Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Many Ubuntu Users Still Hate The Unity Desktop

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Vadi View Post
    Sounds like it's not for everybody.
    The same can be said about EVERYTHING. Michael can write about gnome or KDE as well and it would be the same.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Tuxee View Post
      The launcher can be configured to stay visible at all times. Various options are available in the Unity plugin of the Compiz configuration manager.
      Thanks for the tip! It even lets me make the icons a bit smaller!

      Kind of proves my point though that to edit such simple settings you have to install a program (ccsm). Might as well have installed another panel with the same effort.

      Comment


      • #48
        why do anybody complain so much?

        I mean ok, whats the problem use another distro, or is it with you like with me, you want to move away from ubuntu but the other distries have other problems that ofter are bigger than the issues with ubuntu.

        I mean ok you dont have to like unity, I don't like it, too. Or lets say I like gnome 3 more and I see it a waste of resources to make a bad clone of it. If it would be the only thing maybe we could make a good ui out of it, but it is not, and ubuntu dont have the power to make good software of its own, see launchpad, see upstart, see Bazaar they all kind of suck, good upstart was not that bad, bad it stopped macking progress in beta phase.

        So that said, where should I go, all rpm distries suck because they use wrong directories and rpm etc, I dont like hthat they have filebased dependencies instead of package-based dependencies I dont like that, so if you cross out that, you have debian, the release time are very long and packages are most of the time very old, so you should use testing, so testing is short before a release old and after it gets again kind of slightly unstable, so you dont have the same constant mix between new stuff and stability so not very nice to use.

        So go to rolling releases, then you go to the source-install-distries, like arch or gentoo, gentoo kind of sucks and is kind of slowly dieing, sooo the new good thing arch linux, I tryed it I dont know what all like about it, if you want really new stuff you get often less builds than ubuntu ppas are there. and the kind of broke your system or at least dont work often. Dependency Problems in AUR.

        So I can complain much about ubuntu but the disadvantages of the other distries are in my opinion bigger. Maybe Linux Mint could become something, but therefore it have to give the option of a gnome desktop. Are there some packages availible?

        The big point about ubuntu is that it is or was the most popular distribution and have some good design decitions (apt + gnome) behind it, and it had a good gnome-desktop most other distries have kind of kde-themes for it or something like that.

        So I would like to change too, but because of other reasons, I dont like there flirting with proprietary or patented stuff of deals with mozilla to dance like they want to get the offiziel mozilla name, and even the decition to make that crapy browser to standard, I mean ok against epiphany I can understand that step, because for developers firefox is the better browser (better plugins) and maybe even for some users who want to customize the browser much, but I think that are not the beginners which ubuntu want to target.

        But now with chromium out to use that very slow mem-eating crap browser as default sucks, but thats not a ubuntu-specific problem.

        But even with that much complains I would never say that ubuntu sucks and they are totaly incompetent or something like that. I take the whole package customise it so that its ok for me, till I find something better and when I do that I silently move on. Maybe I say that unity sucks or so, but I dont say because of that ubuntu sucks thats a different point.

        They do much to attract newbies, and they manage to get ubuntu usable for advanced users, too. thats a big balancing act, they sometimes fail with that, but all who tried that before did fail. (corel linux, easy linux, suse,mandrake...)

        Comment


        • #49
          1. Global menu:
          Global menus have always been an absolutely terrible design, it sacrifices usability for a few vertical pixels. Simple Usability test, have two windows open side by side, or otherwise such that both windows are fully visible. Now from having the focus on one window quickly open up a menu from the other window.


          On a mac: give focus to the other window and then move the mouse to the top panel
          On something reasonable: move mouse over to other window and click on menu.

          Compare this to how many times you'll actually use two applications simultaneously to communicate within osx where those applications do not already talk to each other via alternative means.


