept that makes very little sense to me and does very little to improve the actual look of Gnome.
Ever since I moved to OSX. Ubuntu and Linux in general is just not that interesting more, considering Ubuntu used to be my primary desktop, thats big. Every year we get promises of great features that will improve the desktop experience and every year only about a quarter of those features make it, with a note that it will make it in ubuntu +! . I just d;t understand why in the Linux community with such diverse programmers and users we haven't come across a real desktop oriented distro. One that drops bloated low moving projects like X and develop their own window server like Apple did. The papers and technology are out there, it can be done. How long was xegl supposed to come out and change the X windows landscape, instead we went with aiglx.
Instead we have distros regurgitating each others work with maybe a different theme or two and some differences in configuration. Its really frustrating to see Linux practically standing still due to their adherence to an aging architecture, that was not meant to be used on a desktop config in the first place, and see all of these work arounds that they have to implement to get it to behave and look like other OSes. Both Windows and OSX have state of the art windowing and display manager aimed primarily at the desktop, where these things actually matter. Why can't Linux do the same? Why can't we get rid if X or do like OSX and run it in a layer if need be for compatibility, and focus on a real solution for a desktop windowing, display server.
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:
2009-05-20
Additionally, I find it somewhat sad that he[1] sees the theme of a desktop as important area of operating system development.
But then again, I represent a minority here where wallpapers are starting to be a new metric to evaluate operating systems. Over and out and sarcasm off.
[1] The editor and not the original author.