<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On behalf of all old people, and those who ever had to lose 5
minutes reinstalling DOS - ;) - I want to say I'm tired of haviing
to relearn how to use a computer every 5 years. Leave the damn
desktop alone. Unity sux.<br>
<br>
On 12/18/2011 15.24, Scott Merrill wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALxu18+y04kMej-ppk5S2AZ72vhRMjNiwz8MdaYSgdxUh24J1w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Joshua Kramer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joskra42.list@gmail.com"><joskra42.list@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And now for the contrary point of view...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
That didn't seem particularly contrary!
I personally don't understand the vitriol. I don't mind using Unity on
Ubuntu or GNOME 3 on Fedora 16. Yes, they're both different than what
came before, but neither actively retards usefulness with my
computers.
I can launch a browser, and spawn multiple terminal sessions easily
enough using either current desktop.
Unity makes using some things a little different, with its global menu
bar, but this isn't so burdensome an issue as to have me looking for
alternatives. Having spoken to a number of folks at Canonical, I
remain hopeful that Unity will mature into a very useful interface
that works on multiple classes of devices. There is a strong vision
for where Unity needs to go within Canonical, but as they say: you
can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/31/ubuntu-developer-summit-kicks-off-mark-shuttleworth-shares-plans-for-ubuntu-12-04-and-beyond/">http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/31/ubuntu-developer-summit-kicks-off-mark-shuttleworth-shares-plans-for-ubuntu-12-04-and-beyond/</a>
Long-time users often wail and gnash their teeth when things change.
Witness the ever-changing audio subsystems, or the X -> x.org
transition, or other similar sea changes in the history of Linux. Does
anyone today really miss X11, or Open Sound System, despite how much
angst the transition to x.org or ALSA might have caused at the time?
The needs of a Linux desktop for someone like Russ are drastically
different from the needs of a user like Rick's daughter. The "more
than one way to do it" mentality that has served the techie-oriented
Linux community to date is what complicates and hinders wider Linux
desktop adoption. Everyone thinks their way is the One True Way, and
everyone else thinks that way sucks.
Apple was able to set the standard for its users early with OSX, and
continues to decide what's best for their users in many way. Most
Apple users find some form of peace with these decisions being made
for them, or at the least find ways to be productive within the limits
imposed by Apple's decisions. I can be equally productive with an OSX
system as with most any Linux system, since the POSIX tools on which I
rely are all at hand.
How I launch a terminal isn't terribly important...
Cheers,
Scott
_______________________________________________
colug-432 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:colug-432@colug.net">colug-432@colug.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432">http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>