Unity ROCKS!!!

[Soare Catalin]

In this case, the only way to make this and other thread (discussing Unity)
constructive in any way would be to actually give it a (second) try, report
any bugs, or find and recommend alternatives or work-arounds.

Thanks Liam,

Sent from my brick
On May 2, 2011 2:38 PM, "Liam Proven" <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 May 2011 05:32, rikona <rikona at sonic.net> wrote:
>> Hello Liam,
>>
>> Sunday, May 1, 2011, 11:36:39 AM, Liam wrote:
>>
>> LP> the advertising of Windows 7 has successfully spun it as an
>> LP> incremental improvement, even though to experienced users (like
>> LP> me) many of the changes are steps backwards.
>>
>> I'd agree with that. I don't like the trend to hide more and more
>> functionality - in Win or Linux.
>
> I think that is the wrong way to think of it. I don't like it either,
> but it's not hiding - it is *simplifying*. I am a DOS user from the
> 1980s - Windows was a novelty to me. Before I used DOS, I used CP/M,
> and before that VAX/VMS.
>
> DOS was a novelty once and it took me a while to adjust to
> subdirectories, which I'd not really used before. But DOS was simpler
> than VMS.
>
> Before CP/M, I had a Sinclair Spectrum, which was simpler still - but
> with the power of newer machines, something more capable than a BASIC
> interpreter in ROM was needed.
>
> I've had to do a lot of relearning.
>
> But now, the computer market is expanding more. Most users just want
> to surf the 'Net, enjoy media and games. They don't want to know about
> "applications" and "menus" and "windows" and "pointers" and "toolbars"
> and all that weird computery nonsense. They just want a smart device
> that adapts to them and is as easy to use as a TV set or telephone.
>
> So operating systems must adapt. Menus and switching programs and
> managing windows and reading lots of little text boxes are daunting.
> So modern computer interfaces are removing that, simplifying it,
> replacing 1980s and 1990s concepts with simpler ones that achieve the
> same goals with fewer clicks.
>
> The people behind Unity are working hard to keep the interface capable
> for power users - so, it has lots of hotkeys and "power-user"
> functionality that is accessible with keyboard shortcuts.
>
> It's not very customisable, no. You can't fill it with little monitor
> applets, googley eyes and animated fish like you could before. Sorry
> about that, but really, it's not a huge loss. It's also quite new and
> some of this stuff will probably reappear.
>
>> LP> Unity is a big change - I think if it had been possible to do it
>> LP> more gradually, that would have been preferable.
>>
>> I think if there was a good, exceedingly clear explanation of the
>> benefits, so that everyone could easily see the 'advantages', it might
>> not cause so much apparent resistance. As the 'Explain to me again why
>> Unity is so great' thread suggests, most of us just want to know
>> exactly why it is so good - something that has STILL not been
>> explained in any clear way. Instead, we get mumbo jumbo like 'visual
>> assets' and users 'need to develop a better physical relationship'
>> with Ubuntu.
>
> This is all just as far as I can see and tell, you understand. I am
> nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu - I am just a user.
>
> But this being the case, from where I sit, I'd say: you're asking the
> wrong questions.
>
> Unity is designed to be simpler and easier for new users.
>
> It is /not/ designed to be a better interface than GNOME 2 for GNOME 2
users.
>
> If you want a list of improvements, well, sorry, there isn't one. In
> what ways are bananas improved over bicycles? They aren't. They're
> just different things. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
>
> Ubuntu is a small minority OS. Its target is people coming from other
> OSs, *not* people coming from older versions of Ubuntu. There are a
> billion-odd Windows users out there and only a dozen or 2 million
> existing Ubuntu users.
>
> Unity is meant to be a simpler, friendlier, more colourful and
> attractive interface than Windows, and as a sideline, a cheaper "poor
> man's Mac OS X," if you like.
>
> KDE is, to my mind, a poor attempt to copy Windows - it just apes a
> lot of the basic controls and features and adds a metric ton of
> customisation and clutter. I want my file manager to manage files, not
> to be a Web browser and email client and media playback tool and image
> sorter and network-connectivity client and 38,534 other functions.
>
> GNOME 2 was a slightly-more-Mac-inspired take on the Windows 95
> interface: /two/ horizontal taskbars rather than one (which I never
> really understood, myself), but the same basic structure as the
> Microsoft Explorer GUI: hierarchical menus, buttons, quick-launch
> icons, a tray with a clock, and so on.
>
> It did not innovate much over MS and as such if MS wished to sue for
> plagiarism, it had an excellent case.
>
> Apple went and did something different, with a blend of classic MacOS
> and NeXTstep/OPENstep. People have taken to it very well. It's not
> very customisable, but it's good, efficient, simple and clean. It
> works.
>
> So that is what Ubuntu is doing: a simple, clean,
> not-very-customisable desktop with influences drawn from Mac OS X,
> iOS, Android and some of the existing Windows-like controls and
> methods.
>
> It's not meant to convert existing users. It's meant to bring new
> people to Ubuntu by making it simple and accessible and
> easily-learned. Remember it came from netbooks, simple internet-access
> devices rather than full-function PCs.
>
> Don't bother asking in what ways it improves on GNOME 2. Instead, ask
> if it's a good interface *in itself.*
>
>
> --
> Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
> Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
> Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
> AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20110502/79cf1e31/attachment.html>