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 566076
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Ubuntu Unity
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu Unity"
Member since:

Unity was forced into a release too early, had a lot of rough edges, ESPECIALLY multi-monitor setups...

Totally agree. That seems to be a common problem with Ubuntu and Fedora; to quick to jump on untested software for actual releases. It's understandable for Fedora given its role as a test bed for Red Hat, but it's inexcusable for Ubuntu and is only done because Canonical is so hell-bent on reinventing wheels and doing things differently than everyone else, while trying to capture the most users. Oh well... at least Ubuntu's *.04 releases, especially the LTS ones, are usually decent. Usually. Every other release (typically versioned/dated *.10) is usually crap and highly experimental in my experience.

Edited 2013-07-03 04:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Ubuntu Unity
by intangible on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 04:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu Unity"
intangible Member since:

Yeah, and I'm afraid they're doing the same thing with Mir and XMir... ugh...

It's unfortunate, because I really like the Debian base of Ubuntu with support and pragmatism and a decent release schedule to solve the Debian difficulties, but then they can't seem to help themselves with pushing giant changes too soon, even if they are a good option in the long term...
Gstreamer, Pulseaudio, Unity, and now Mir.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Ubuntu Unity
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 05:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Ubuntu Unity"
UltraZelda64 Member since:

Yep. Agreed 100%. But that's not the end of it; apparently there's already talks of ditching Debian's standard package format and package management system for something of their own creation. And it will bring more wasted disk space through redundancy to eliminate supposed dependency problems. Supposedly it is intended to accompany the standard system as a second method to install packages, but let's be serious, this is Canonical here... it can automatically be assumed that they will eventually force their special vision of package management upon their users. By that point, the distribution will barely even resemble Debian.

Edited 2013-07-03 05:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4