ioannis.vranos at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 15:30:09 UTC 2011
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ioannis, you are giving some confusing and incorrect information in
> your posts about the new GUIs and I would respectfully suggest that
> you need to do some more background reading and research.
> Unity is *not* touch-centric.
> Unity is inspired by the Mac OS X desktop, with its Dock, its single
> central Applications folder and its single global menu bar across the
> top of the screen.
> Note that Apple *does not sell* any touchscreen devices running Mac OS
> X. Mac OS X is a /desktop/ and /laptop/ interface and has been since
> its appearance 11y ago.
> The touchscreen devices, the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch run a totally
> different interface on top of a totally different OS: iOS, which is
> based on the same Unix kernel as Mac OS X but is not the same OS.
> Please stop spreading this disinformation.
"Unity provides a complete, simple, ==> touch-ready environment that
integrates your applications and your workflow".
"Founded in 2010, the Unity project started by Mark Shuttleworth and
Canonical has gone on to deliver a consistent user experience for
desktop and netbook users alike. Putting great design at the heart of
the project, Unity and its technologies such as Application
indicators, System indicators, and Notify OSD, have strived to solve
common problems in the Free Software desktop while optimizing the
experience for ==> touch, consistency and collaboration".
> Yes, Unity is designed to be a stepping-stone /towards/ an interface
> that will be suitable for touchscreens /as well as/ mouse/keyboard
> users but it is not there yet.
> Reference on this from the SABDFL: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/820
There it is mentioned:
"By 14.04 LTS Ubuntu will power ==> tablets, ==> phones, TVs and ==>
smart screens from the car to the office kitchen, and it will connect
those devices cleanly and seamlessly to the desktop, the server and
Unity, the desktop interface in today’s Ubuntu 11.10, was designed
with this specific vision in mind".
"We have also invested in the design and engineering of Unity,
motivated by the belief that desktop interfaces would merge with
mobile, ==> touch interfaces into a seamless personal computing
platform in the future".
> Read about Shuttleworth's design plans for Unity here:
In the above article of 2010, it is mentioned:
"We also want to embrace touch as a first class input. We want people
to be able to launch and switch between applications using
==> touch, so the ==> launcher must be finger friendly".
> As for why Mint uses GNOME Shell and not "Fallback mode", this too is
> well-documented. Mint's creator says:
> @Craig: Gnome 2 + GTK+ is not being developped anymore, so you won’t
> see it get any new features, but it’s amongst the most stable desktop
> environments out there. As such, it’s not going anywhere. GTK3 and
> Gnome 3 are more promising technologies of course, but they’re far
> from reaching the same level of maturity Gnome 2 has. “Gnome 3 without
> Gnome-Shell” is called “Gnome Fallback Mode” and it’s nothing to do
> with Gnome 2.
> Gnome 2 is a stable GTK+ desktop which no longer evolves in terms of features.
> Gnome Fallback Mode is basically an adaptation of gnome-panel, which
> looks like Gnome 2 but is based on GTK3 and is incompatible with
> Bonobo and panel applets.
> So the first thing to consider is this: Panel applets need a rewrite
> to work in Gnome Fallback Mode. MintMenu for instance works in Gnome
> 2, but it doesn’t work in Gnome Fallback or in Gnome Shell. We can
> make it work in Gnome Fallback and we can make it work in Gnome Shell,
> but we then need a rewrite.
> The second thing to consider is that Gnome Fallback isn’t here to
> stay. The Gnome devs don’t want it there and people who like Gnome 2
> don’t like it anyway. Eventually you’ll see Gnome Shell gain
> compatibility with less powerful graphics card and Shell will be the
> only way to run Gnome 3. It’s not a bad thing, since Gnome Fallback
> Mode, from a usability point of view, really isn’t an interesting
> desktop. So going forward, we’ve got Gnome3/GTK3 being actively
> developed and improved, we’ve got Gnome2/GTK still there for us to use
> but not gaining new features, and we’ve got something called Gnome
> Fallback Mode which is just that, a 2D fallback mode, and which is
> going to disappear.
> Souce: Clem Lefevbre himself, here: http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1845
OK, it is their point of view, my point is since GNOME 3.2 Fallback
mode exists, they should use that, if they wanted a GNOME 2.x-style
> You are coming out with completely unsupported speculation about how
> and why Mint are doing what they are doing, as well as about Unity,
> when I am afraid you are *wrong*, the facts are different and they are
> right there for you to read and learn if you just make the small
Thank you for your information, I think I supported what I said, in this email.
More information about the ubuntu-users