Linked by Howard Fosdick on Tue 17th Jul 2012 04:53 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Like Ubuntu's Unity interface? Great. If not, you can easily change it to look and act like Ubuntu used to. This tutorial shows how.
Thread beginning with comment 527153
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: My complain about unity
by Alfman on Tue 17th Jul 2012 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My complain about unity"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Gone fishing,

"I don't think your being serious. To say that Unity is being imposed in a totalitarian manner is bizarre."

I actually said "partially totalitarian" (which sounds contradictory given that partial<>total, however it's not contradictory in my meaning). In light of that it should be less bizarre.


"Firstly Canonical had little choice, as Gnome 2 is being depreciated by Gnome (not Canonical)."

It's true that Canonical wasn't directly responsible for ending Gnome 2, but never the less they could have continued to offer it and encouraged third parties to continue it's development instead of snubbing it completely given that it had such a large user base. It's true Mint has stepped up to the plate, but that isn't a good reason for Ubuntu to drop the ball, IMHO.


"As for not having choice - you want the old desktop no problem sudo apt-get install gnome-session-fallback you want Gnome 3 sudo apt-get install gnome-shell the commandline too difficult its in software centre."

I actually tried, I couldn't get it working by messing around with packages, so I gave up and went to Mint. Maybe I could have gotten it working eventually but at some point you have to ask why users should have to work so hard at restoring previous functionality.

Anyway, it's history now. Ubuntu is big enough to survive the gaffe, and I'm still glad that they're here. Maybe I'll give them a shot again, but honestly I don't know what they have now that Mint doesn't?

Reply Parent Score: 3

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

It's true that Canonical wasn't directly responsible for ending Gnome 2, but never the less they could have continued to offer it and encouraged third parties to continue it's development instead of snubbing it completely given that it had such a large user base.


Unrealistic. The Gnome developers dropped that code because they didn't want to go near it, because they wanted to break with all the accumulated cruft - mistakes they'd been trying to get rid of for years, but were stuck with in the name of compatibility. Even if they offered to pay them, Canonical would have struggled to find developers willing to work on it...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: My complain about unity
by Alfman on Wed 18th Jul 2012 02:43 in reply to "RE[5]: My complain about unity"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Delgarde,

"Unrealistic. The Gnome developers dropped that code because they didn't want to go near it, because they wanted to break with all the accumulated cruft - mistakes they'd been trying to get rid of for years, but were stuck with in the name of compatibility. Even if they offered to pay them, Canonical would have struggled to find developers willing to work on it..."

I think the very existence of Mate is enough to prove it is in fact realistic and 3rd party developers are in fact willing to work on it. However to a user it's not the codebase that's relevant so much as the workflow & feature-set, and that's really why Cinnamon is so promising in returning lost desktop functionality to the new codebase. Mint deserves a lot of credit here.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

It's true that Canonical wasn't directly responsible for ending Gnome 2, but never the less they could have continued to offer it and encouraged third parties to continue it's development instead of snubbing it completely given that it had such a large user base. It's true Mint has stepped up to the plate, but that isn't a good reason for Ubuntu to drop the ball, IMHO.


Canonical could have done what you suggest, they instead chose to develop their own desktop environment, and pursue their own vision of what a Modern Desktop should be like. I think this will in the end turn out to be the right decision. Remember that Mint has already done this, their desktop is nothing like a standard Gnome 2 Desktop, I also suspect that Mint will pursue the Cinnamon desktop and when it is mature drop MATE. Ubuntu's vision is more radical than Mints and less Windows like.

I actually tried, I couldn't get it working by messing around with packages, so I gave up and went to Mint. Maybe I could have gotten it working eventually but at some point you have to ask why users should have to work so hard at restoring previous functionality.


Obviously Ubuntu is not asking you to, they want you to use Unity and the new functionality. I haven't tried to return to Gnome 2, but I do have two WMs installed Blackbox, and Fluxbox. It really was as easy as running a single command

Anyway, it's history now. Ubuntu is big enough to survive the gaffe, and I'm still glad that they're here. Maybe I'll give them a shot again, but honestly I don't know what they have now that Mint doesn't?


This is true and I also think Mint is quite cool, time will tell if either Ubuntu or Mint got it right. In my opinion Canonical made the decision to advance the Linux desktop in a new and unique direction and I think that will turn out to be right decision.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: My complain about unity
by Alfman on Wed 18th Jul 2012 14:35 in reply to "RE[5]: My complain about unity"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Gone fishing,

"Canonical could have done what you suggest, they instead chose to develop their own desktop environment, and pursue their own vision of what a Modern Desktop should be like. I think this will in the end turn out to be the right decision."

Working on unity may be the right direction for the present. However gnome 2 was still the most popular useful mature desktop at the time, they should have kept an option for it. I understand that you want users to have Unity, but I don't understand why you don't want them to have gnome 2. The controversy over this doesn't make any sense - if they cared about users, they would have left gnome 2 in as an option just like the other desktop choices available.


"Obviously Ubuntu is not asking you to, they want you to use Unity and the new functionality."

Exactly, they did not give users a choice. I don't understand why anyone would consider this a good thing.

"I haven't tried to return to Gnome 2, but I do have two WMs installed Blackbox, and Fluxbox. It really was as easy as running a single command"

Ok, but that's shifting the goalpost.


"Mint is quite cool, time will tell if either Ubuntu or Mint got it right. In my opinion Canonical made the decision to advance the Linux desktop in a new and unique direction and I think that will turn out to be right decision."

Only if you continue to treat these as mutually exclusive, which they are not. I never suggested (or even thought) that Ubuntu should not pursue Unity. My beef is that they unilaterally removed gnome 2 for many who were still asking for it and who's needs were not being met by the replacement. That move was obviously not done in the interest of users. I keep agreeing that they have every right to do it, it may even be well intentioned. But it has a totalitarian nature to it "do it this way because I want you to, not because you want to". I think this is bad for an open source operating system.


If you respond again please clarify why removing the choice of gnome 2 was good for users, not why having unity was good for users (I don't disagree with this).

Edited 2012-07-18 14:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2