          2. Scrollbars:
          OS X Lion has made scrollbars not only difficult to see but nigh impossible to actually use. Though one may argue that one should just use scrolling gestures but that brings us to...
          I don't use lion, but frankly noone should be using beta software. Apple trying to merge the IOS and OSX interfaces is a bad idea and one which Ubuntu seems to be mimicking.


          3. Scroll Gestures:
          in Lion instead of staying with the standards that everybody already knows they've reversed them in order to unify the gesture with their Ipad.. but problem the interface concept between a touch screen and a touchpad are completely different, particularly when a standard has already been established and accepted.

          Boohoo, because something was always done badly it should keep being done badly? so we should all be using 16-bit cpus and ms-dos right? because that was a PC standard.

          4. Window buttons are on the wrong side unless you happen to be one of those left handed people:
          OS X is known for having their window buttons on the left side and on top of that instead of being icons they're colors, but that'll be point #5. There is a reason that those buttons are normally on the right, it is because most people are right handed and so it is both easier reach and more natural for people who are right handed. Now one might then point out: Why is the start button then normally on the left side then? It is simply because we are a culture that reads L-to-R, and thus naturally menus will cascade out to the right because of that, I imagine that R-to-L cultures have it on the other side, and you often see screenshots from asia with the menu bar on the right side of the screen.

          position of this stuff was decided in older mac OS versions. Probably so right handed people don't accidentally click and close their programs.

          5. Window button colors are a non-obvious explanation of use to the average person
          While it's not hard to intuit the meaning or understand it after playing around with it, without a pictogram for explanation particularly in conjunction with #4 I can't just set the average user about using it and expect them to know what each one does.

          One system's paradigms should not be expected to be followed on other systems. Macs are not being marketed to people who already own computers, they are being aimed at people who do art, and people who are buying their FIRST computer.

          6. The dock bar
          Some people like dock bars and others of us detest them, from the usability failure that is making the icons accordion, to the fact that if any large amount of software is pinned to the dock which is effectively a start menu replacement, then the icons become small enough as to be unusable.

          By default the dock does not have zooming enabled, and folders are used to manage dock icons. You are only meant to have a few commonly used applications on your dock, the rest should be accessed via folders.

          7. Applications do not close when you have closed all windows
          To my knowledge under every other system when you tell a program to close from the window buttons it closes, on a mac it stays open until you use the global menu or the shortcut sequence to close it.

          Apple have been making a move away from application management towards document management. It should not matter if your application is open or closed, your application should just work, and not eat the entire system when you are not using it. A user should not need to know if a program is running or not. Just when something goes wrong. This is more a problem power users from windows encounter because they think they should be freeing up memory when in reality a modern system with many gigabytes of ram and proper scheduling should be handling resources efficiently for you.

          8. Nonstandard shortcuts
          Although each of the three main systems have their own sets of shortcuts, there have come to be standards that are expected, such as the Ctrl-{c,v,x,a} set, Standard controls are of course a usability concern and Apple has decided to continue going against those standards by continuing to only have their old Apple shortcuts based off their apple key.

          Apple's shortcuts are older than Microsoft's why should they change their standards to match someone who copied them? and Linux hasn't got standards, just look at any application on linux and how many copy/paste methods there are to see how messed up linux copy/paste support/shortcuts are.

          9. Can't reposition things in the manner that you want, It's Apple's way or it's... Apple's way. You have no choice in this regard, and thus people cannot change the environment to suit their needs best. Instead you have to conform to the software rather than the software conforming to you.

          This comment makes no sense, you can customise many of the UI elements within OSX, some examples would be good.

          10. The filesystem tree is kludgy and fails to conform to the *nix standards we all know and love, while this specifically may not effect most users this is huge to me personally, and having things not where I expect them to be breaks usability for me. I mean why the hell are they not using /home for instance?[/QUOTE]

          The entire posix filesystem structure is stupid and broken. Just look at /etc and /usr /lib /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /usr/share/lib and countless other stuff ups to see how broken it is. Also notice, as an end user you really don't need to care where your files are. Your home directory is where everything and /applications is where everything you care about will be. ~/Library for any settings you need to tweak. The rest of the system is pretty much a black box you don't need to touch.

