Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unity 7.0 Desktop Coming To Ubuntu 13.04

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

  • #16
    Can't wait to see the Dash getting better and better, it looks nice and promising but I don't use it as much as I should.

    Keep up the good work :-)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
      tl;dr: in spite of all this attitude at Canonical, keep using Ubuntu. It's by far the more polished and finished ordinary user oriented distro out there. Both retarded and geniuses, newbies and power users can use it and enjoy it. Since it only takes a few steps to keep its LTS up to date (just ask someone for help with PPAs for now), it's really the only set-and-forget (for up to five years at a time) Linux alternative to Windows and Mac. I personally find it better than both and miles ahead of nerd-only Linux alternatives like the highly overrated Arch, eternal betas like Fedora, or corporate boring stuff like OpenSUSE.
      While i do agree with the rest of your post, i find it amusing that you think 12.04 heavily modified with ppas is better than ArchLinux. Better in what way exactly? Less maintainance? More polished (by who?) ? More stable? Faster updates? More and up-to-date software? What?

      And how is Arch overrated? I have tried and tested EVERY SINGLE DISTRO out there, and Arch is the best distro on average. No compiling unless you want to (so better than Gentoo for most users), the most up-to-date distro, quick fixing of distro-related-bugs, rich official repositories plus the Aur for almost anything else, suprisingly stable (in my experience more stable than Ubuntu for example), simplicity in configuration (you can change things and not break other parts of the distro), not many modifications to upstream (Debian is notorious for letting morons fiddle with upstream code and creating a mess).

      The downside? The need to use the terminal for installation/configuration/maintainance. But the documentation is decent and in reality you only need to provide around 15-20 (and even less for more experienced users) commands to get from the installation medium to a modern desktop full-extra...

      So how the hell can you call a distro like this overrated?
      Last edited by TemplarGR; 03-14-2013, 04:10 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
        While i do agree with the rest of your post, i find it amusing that you think 12.04 heavily modified with ppas is better than ArchLinux. Better in what way exactly? Less maintainance? More polished (by who?) ? More stable? Faster updates? More and up-to-date software? What?

        And how is Arch overrated? I have tried and tested EVERY SINGLE DISTRO out there, and Arch is the best distro on average. No compiling unless you want to (so better than Gentoo for most users), the most up-to-date distro, quick fixing of distro-related-bugs, rich official repositories plus the Aur for almost anything else, suprisingly stable (in my experience more stable than Ubuntu for example), simplicity in configuration (you can change things and not break other parts of the distro), not many modifications to upstream (Debian is notorious for letting morons fiddle with upstream code and creating a mess).

        The downside? The need to use the terminal for installation/configuration/maintainance. But the documentation is decent and in reality you only need to provide around 15-20 (and even less for more experienced users) commands to get from the installation medium to a modern desktop full-extra...

        So how the hell can you call a distro like this overrated?
        Arch is overrated by its users. They (you) don't understand what's "computing as a tool" vs "computing as a hobby". I'm afraid I can't explain that to an Arch fan. It's a logical impossibility. However, any non-hobbyist will understand in a second what I'm saying. Of course they don't lure Phoronix forums precisely...

        (Actually, "the downside" doesn't live in the terminal. Having to carefully read announcements on a website before updating your software is beyond moronic for most mortals. I can understand it's a moment of fun and self-consciousness for computer geeks, but it makes no sense at all for the rest of the human race. That's ONE OF the downsides. I won't enter a discussion about this, sorry.)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Artemis3 View Post
          You should pick one of the community based derivatives, such as Xubuntu, that way you still get all the benefits of Ubuntu (repos and PPAs), without the Unity nonsense.
          Unity makes a lot of sense. Don't buy the geeks' FUD and try it by yourself, before committing to amateurish experiences like those provided by XFCE or LMDE.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
            Arch is overrated by its users. They (you) don't understand what's "computing as a tool" vs "computing as a hobby". I'm afraid I can't explain that to an Arch fan. It's a logical impossibility. However, any non-hobbyist will understand in a second what I'm saying. Of course they don't lure Phoronix forums precisely...

            (Actually, "the downside" doesn't live in the terminal. Having to carefully read announcements on a website before updating your software is beyond moronic for most mortals. I can understand it's a moment of fun and self-consciousness for computer geeks, but it makes no sense at all for the rest of the human race. That's ONE OF the downsides. I won't enter a discussion about this, sorry.)
            You shouldn't enter a discussion about this, because you are obviously wrong...

            Let me give you a developer's perspective:

            I installed Ubuntu 12.10 about 3 months ago, and since i develop in Java i wanted to install Netbeans. I searched the official repos, and there was Netbeans 7.0.1 from 2 1/2 years ago... This is old, and lacks funcionality i find particularly useful. So manual install... I wanted to install LLVM/Clang as well... Imagine the horror: LLVM was version 3.1, Clang was version 3.0 ... IIRC there was even a conflict problem, and installing Clang installed Llvm 3.0 ... We are talking beyond moronic levels of incompetence here... So, manual install for LLVM/Clang as well...

