Why does everyone hate Ubuntu?

[monkeybrain20122]

In Unity, itself, you're a lot more limited in customization than you are in other DEs.

Such as? I don't find gnome2, xfce or lxde to be substantially more configurable without adding something like compiz (and a lot of "configurating" in lxde and xfce are basically tweaks to overcome the out of the box limitations of the DEs,--for example the file managers)

[buzzingrobot]

Some people are forever rearranging the furniture, changing the curtains and the carpet, painting the walls.

Some people move in and never touch anything.

C'est la vie.

[craig10x]

Also...what is it about the unity desktop that you feel you must customize? what would you do to it? I'll admit it would be nice if they provided the option of moving it to the bottom, but that's not super critical to me as i have gotten use to it being on the left...and now they offer the option of putting menus back in the windows (a feature i love and use now) but what else? I mean you can shrink the pixel size of the icons (which i do) auto-hide it (which i do also) adjust the auto-hide sensitivity (which i do...lol)...you can even add a "fan out" apps menu to use instead of dash search (which i don't...i like the dash search)...turn off the dash search online searches (which i do)...

sounds like plenty of customization is available already...

So, what else? make the dock pink?

I suspect those that say that unity desktop doesn't lend itself to customization and therefore that is why they don't use it is really a "smoke and mirrors" way of saying i just like the old fashioned desktop and don't want to use anything new...

[lykwydchykyn]

I suspect those that say that unity desktop doesn't lend itself to customization and therefore that is why they don't use it is really a "smoke and mirrors" way of saying i just like the old fashioned desktop and don't want to use anything new...

You really just can't handle the idea that a reasonable person might legitimately want something from a desktop environment that Unity doesn't offer, can you?

[malspa]

You really just can't handle the idea that a reasonable person might legitimately want something from a desktop environment that Unity doesn't offer, can you?

Yeah, it isn't that there isn't a lot of customization available for Unity (or for GNOME Shell, for that matter). But some users don't like that you can't do all the same kinds of things that you can do with KDE or Xfce, for example. I can understand that point of view. One simple thing that I really like about Xfce's panel, being able to simply drag it to wherever I want it; that's something I'd really like to be able to do with Unity's dock (or whatever you wanna call it).

[craig10x]

@malspa: agree with you on that one...it's not that they probably couldn't do it but seems canonical is stubborn about the unity dock only being on the left with no other options...
though the interesting thing i found is that a friend of mine that has an IMAC and on the mac you can place it's dock anywhere you want...(bottom, left or even right if you prefer) but he moved his from the bottom to the left and i asked him "why?" he said "seems to be the most sensible place for a dock to be"

Technically, malspa, they called it unity launcher but the reason i keep referring to it as a dock is because...well, it is

[malspa]

though the interesting thing i found is that a friend of mine that has an IMAC and on the mac you can place it's dock anywhere you want...(bottom, left or even right if you prefer) but he moved his from the bottom to the left and i asked him "why?" he said "seems to be the most sensible place for a dock to be"

I now put my Xfce, KDE, and tint2 panels over on the left side, too!

[slooksterpsv]

Alrighty since I forgot about this thread let me start with this:

Unity - you don't have control over what you can put on the top panel (without extensive digging in a configuration editor... is it deconf-editor? something like that); you can pretty much only control your background or icons or what appears on your desktop (icon wise) other than that it's all 3rd party implementations to do certain things.

With XFCE (for example, as that's the one I'm running) I can create new panels, add items to them, stack them, make them hide, add additional indicators (easily).

The post was originally about Ubuntu and I figured Ubuntu's default DE (Unity). Which a lot of users were upset about the lack of customization and the ability to make it their "own". If it were about the OS underlying features in general (debian package management, etc.) that'd be a different story. As far as I care. Unity DE doesn't fit me. Gnome 2 was perfect, XFCE is comparable. That sums it up for me.

Additionally - why not MATE? No current support in 13.10 without the use of a PPA - official repository support in 14.04 perfect, someone will more than likely make a MATEbuntu or whatever.

[monkeybrain20122]

You really just can't handle the idea that a reasonable person might legitimately want something from a desktop environment that Unity doesn't offer, can you?

Speaking for myself I have no problem that a reasonable person may want something different. A simple "it doesn't work for me" is good enough. But I do have a problem with people speaking as though there is only one way to design a DE (Windows 95) and that Unity is bad because it deviates from the One True Way and then throw temper tantrums against Ubuntu and Canonical: it takes away our choice, it ruins the desktop, it betrays Linux, it has gone down the wrong path blah blah blah all because of Unity. "Haters" are not reasonable.

Also if one is making an objective point about Unity then one should expect disagreements if that turns out to be not true or debatable (such as Unity cannot be productive, or many people hate Unity: many of us also love it, or Unity cannot be customized: it may not be customizable the way some people want, like to look like Windows XP; it may discourage certain customizations like putting icons all over the panel or desktop, but it can be done)

[buzzingrobot]

... I do have a problem with people speaking as though there is only one way to design a DE (Windows 95) and that Unity is bad because it deviates from the One True Way and then throw temper tantrums against Ubuntu and Canonical: it takes away our choice, it ruins the desktop, it betrays Linux, it has gone down the wrong path blah blah blah all because of Unity.

Well said.

It's like arguing that strawberry is a betrayal of chocolate.