          The system allows pretty easy access to it's internals via the shell, and it actually has a reliable gui for setting up networking. pretty impressive considering how big the company was compared to its competitors when those features were made. The power and flexibility of quartz composer and the other developer tools really stomp all over the competitor offerings. I've developed code on windows/mac/linux and mac easily had the best development environment. I'm a long term linux user and seriously, Linux is way behind on the application development toolkit/framework side. The consistency of the UI is also way behind on linux. getting applications to share data is a pain. on a mac you can drag images into text editors and it just does it. It doesn't complain. The object handling/linking system within OSX is breathtakingly well written compared to other systems.

          Comment


          • #50
            PA is OK
            DEB owns RPM packages, RPM are crap. every distro have different rpm packages...
            unity hmm.. not finished, cant grade it

            i will never use RPM distro.. sorry

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
              Not entirely true. Fallback mode *is* based on a port of the Gnome 2 components, but it's changed to somewhat resemble the Gnome 3 appearance. It's not all that close a resemblance, but nor is it identical to it's predecessor.
              The default look may resemble Shell to some degree but defaults can be changed.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by m4n1sh View Post

                ......
                ......

                I dislike Ubuntu because it uses Gnome instead of KDE
                Move on to KDE.



                I think it is due to these kind of knee-jerk reactions, developers have stopped caring much. They look at the complaint list. Pick up those which make sense and would help the wider audience than satisfying someone's personal choices.

                The only thing in this list I can completely agree to is Unity. It needs more time to improve. I am waiting till 12.04 release
                I pretty much agree with your post. Especially the point about KDE. It drives me nuts to hear people whine about a distribution choosing not to use (insert desktop environment here) by default. Not only can a person just move to KDE without too much fuss; there are hundreds of Linux distributions available offering the desktop environment of their choice. Even Ubuntu has the Kubuntu derivative.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Unity made me switch to Xfce

                  I lived in Unity for a couple of months to see if I'd get used to it.

                  I didn't. It remained as annoying as it was when I started. Just because Apple and Microsoft are dumbing down their UI's to make them look and act like smartphones, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

                  I ended up switching my desktop environment to Xfce just to make my computer act like a computer again.

                  sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    me to..i hate unity and i hate gnome and i hate gnome3

                    LOL... im a happy kde user..
                    go kill yourself.. hater...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                      I'm glad you brought up bug submission. Too many times I had crashes trying to submit a bug only to hit the cancel button when I discovered I had to sign up to actually submit them. I don't need another account on the Internet. If you want bug reports, accept them anonymously.
                      This really bothers me as well (many times I've wanted to file bugs but the extra step needed to create an account was, frankly, too much). It makes sense that they want to be able to talk to you about your problem in depth (asking detailed questions, even explaining how to run a stack trace if neccessary), but this seems like it could be done by giving them your email, or making bug reports forum style.
                      Still, bug reporting the is most important thing a user can do to help improve OSS.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        Compare this to how many times you'll actually use two applications simultaneously to communicate within osx where those applications do not already talk to each other via alternative means.
                        I haven't played around enough with it to know what alternative menus you're talking about, what I do know is what one can see by playing around with a system, which is likely all the average user will know about.

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        I don't use lion, but frankly noone should be using beta software. Apple trying to merge the IOS and OSX interfaces is a bad idea and one which Ubuntu seems to be mimicking.
                        So OS X 10.7 Is Beta Software? Does that make Snow-Leopard and previous Alpha? But sorry doesn't work like that, if it was a release-candidate I was playing around with you could weasel out with that excuse, sorry but that was an actual release.