            I could go on and on, but this wasn't only on "niche" software.

            Transmission was way old, ppa for that. Libreoffice wasn't upgraded to next 2-3 3.6.x versions which solved hunderds of bugs, and at the time i quit no ppa existed for that... I needed Chromium, ppa for it...

            All this searching and work, is approximately the work(in terms of time wasted) i threw in Arch's setup... For a so-called "deploy and forget" distro...

            So this whole "computing is a tool" is right, it is just that you don't get it: The proper user controls the tool, the incompetent user is controlled by the tool... It seems funny to me, because seriously, i can deploy an Arch installation with a rich DE and all must-have software in approx 2 hours. This includes downloading from the repos since Arch is a netinstall distro... Maintaining from this point is a matter of a couple of minutes daily...

            PS: 99% of Arch updates are drop-in replacements. Announcements concerning updates are once in 2-3 months, or even more. You can easily setup your Rss software to search for these announcements and take your precautions... Most of the time even then for most users there is no need to change a thing... When an update absolutely needs manual intervention, it is obvious because it won't be completed without either making the changes or using the force switch... So, to me, it is YOU who is spreading FUD...
            Last edited by TemplarGR; 03-14-2013, 09:32 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
              Unity makes a lot of sense. Don't buy the geeks' FUD and try it by yourself, before committing to amateurish experiences like those provided by XFCE or LMDE.
              XFCE has all features what I need. If I need more features I would return to KDE.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
                Unity makes a lot of sense. Don't buy the geeks' FUD and try it by yourself, before committing to amateurish experiences like those provided by XFCE or LMDE.
                Unity makes a lot of sense (debatable) for Shuttleworths vision to obtain a piece of the mobile pie in order to earn money. It makes absolutely no sense as a desktop environment. It has too big icons that take up screen real estate, it has no proper menu for apps, its search (Dash) is slow and full of useless eyecandy and spyware by default, the application menu for its window is at the top of the screen and only for the window in focus-something that destroys the experience when using many non maximized windows and there is no sane way to work with multiple windows open at the same time in order to copy paste, read and write concurently etc. You can do it if you try, but the solution is not optimal and needs work... in order to be able to work... Not good for desktop, unless all you run all day is Firefox to browse facebook, like in your case...

                Just remember, people who do things other than facebook on their computers aren't geeks...
                Last edited by TemplarGR; 03-14-2013, 09:44 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
                  They (you) don't understand what's "computing as a tool" vs "computing as a hobby". I'm afraid I can't explain that to an Arch fan. It's a logical impossibility. However, any non-hobbyist will understand in a second what I'm saying
                  I am not an Arch fan, but I can explain it to you in a couple of sentences. Ubuntu is an all purpose tool, it can do everything, but is not average on that. Like a Leatherman tool, you have all, but no serious craftsman would use it for his everyday work. In opposite, distros like Arch can be used to create tools that are made for the specific purpose the user has to do. You wouldn't use a Leatherman if you have to screw in 100 screws a day, you would use a tool made explicitly for that task.

                  So, actually the professionals, the non-hobbyists, are the ones that should use those distros, while it still has enough appeal to hobbyists to explore the possibilities to make it into exactly the tools that they need.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                    Let me give you a developer's perspective:
                    No thanks. Did you actually read and understand what I wrote? It's precisely "a developers perspective" what ordinary users should avoid like the plague. You
                    and them are just different kind of people. You can only mislead ordinary people when advising them for their computer needs.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                      XFCE has all features what I need. If I need more features I would return to KDE.
                      Good for YOU. [Pat on your shoulder]

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                        I am not an Arch fan, but I can explain it to you in a couple of sentences. Ubuntu is an all purpose tool, it can do everything, but is not average on that. Like a Leatherman tool, you have all, but no serious craftsman would use it for his everyday work. In opposite, distros like Arch can be used to create tools that are made for the specific purpose the user has to do. You wouldn't use a Leatherman if you have to screw in 100 screws a day, you would use a tool made explicitly for that task.

                        So, actually the professionals, the non-hobbyists, are the ones that should use those distros, while it still has enough appeal to hobbyists to explore the possibilities to make it into exactly the tools that they need.
                        I knew you guys wouldn't get it. It isn't new. My words are all devoted to the guy asking about what distro to use.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                          Unity makes a lot of sense (debatable) for Shuttleworths vision to obtain a piece of the mobile pie in order to earn money.
                          Which I hope he definitely gets. The more money Canonical makes the safer the project is. Since it's the only company backed consumer desktop Linux out there, I just pray for it to succeed. In fact, if Canonical makes a lot of money in mobile, temptations to introduce even more spyware on the desktop won't have that much traction.

