Oh, please, please, COME ON Ubuntu development people! <OT>

[Tom H]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Ric Moore <wayward4now at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 15:42 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Joep L. Blom <jlblom at neuroweave.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> > Your (OT) rant is firstly completely useless and secondly grossly in error.
>> > Or didn't you know that the MacOS is Linux (albeit BSD) with a
>> > not-so-intelligent overlay.
>>
>> OS X's "overlay" is being imitated by both Canonical and GNOME so it
>> can't be *that* unintelligent...
>
> Who knows? Maybe Jobs can be out-Jobs-ed, as in doing it better than
> they do? The original target was to be better than Win95. We have, for
> the most part, gotten there. (IMHO) Next, OS X. It's not a bad goal to
> set.

I hope that Win95 was GNOME's target a LONG time ago! :)

>From my narrow perspective (re-sizing the Unity launcher and
re-ordering the icons on that launcher), Unity's a failure and I won't
be using it. Otherwise, it's looking pretty good. I have issues with
GNOME 3 (and its developers' attitude) too so I won't use GNOME any
more. Basically, both Unity and GNOME 3 are out for me because of the
latter (unless Unity develops the features that I want and it can be
used as a KDE "shell" some time in the future). I'm sure that both
sets of developers'll keep on pushing the envelope and publish good
updates and upgrades. Imitating OS X's best bits is a good idea but OS
X has an insurmountable advantage, hardware. OS X only has to support
Apple's limited hardware. Compared to GNOME, OS X's development's more
user-centric (in spite of it being closed) and will therefore always
be more successful (I can't figure out whether Canonical's is or
isn't, and to what extent).