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        Boohoo, because something was always done badly it should keep being done badly? so we should all be using 16-bit cpus and ms-dos right? because that was a PC standard.
                        That's Apples to Oranges, You're comparing a hardware and OS standard to a USE standard. What this is the equivalent of is selling QWERTY Keyboards and using the QWERTY standard, but then all of the sudden when everybody else in the region is using QWERTY suddenly switching the standard the OS is using to DVORAK without changing the actual keyboards themselves.

                        And this new scroll method being better or worse is arguable either way, however it breaks how things are expected to work

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        position of this stuff was decided in older mac OS versions. Probably so right handed people don't accidentally click and close their programs.
                        I never said my complaint was just against Lion It should have been clear my point was against OS X in general, and tell me this how many times do YOU accidentally scroll up to the upper corners of your window and accidentally close it? You're just making up a rationalization, which of course doesn't pan out.

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        One system's paradigms should not be expected to be followed on other systems. Macs are not being marketed to people who already own computers, they are being aimed at people who do art, and people who are buying their FIRST computer.
                        You still haven't answered the problem of them being non-obvious, and you're wrong about the userbase, but I'll leave that to another time unless you really want to shift this conversation away from Usability.

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        By default the dock does not have zooming enabled, and folders are used to manage dock icons. You are only meant to have a few commonly used applications on your dock, the rest should be accessed via folders.
                        There's a difference between Theory and Meant, and actual practice, I mean lets face it in windows the wallpaper containment is meant to hold a few icons for commonly used applications and the rest are supposed to be accessed by the start menu, but how many people follow that? Same deal here with your dockbar.

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        Apple have been making a move away from application management towards document management. It should not matter if your application is open or closed, your application should just work, and not eat the entire system when you are not using it. A user should not need to know if a program is running or not. Just when something goes wrong. This is more a problem power users from windows encounter because they think they should be freeing up memory when in reality a modern system with many gigabytes of ram and proper scheduling should be handling resources efficiently for you.
                        You do realize that this behavior goes all the way back to the original macs right? This is absolutely nothing new.. Right? You did realize that what you closed window wise wasn't totally quit.... Right? Because the way you wrote that makes it sound like you didn't. Also Power Hardware is no excuse for inefficient or poorly designed software. I mean.. Unless you want everything to be like Firefox in that regard?

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        Apple's shortcuts are older than Microsoft's why should they change their standards to match someone who copied them? and Linux hasn't got standards, just look at any application on linux and how many copy/paste methods there are to see how messed up linux copy/paste support/shortcuts are.
                        And Unix's Shortcuts, which Linux is based out of, are older than Apple's, which doesn't mean that Linux doesn't also have available what has become the standard controls. And okay so Linux has a ton of Copy/Paste Methods, tell me just how is that a bad thing? Having multiple variants that cover all expectations is better for usability because it means any of the people who actually know the shortcuts would be able to just sit down and use it. Rather than your stance which reeks of NIH

                        Here's another copy/paste combo to add to your list by the way
                        Shift-Insert
                        Ctrl-Insert

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        This comment makes no sense, you can customise many of the UI elements within OSX, some examples would be good.
                        Is there some way to reposition the dock and panel?

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        The entire posix filesystem structure is stupid and broken. Just look at /etc and /usr /lib /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /usr/share/lib and countless other stuff ups to see how broken it is. Also notice, as an end user you really don't need to care where your files are. Your home directory is where everything and /applications is where everything you care about will be. ~/Library for any settings you need to tweak. The rest of the system is pretty much a black box you don't need to touch.
                        /etc is a great alternative that is the kludge that is the Windows Registry, albeit it could be sorted a bit better but mine under slackware is pretty well clean.

                        Perhaps what you really need is to have it explained what these directories actually mean

                        /usr - Storage for Non-System Software
                        /lib & /lib64 - Storage for System libraries
                        /usr/lib & /usr/lib64 - Storage of Libraries for Non-System Software
                        There is no /usr/share/lib
                        and /usr/local/lib is empty, /usr/local/lib64 has perl in it

                        nice try, but no cookie for you.