                          It makes absolutely no sense as a desktop environment.
                          Oh, yes it does. It's much faster to use than old Gnome 2 and more practical too.

                          It has too big icons that take up screen real estate,
                          That can be trivially easy resized on the settings with a simple slider.

                          it has no proper menu for apps,
                          Because only old farts need one. I also thought I'd need a menu at the very beginning. I don't. Most people only think they do.

                          its search (Dash) is slow and full of useless eyecandy and spyware by default,
                          No. It's very fast and practical and there's not a single piece of spyware in the version most people should be using (12.04 LTS). Even in newer versions that spyware (I do agree it's spyware until it's opt-in) can be very very easily turned off.

                          the application menu for its window is at the top of the screen and only for the window in focus-something that destroys the experience when using many non maximized windows and there is no sane way to work with multiple windows open at the same time in order to copy paste, read and write concurently etc. You can do it if you try, but the solution is not optimal and needs work... in order to be able to work... Not good for desktop, unless all you run all day is Firefox to browse facebook,
                          Nonsense. Global menu has been working fine for Apple users forever. It has its advantages and disadvantages. The only bad decision about it in Ubuntu is having it hidden until you throw the mouse up there (guess who's idea was that... Yes, that's part of that half of Shuttlworth ideas that got through.)

                          like in your case...
                          Who's case? Have we met?

                          Just remember, people who do things other than facebook on their computers aren't geeks...
                          I do lots of things on my Ubuntu install (mostly graphics with Inkscape, desktop publishing with Scribus, using Libreoffice -I love it-, managing music and photos and some video editing -that needs some improvement, but it's hardly an Ubuntu issue-). I don't have a facebook account.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                            You shouldn't enter a discussion about this, because you are obviously wrong...

                            Let me give you a developer's perspective:

                            I installed Ubuntu 12.10 about 3 months ago, and since i develop in Java i wanted to install Netbeans. I searched the official repos, and there was Netbeans 7.0.1 from 2 1/2 years ago... This is old, and lacks funcionality i find particularly useful. So manual install... I wanted to install LLVM/Clang as well... Imagine the horror: LLVM was version 3.1, Clang was version 3.0 ... IIRC there was even a conflict problem, and installing Clang installed Llvm 3.0 ... We are talking beyond moronic levels of incompetence here... So, manual install for LLVM/Clang as well...

                            I could go on and on, but this wasn't only on "niche" software.

                            Transmission was way old, ppa for that. Libreoffice wasn't upgraded to next 2-3 3.6.x versions which solved hunderds of bugs, and at the time i quit no ppa existed for that... I needed Chromium, ppa for it...

                            All this searching and work, is approximately the work(in terms of time wasted) i threw in Arch's setup... For a so-called "deploy and forget" distro...

                            So this whole "computing is a tool" is right, it is just that you don't get it: The proper user controls the tool, the incompetent user is controlled by the tool... It seems funny to me, because seriously, i can deploy an Arch installation with a rich DE and all must-have software in approx 2 hours. This includes downloading from the repos since Arch is a netinstall distro... Maintaining from this point is a matter of a couple of minutes daily...

                            PS: 99% of Arch updates are drop-in replacements. Announcements concerning updates are once in 2-3 months, or even more. You can easily setup your Rss software to search for these announcements and take your precautions... Most of the time even then for most users there is no need to change a thing... When an update absolutely needs manual intervention, it is obvious because it won't be completed without either making the changes or using the force switch... So, to me, it is YOU who is spreading FUD...
                            Plz stop doing that kind of testimonials or else I have to switch to Arch

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
                              No thanks. Did you actually read and understand what I wrote? It's precisely "a developers perspective" what ordinary users should avoid like the plague. You
                              and them are just different kind of people. You can only mislead ordinary people when advising them for their computer needs.
                              Ordinary user needs something like Windows where you can install latest version of any software. It won't be possible in Ubuntu without rolling updates.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                                Ordinary user needs something like Windows where you can install latest version of any software. It won't be possible in Ubuntu without rolling updates.
                                Sigh... Check Chakra: stable core, rolling end-user apps. Also check the latest statements by Shuttleworth (hence the most probable course of action at Canonical) where he states that's exactly the goal for LTSs, including the current one.

                                Of course, they could go much farther and do something really "innovative" like self-contained apps (ala OS X -check GoboLinux-) and be done with the issue for good. They better find how to update applications without updating the core, or they're dead in mobile. Since Android does it fine, any other Linux can as well.

                                This has been the elephant in the room for consumer desktop Linux like forever. Of course it doesn't affect geeks, that's how it's not even being addressed in most distros. It's amazing the blindness of geeks about this. Canonical only needs to ask ISVs to compile against at least LTS and they'd be done. If an app is not available for the current LTS, it'll be removed from the Software Center. Pretty much self maintained app store, like everyone else in the non-Linux world does.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X