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 527221
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: My complain about unity
by Alfman on Wed 18th Jul 2012 14:35 UTC 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

RE[8]: My complain about unity
by Alfman on Wed 18th Jul 2012 15:22 in reply to "RE[7]: My complain about unity"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Gone fishing,

"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."

You deserve major props for trying this!

I couldn't get it to work way back when this whole switch happened and I ended up installing Mint instead. It's good to know that gnome 2 works today.
Let me ask you, can you switch between Gnome 2 and your other desktops without any issues? If so, I really wonder why Canonical chose to face the criticism instead of simply giving in to users who wanted a gnome 2 option.


I see no reason to run Gnome 2 over Mate or Cinnamon today, but I'm very impressed that you've given it a go! That kind of investigative work deserves a reward, but you'll have to settle for a complement.

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

RE[8]: My complain about unity
by Alfman on Wed 18th Jul 2012 15:25 in reply to "RE[7]: My complain about unity"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Soulbender,

"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."

Gone Fishing just installed it and says it works, so it shouldn't have been that difficult for Canonical to work it out back then.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?527223

Reply Parent Score: 2