Linked by Howard Fosdick on Tue 2nd Jul 2013 21:04 UTC
Editorial Like many of you, I've been watching the big changes in user interfaces over the past few years, trying to make sense of them all. Is there a common explanation for the controversies surrounding the Windows 8 UI and Unity? Where do GNOME 3, KDE, Cinnamon, and MATE fit in? This article offers one view.
Thread beginning with comment 566069
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ubuntu Unity
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 02:33 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu Unity"
Member since:

I originally hated Unity--and I'll make it clear, I don't use it or have any intention of using it and I'm still not pleased with it--but these days it seems tolerable. And by tolerable, I just mean that after the GNOME project and Microsoft managed to drop something even worse upon us, it's hard for Unity to be much worse (those guys really set the bar low...).

Canonical has really improved it a lot since its early days as well; that was another problem, they released it before it was done and actually ready. Now, if they'd just remove (or even just disable) the spyware/adware lens(es) by default... that's its major problem now from what I can tell. I'm still not too fond of Unity's resource usage though... it's a hog.

Anyway... I've actually been experimenting with the i3 window manager for the last few days. And actually... it's pretty nice. Took a bit of getting used to, though.

Edited 2013-07-03 02:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Ubuntu Unity
by M.Onty on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:14 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu Unity"
M.Onty Member since:

... It's hard for Unity to be much worse (those guys really set the bar low...)

According to the above comments, they made it impossible to set the bar low ...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Ubuntu Unity
by Morgan on Thu 4th Jul 2013 13:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu Unity"
Morgan Member since:

I get the pun, but you're right. The immobile taskbar goes against what most people have come to expect from a GNU/Linux based OS: An extremely customizable interface. Unity's "do it our way or not at all" paradigm is extremely anti-user. Even the two most popular commercial OSes, Windows 7 and Mac OS X, allow you to move and alter desktop elements to a degree. While it's not as much freedom as you get with, say, Xfce, it's far more than what Unity (and Gnome 3) offer the user.

Reply Parent Score: 2