Removed empty post.
Well, anyone who wants to market software and have any hope of attracting new users is competing with Windows. You are competing with them because that's where the users are. You aren't pushing software into a market where there is a supply of people who have never used computers. You are pushing software into a market where the overwhelming majority of your prospective users know only Windows....(Canonical, or whoever they may be), seem to be motivated by the desire to compete with Windows...
Many Linux distributions, either intentionally or not, target only users who are ideologically inclined to FOSS. That's fine, but building a user base that way means you expect people to go through a religious conversion process before they come to you.
The launcher is a dock. Hardly revolutionary or engaged in "concealment". Unity cannot be Gnome 2 and KDE all at the same time. If you'd rather use KDE or Gnome 2 so you can exploit what you "have invested time in learning", KDE is out there and so is MATE. So is Gnome 2, for that matter.1. Unity and the Win-7-like vertical launchpad - I get it, we're trying to attract Windows users. To even marginally more proficient users like me, it's a wart. It adds layers of concealment that serve to hide things we need to know when trying to resolve problems. If this is going to be part of the OS, thats' fine and dandy, but at least allow users who are familiar with the old kde or gnome interfaces to keep what they know, what they have invested time in learning.
In any case, how would you, as a developer, build a new interface like Unity *and* retain those aspects of KDE/Gnome 2 that you know and like?
Change happens. You seem, at heart, to be arguing that Canonical should have frozen Ubuntu, much like Red Hat freezes RHEL, and gone into bug-fix mode several years ago, say, with Lucid? That's a valid point of view. But, it isn't Canonical's point of view.I really don't mind adjusting and adapting to changes in "the way I do things" on my systems, I've been doing it since at least Hardy Heron. With every new release, I expect to grit my teeth and struggle a bit...
(Personally, I have no strong visceral reactions to any DE, one way or the other. I prefer some, but could use any of the major players without annoyance. And, Lucid was, I think, the best Gnome 2 distribution. If you're willing to track and install security fixes yourself, and can live with Lucid-era application support, you'll be OK. I ran my own divergent breed of Slackware, back in the day, a long time like that.)
AND, I was not referring to "clamav" but to "klamav."
Since then, someone else, (above) has set me straight about klamav being no longer maintained by its developers. So that's a good explanation.
Last edited by r_avital; June 30th, 2013 at 08:54 AM.
In the end, the mistake was mine, for going to 13.04 which is NOT LTS. Since then I've started over from scrach with a clean 12.04 LTS, and things are *somewhat* less buggy and more stable.
You mention that gnome2 is available. Nice. I'm using gnome-classic, that too is available. If I want to keep my gnome panels and eventually add or remove something from them, I have to: 1) log off, 2) log on with gnome-classic-no-effects, 3) make my changes there, 4) log off, 5) log back on to my original session. Now, I can hear the cynics screaming "Oh, the humanity!" (no pun intended) and sure, it's not the end of the world, but it's a hassle. A hassle I didn't ask for. So fallback options are not really fallback options.
Last, believe it or not, I do know developers who work with eclipse under gnome/kde etc., there are shops out there that can't afford the mult-$$$ MS wants every time they need to add another network seat.
Last edited by r_avital; June 30th, 2013 at 06:48 AM. Reason: typo
Well the thing is that Unity was created out of a need not change for the sake of change.
Unity was originally not really meant to be the default UI at first, as Ubuntu was working with Gnome to create a UI for linux in general.
Gnome 3 was on the drawing table at the time, but the two teams had totally different goals.
As Gnome 3 became the mess it is today Canonical decided to go off on its own to make a UI that everyone everywhere can use.
You dont have to be an expert to use Unity, its more of a getting used to it sort of thing.
As unity became its own thing Canonical wanted to expan d into the emerging mobile market, sensible if you ask me.
If you used gnome shell you would see what I mean, sure i know there are many who love gnome shell for reasons beyond me but in my opinion Gnome shell is the second worst desktop UI I have used, next to metro on windows 8.
It was the worst but Microsoft would not have that ,after all they have to be number 1 at everything, including making what is in my not so humble opinion a horrible UI
Last edited by MadmanRB; June 30th, 2013 at 07:53 PM.
Minus it's lenses, Unity seems to me to be quite similar to Gnome Shell. Both have a dock on the left. Both have an essentially unconfigurable panel on top of the screen. Both encourage the use of search to find and launch applications.As Gnome 3 became the mess it is today Canonical decided to go off on its own to make a UI that everyone everywhere can use.
You dont have to be an expert to use Unity
Gnome Shell's inclusion of its dock in the Overview -- meaning that to display the dock you need to display the entire Overview -- seems to me less than adroit. But, with the addition of a single extension, you can divorce that dock from the Overview and convert it to a highly functional and rather traditional dock.
Meanwhile, using Gnome Shell is dead simply. Various tests have shown that people with little or no computing experience adapt to Gnome Shell quite rapidly.
The major Linux DE's exhibit two basic approaches: Icons are gathered in panels for users to click on, or icons are gathered in docks for users to click on. They're all much more alike than they are different. Why, then, any one of them remains subject to abuse as "worst ever" or "dumbed down" or whatever the epithet of choice happens to be, is beyond me. The only conclusion I can make is that people are equating their personal preferences with what's good or bad.
That's expected of any field of endeavor, though, isn't it? The best and worst sedans in 1988 probably have more in common with each other than either has with the best or worst in 2003. Unity and Gnome do have some conceptual DNA in common, but the small differences are enough to make the experiences feel different.
My impression has been that most of the people crying "dumbed down" do so equally for both Shell and Unity, but there are certainly exceptions.
~ I know I shouldn't use tildes for decoration, but they always make me feel at home. ~
[Cynicism alert]My impression has been that most of the people crying "dumbed down" do so equally for both Shell and Unity, but there are certainly exceptions.
Well... I think most of them are diehard Gnome 2 folks who, more than two years on, are still ticked. I see many complains about lost productivity, but few actual explanations of what exactly it was they used to do.