<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Dave Woyciesjes <<a href="mailto:woyciesjes@sbcglobal.net">woyciesjes@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> I've tried Unity, and now that I've started using Gnome3/Shell, I'm liking that better. Unity, different? Obviously. Bad? No, just not for me...</blockquote></div> Unity could be good (I haven't used) but the reason for it being ''bad'' was that more of the people cried for it (rather than it got any ''praise'', I rarely have seen). On the contrary if anything new comes, generally I have seen the praise for it (anywhere, like talk of new versions in softwares), so there changes bring some more 'bug-free' standards to the product -- which eventually never implies that Unity is having any of the bugs(s) (I don't know)...... Change is good, I accept but think what this change of Unity really brought into the existence? Does it make Ubuntu a better feel or makes it work more smoother than actually could Gnome do? -- Two atoms are walking along. Suddenly, one stops. The other says, "What's wrong?" "I've lost an electron." "Are you sure?" "I'm positive!"