To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
The overhead and manpower needed to maintain gnome2 by themselves in addition to developing Unity?
Maybe if the GNOME project had maintained the 2.x series alongside 3 it would still had been an option in Ubuntu.
This is really nothing new. The same thing happened when distros changed their default DE from KDE1 to KDE2, KDE2 to KDE3, GNOME to GNOME2 or whatever. You got a new default and if you wanted to stay with the old stuff there was some work to do on your own.
Much OSS software is totalitarian and has always been. Linus (dictator for life, remember?) decides what goes in the official kernel, Theo decides what goes in OpenBSD, Canonical decides the direction of Ubuntu, RedHat decides the direction of RHEL etc etc.





Member since:
2006-02-22
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.
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
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.