                        And depends on the end user, I'm a Slackware user I like playing with my system's guts, but then I actually know something about computers, and how to compare specs and otherwise, which mean's I'm not the target audience

                        But okay "Your Home Folder is Where Everything is" so why couldn't they have just used /home rather than making their own?

                        "/Applications is where everything will be" ... So wait, You're telling me I have to open up a /usr/bin equivalent? I hope it at least has sorting.. otherwise that would just be hell if you expect the user to run stuff from there

                        "~/Library for settings" which has an advantage over ~/.* how?

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        The system allows pretty easy access to it's internals via the shell,
                        All *nix systems allow for easy access to internals via the shell, nothing impressive about that.

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        and it actually has a reliable gui for setting up networking. pretty impressive considering how big the company was compared to its competitors when those features were made.
                        Network Manager has always worked when I've used it on Ubuntu, Fedora, and openSUSE, and WiCD works under Slackware

                        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
                        The power and flexibility of quartz composer and the other developer tools really stomp all over the competitor offerings. I've developed code on windows/mac/linux and mac easily had the best development environment. I'm a long term linux user and seriously, Linux is way behind on the application development toolkit/framework side. The consistency of the UI is also way behind on linux. getting applications to share data is a pain. on a mac you can drag images into text editors and it just does it. It doesn't complain. The object handling/linking system within OSX is breathtakingly well written compared to other systems.
                        Check out KDE if you want to see UI consistency, and under Linux Text Editors are meant to handle.. surprise surpise... Text, e.g. Code, and configuration files, therefore they're not meant to have a Markup Language backend (be it HTML, XML, or otherwise) which is required for images, you can drag an image into a text editor and it ends up as garbage, However something actually meant to have a Markup Language backend such as LibreOffice takes my image without any complaints whatsoever under KDE. Data Sharing is what Akonadi and Nepomuk are for.

                        as far as Dev tools I haven't played with those on Macs for obvious reasons however have you tried KDevelop and QtCreator?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by NomadDemon View Post
                          PA is OK
                          DEB owns RPM packages, RPM are crap. every distro have different rpm packages...
                          unity hmm.. not finished, cant grade it

                          i will never use RPM distro.. sorry
                          What's wrong with RPMs or is it just that you have NIH syndrome? The fact that each distro has different packages is natural, unlike Debian which has over 9000 flavours of Ubuntu (whose deb packages are supposed to be incompatible with debian mind you) and then there's debian and a few flavours based directly off of it meaning they're all part of the same tree. However the RPM families come from several distinct trees, Mandriva/Mageia are based on Red Hat only in their oldest origins and have spun far off from that past position, openSUSE was based off of Slackware. and has become it's own thing, PCLinuxOS is a Mandriva Derivative, and Fedora & RHEL of course are red hat linux derivatives, It should therefore be no great surprise than unlike the hundreds of Ubuntu reskins, that packages maintained by the systems would vary and have sometimes incompatibilities, this is not to say that you can't have universal working RPMs, that are installed and linked in a more generic way (see flash for instance or the HIB).

                          [Edit: The Fact that Ubuntu has Caused so many derivatives trying to fix it's problems is a statement upon itself, other distros do have some derivatives but no one has as many as Ubuntu.]

