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 527193
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: My complain about unity
by Gone fishing on Wed 18th Jul 2012 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My complain about unity"
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

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

OK I tried it

sudo apt-get install gnome-session-fallback

I now have a what looks like a standard Gnome 2 desktop I'm using 12.04 it took about 2 minutes to install no playing with so for the life of 12.04 (long term release) you can have the Gnome 2 desktop if you want it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

but I don't understand why you don't want them to have gnome 2


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.

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


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.

I think this is bad for an open source operating system.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 2