Best Alternative Operating System To Ubuntu?

[Basil Chupin]

On 29/06/11 23:49, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 29 June 2011 13:42, Avi Greenbury<lists at avi.co>  wrote:
>> Yeah, so 11.04 was perhaps not the time to switch to Unity - I don't
>> see the logic in switching to a Gnome 2.x-based Unity immediately
>> before porting Unity to the Gnome 3 libraries, unless the difference in
>> these libs isn't as great as I keep seeing suggested. Are they that
>> similar that the next six months will be spent fixing current bugs in
>> Unity, or will they mostly be spent fixing bugs incurred by switching
>> versions?
>>
> I just asked the developers. Unity built against GNOME 3 is currently
> in progress, I was told it will be done "100% tonight", "only the
> panel remains, the rest is there".
>
> Al.

In another message I note that you gave 3 URLs to look at about this 
Unity/Gnome/KDE stuff.

I haven't read them yet I have to admit but it does seem to me that from 
what was stated previously about why Canonical went Unity is 
contradicted by what you just stated about "Unity built against GNOME 3 
is currently in progress".

This business about gnome shell, gnome 3, unity is, honestly, damn and 
totally, confusing!

Why "[build] against GNOME 3" and why not simply use Gnome 3 instead of 
doing all this horse-manure about creating Unity?

Is there some sort of a movement to confuse Linux users and get them 
off-side by coming up with goobly-dook like 'gnome-shell' and 'gnome 3' 
and 'unity' and therefore creating divisions and arguments amongst the 
users?

The bottom line is: can anyone here write a clear and concise 
explanation of what all this horse-manure about gnome-shell, gnome 3 and 
unity all about?

BC

-- 
The Annual General Meeting of Psychics has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances.
                        The Organising Committee