                          RPMs actually are a huge improvement over .Debs because of Delta-RPMs, which will cut a 500+ MB update or so into maybe 80, because it just downloads the diff. This feature is actually the one thing I'm missing in Slackware with .t?z, I don't care about dependency resolution, I actually don't want it, but Deltas...
                          Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 08-03-2011, 05:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by moonlitfire View Post
                            I pretty much agree with your post. Especially the point about KDE. It drives me nuts to hear people whine about a distribution choosing not to use (insert desktop environment here) by default. Not only can a person just move to KDE without too much fuss; there are hundreds of Linux distributions available offering the desktop environment of their choice. Even Ubuntu has the Kubuntu derivative.
                            What's sad is that people consider that a derivative rather than an official spin or remix, or whatever you want to call it. I mean really... It's just Ubuntu with KDE bolted onto the side. This is really why we have the problem you're recognizing, and actually I think openSUSE handles it best with their installer (course I also think that openSUSE has the best installer for more normal people) of giving you the choice of what desktop do I want? That's how it should be done.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                              What's wrong with RPMs or is it just that you have NIH syndrome? The fact that each distro has different packages is natural, unlike Debian which has over 9000 flavours of Ubuntu (whose deb packages are supposed to be incompatible with debian mind you) and then there's debian and a few flavours based directly off of it meaning they're all part of the same tree. However the RPM families come from several distinct trees, Mandriva/Mageia are based on Red Hat only in their oldest origins and have spun far off from that past position, openSUSE was based off of Slackware. and has become it's own thing, PCLinuxOS is a Mandriva Derivative, and Fedora & RHEL of course are red hat linux derivatives, It should therefore be no great surprise than unlike the hundreds of Ubuntu reskins, that packages maintained by the systems would vary and have sometimes incompatibilities, this is not to say that you can't have universal working RPMs, that are installed and linked in a more generic way (see flash for instance or the HIB).

                              [Edit: The Fact that Ubuntu has Caused so many derivatives trying to fix it's problems is a statement upon itself, other distros do have some derivatives but no one has as many as Ubuntu.]

                              RPMs actually are a huge improvement over .Debs because of Delta-RPMs, which will cut a 500+ MB update or so into maybe 80, because it just downloads the diff. This feature is actually the one thing I'm missing in Slackware with .t?z, I don't care about dependency resolution, I actually don't want it, but Deltas...
                              cant use mandriva packages in fedora, or suse, and all this combination fails, debian and ubuntu are 99% compatible.
                              rpm are mess, sorry
                              deb also isnt perfect

                              btw.. iam voting for unification for packages. "alien" suck.. cant convert 80% of packages i need
                              so.. no rpm and no deb, just one unified.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by NomadDemon View Post
                                cant use mandriva packages in fedora, or suse, and all this combination fails, debian and ubuntu are 99% compatible.
                                rpm are mess, sorry
                                deb also isnt perfect

                                btw.. iam voting for unification for packages. "alien" suck.. cant convert 80% of packages i need
                                so.. no rpm and no deb, just one unified.
                                You can rpm -i the package if you really want to, whether the software will work or not is a different question because distros customize things to their specific needs.

                                Debian and Ubuntu are 99% compatible because Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian, Ubuntu Packages work in Ubuntu Derivatives because they are Ubuntu Derivatives, and there really aren't any other major trees in that regard.

                                RPMs do not have a central Distro that Everything else is derived from, Thus for obvious reasons having multiple trees means that packages from other trees may or may not work if you install them. This does not mean that RPMs are a mess it simply means that there is diversification of the distros in where they come from.

                                Unified Packages will not solve this "problem", the only way your dream would work in terms of packages is if you scrapped everything and made Linux like *BSD, where there is 1 Distro to rule them all 1 distro to find them, 1 distro to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. This would of course suck for all of us because that means that instead of a diversified ecosystem with every possible governance model and otherwise that you can choose from, stuck into a cookie cutter. Please take time to really think about what you're suggesting before you suggest it.

                                That said there are universal installers (note installers, not packages) that typically end in .run .bin .sh, etc, and of course compiling from source is universal, The difference of course between an installer or compiling from source and a package is that a package is precompiled against certain libraries and locations, you change it stuff starts to break, an installer on the other hand typically configures your system for it's libraries, and of course compiling from source makes a system specific build.

                                Edit: of course you do have stuff like flash that installs in a generic way but that's special because you know that things are going to look is /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins or /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins as the case may be and flash is of course it's own standalone plugin, it doesn't depend on anything
                                Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 08-03-2011, 06:24 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X