Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Unity 7.0 Desktop Coming To Ubuntu 13.04

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blaisepascal View Post
    I've been using Ubuntu for a few years. Does anyone have thoughts on better/more standard distros to jump ship to? And the best way to do so?
    If you're willing to work around with a little bit of instability from time to time... Fedora.

    If you're willing to actually learn how Linux works... Arch

    If you neither... stick to the latest LTS release of Ubuntu until it stops being supported, and then move to Fedora anyway lol..

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blaisepascal View Post
    The thing I don't like about this story is Ubuntu breaking their own rules about last-minute changes in order to push Unity 7.0, despite it not being ready in time. It probably won't affect me since I run Gnome Desktop, not Unity.
    So far it is looking like they are NOT merging this because it is too late.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    If you're willing to work around with a little bit of instability from time to time... Fedora.

    If you're willing to actually learn how Linux works... Arch

    If you neither... stick to the latest LTS release of Ubuntu until it stops being supported, and then move to Fedora anyway lol..
    I suppose I could just go back to Debian Sid.

  4. #14

    Default

    Arrogance is growing like a cancer inside Canonical. This Michael Hall seems to love emulating his big boss, who's just an arrogant prick as anyone can confirm just by reading a few posts at his own blog or -even better- at Launchpad bug reports.

    Fortunately, Shuttleworth himself confesses only half of his ideas get through, so we must understand the goodness of Ubuntu comes just from that half, the one that others decide/invent/create. Just check the reasoning for rebutting Rick Spencer's rolling release proposal. Enjoy the perfect logic in Spencer and the sheer stupidity in Shuttleworth's replies. Appalling. This idiot is only now starting to understand the need for end-users to have the latest versions of their favorite apps, how cumbersome it is to use PPAs for that and how useless the Software Center is without them. Go figure. I can only imagine what a huge thing Ubuntu would be if Shuttleworth just kept putting money to hire professionals, stepped aside and shut up. But I guess Ubuntu wouldn't exist in that case. He'd be definitely richer by now, but Ubuntu is his playground. So we'll have to live with a half-as-good version of an imaginary Shuttleworth-less Ubuntu, and accept that half of his ideas do get through, inevitably.

    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.
    Last edited by Aleve Sicofante; 03-13-2013 at 11:32 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blaisepascal View Post
    Either Phoronix has an anti-Ubuntu bias, or Ubuntu is really screwing things up lately.

    I've been using Ubuntu for a few years. Does anyone have thoughts on better/more standard distros to jump ship to? And the best way to do so?
    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    33

    Default

    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 :-)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote 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 at 05:10 AM.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote 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.)

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote 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 at 10:32 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •