install gripes (not original)

Liam Proven lproven at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 14:16:51 UTC 2012


On 14 March 2012 10:46, Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:45:58 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
> [...]
>> Umm, what the f*** are you on about?!
>>
>> WHAT distro ARE you talking about - name, version, and which DE?
>
> What's a DE?  Ubuntu 11.10

Desktop Environment.

It sounds to me like you have installed GNOME 3 but are using Fallback
Mode, not GNOME Shell.

>> Where does Steve Jobs come into this - considering that the man has now
>> been 6-feet under for some time? And not only that but he has nothing to
>> do with Linux.
>
> Err, the mac started putting min/max/close on the LHS instead of the RHS
> as it traditionally was (even with the old mac, as I recall).  Why they
> did this, I have no idea.  Why Ubuntu followed suite is another mystery.

At the time, Ubuntu & the SABDFL talked about adding "windicators" to
the top-right of the title bar. This now seems to be revealed as a red
herring - as not being the case and possibly an intentional lie to
distract attention from what was actually being done.

As to why the title-bar widgets (which I think is the correct name)
moved from top right corner to top left, it was to facilitate
full-screen mode in Unity. When a window is maximised under Unity, it
loses its title bar, which is merged into the top panel. The right
hand end of the top panel is already occupied, by the "system tray" -
the indicators for volume, network status, the time, etc.

So the widgets had to move to the other end.

It's a fairly trivial change, really. I don't even notice it any more.
At the time it took a few days to adjust and then I forgot about it.

It may bother *you* a lot but do not make the serious error of
assuming that because it really upsets *you* that it really upsets
everyone. It doesn't. Some are bothered by it, some are not.

> I attribute that change to S. Jobs and i-fruits, perhaps erroneously.

Various window managers over the years have move the widgets around.
Many, like GNOME, allow the user to do so at will. Assuming that they
are always at the right is an error, as is assuming that putting them
on the left is a Mac OS X thing - it isn't, that is just the most
famous, most recent example.

You should take a look at some other WMs. Some have a title bar that
does not occupy all the top edge of the window, BeOS-style. Some don't
put it at the top - some put it down the left hand edge of the window,
with text flowing vertically bottom-to-top, like wm2. (I personally
really like that arrangement and would have it in GNOME if I could.)

Many, of course, don't have title bars at all, such as (I think, from
memory) Ratpoison and the Argent WM.


> Are you really unfamiliar with that?  I dunno, thought that was common
> knowledge:
>
> http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/23899/
>
> It was a very strange "improvement" at the time.  I suppose some people
> liked it :(

It is not an improvement - it is neither better nor worse, it's just different.

> I mean, it's worse than re-inventing the wheel.  It's wheel 2.0 with an
> ever so slightly different interface so that changing a flat requires
> reading the manual because nothing works in quite the expected fashion.

Oh, don't be such a drama-queen! It's a trivial thing which you can
put back if you want!

> The way that you can't right click on GNOME panels, but must alt-right-
> click really takes the cake for absurd changes.

That sounds like you are talking about GNOME 3 Fallback Mode. Beware,
this is only an emergency failsafe provision. You can expect it to be
removed in future versions. If you want a GNOME-2-like interface, you
would probably be better off with Xfce.

> Ok, wait, that I had to *remove* packages to eliminate the annoying mac
> style menu (gnome panel) horizontally across the top of the screen,

This is a problem why?

> that
> one is worse.

What is worse than what?

> I mean, why not just edit some obscure config file to turn
> that off?  Or, gasp, right click and delete the panel. Oh well.

I don't know what you mean here.

> Plus, it's a huge waste of time which Ubuntu developers put into such
> nonsense.  Don't you find that a waste of brain power?  Can't you find
> any broken packages which don't install correctly, or are outdated?
> Resources are limited, and re-inventing GNOME/KDE/etc is beyond the pale.

Again, not seeing what you are on about here.

> Not that I don't admire the effort.  I get it that the idea was "if you
> build it, they will come," but that's predicated on building something
> worthwhile, which Unity, or even GNOME 3, ain't.

Well, as I have previously explained, I have my own theory:

It is to make a desktop that does not infringe upon Microsoft's
patents on the design of Windows 95 /et seq/.

This means removing the taskbar & the start menu as two high-profile
items which were Microsoft original inventions and thus which it is
safe to assume Microsoft has patents upon.

>> Did you forget to take your daily medication, or are have you changed
>> the brand of the stuff you normally imbibe? :-)
>
> LOL.  In all serious, maybe the rant was non-specific.  It was a rant,
> after all.  Was it unclear in some way, beyonds the Jobs reference?

Yes, very!

> I
> don't recall all the packages I had to install *and* remove, so I would
> have to google all that up.  It's like four steps just to get a, to me,
> normal looking desktop.  (Using pre-i-mac's, windows 3.1, X Windows, etc
> as the baseline for what a "desktop" looks like.)

I think you are getting your time periods muddled. It sounds to me
like you want a GNOME-2 style desktop. That really means a desktop
styled after  Windows 95 or later. And that means infringing MS
patents, as MS made clear in 2007, so it had to go.

> When you install GNOME, it's not supported officially. So, that's
> annoying.  Then, to get it looking like GNOME 2.x is a PITA of monumental
> proportions.  (By which I mean deleting extraneous panels, at least
> that's all I had to do.)

You should be more specific. You seem to be talking about GNOME 3, and
do not forget, GNOME 3 means GNOME Shell. The fallback mode you're
using is a temporary crutch.

> Quite bizarre.  You used to be able to select GNOME/KDE/etc from the
> login menu.  What was wrong with that system?

You still can. If they are installed, obviously.

> Note that none of these changes are anything but superficial, it's just
> tweaking the GUI so that it behaves in new and strange ways.  Maybe
> there's a control group out there who get a different version of unity ;)

It is tweaking the GUI so that it does not infringe upon the software
patents of the largest and most litigious company in PC OSs, and one
which is a deadly and implacable enemy of Linux and FOSS.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list