Unity, Shell or Classic Gnome what wil you use with Natty? [Archive]

false truths

March 26th, 2011, 04:41 AM

I was a stubborn Compiz+Gnome Panel+AWN user, but I just finished compiling the latest Gnome Shell in 10.10 today, and I'm VERY impressed. Other then adding a small AWN with a few vital quick-access applets (task manager, main menu for apps missing from activities menu, terminal) and changing the size of the Application icons in the Activities menu, I've just stuck to the default Shell.

It's slightly sluggish when I'm multitasking (my computer's fault I assure you, it was even sluggish when I multitasked in LXDE), and it has a bit of a learning curve (then again, what new things don't?), but other then that it's far more comfortable, productive, and enjoyable to use then anything else I've used, including Gnome 2, KDE 4.6, and the latest XFCE and LXDE.

tjeremiah

March 26th, 2011, 04:56 AM

I'm not a fan of the Unity or Shell interfaces.

Tried them in the current Natty builds and wasn't for me!

Personally it feels too "RealEstate Hungry", it's taking up too much of my 15" laptop screen.

If I upgrade to Natty the first thing would be to remove Unity, if that's not possible to do cleanly, then it's back to 10.10 for me or another Distro..

you can resize the dock or hide it now as if it isnt there.

Spr0k3t

March 26th, 2011, 05:03 AM

Philsoki

March 26th, 2011, 05:04 AM

Not sure... GNOME shell is actually pretty good now from what I've seen but my computer isn't really powerful enough to run it as well as I'd like to. So, no to GNOME shell. Unity I haven't really given a go yet. If I do use Unity though it will probably be the 2D version. GNOME classic? No. I like it, but I'd rather use something that's being actively developed and improved... Like KDE, LXDE, or XFCE...

I'll probably end up going with Xubuntu in the end.

solitaire

March 26th, 2011, 05:04 AM

you can resize the dock or hide it now as if it isnt there.

I know.

Was using it for nearly 2 weeks but even after tinkering with the dock and the settings, it still felt too bulky on my screen. It may look good on a 11" or smaller screen but not for me...

Spr0k3t

March 26th, 2011, 05:08 AM

If I upgrade to Natty the first thing would be to remove Unity, if that's not possible to do cleanly, then it's back to 10.10 for me or another Distro..

Check out 11.04 with Gnome Classic interface... you will feel right at home as if you never moved from 10.10. You just have to change the setting at the login screen.

toogooda

March 26th, 2011, 06:28 AM

Interesting I feel the other way, I have a large 17" laptop wide-screen, so it was vertical space that worried me. Panel on the side is perfect. With the menu global menu I have never had so much space! I even turned off panel hide because it never got in the way.

Unity will keep getting better and better, and comes with all the compiz goodies so shell is no competition in my books!

3rdalbum

March 26th, 2011, 07:42 AM

I really like Unity now. There's still some issues with the launcher not hiding when Firefox is foregrounded, and there's still some issues with the global menus (can anyone do "Crop to selection" in GIMP? I can't!). But overall, Unity is getting very excellent. I especially like dragging and dropping files from the file manager to the launcher, and immediately seeing what programs can accept the file.

VastOne

March 26th, 2011, 08:11 AM

I already have enough phones with generic interfaces...

Gnome Classic!

VastOne

March 26th, 2011, 08:13 AM

Check out 11.04 with Gnome Classic interface... you will feel right at home as if you never moved from 10.10. You just have to change the setting at the login screen.

+ This

el_koraco

March 26th, 2011, 08:20 AM

unity

wizard10000

March 26th, 2011, 08:34 AM

KDE.

:)

edit: vBulletin's anti-shouting feature is giving me hell just trying to type KDE :(

3Miro

March 26th, 2011, 10:54 AM

Both Unity and Shell have shiny effects that I don't need. Classic Gnome is a good backup option, but I don't see the point of it being a main DE. If you don't want tp part with Gnome2, you should consider XFCE.

ikt

March 26th, 2011, 11:11 AM

unity probably.

shuttleworthwannabe

March 26th, 2011, 11:53 AM

Unity as long as it plays well with my nvidia card. I like change and this one looks like it may just work for Ubuntu

aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==

March 26th, 2011, 02:18 PM

An 80x24 terminal. I'm only upgrading my servers.

Frogs Hair

March 26th, 2011, 02:23 PM

I want to learn to use Unity , but if I can't customize it I won't use it for long .

emanuel.landeholm

March 26th, 2011, 02:31 PM

I will certainly check out Unity, but right now I'm in classic Gnome thinking about XFCE. It's been a while since I last tried XFCE.

MooPi

March 26th, 2011, 02:35 PM

Not likely. I'm an Openbox user and Unity seems to waste desktop space and feels restrictive to me. I'll set up a desktop to test and learn but most likely never use for personal use. Personally it surprises me that more folks don't use Openbox or distros don't use it by default.

Sean Moran

March 26th, 2011, 02:42 PM

Lucid and Maverick made me very sad, so I stayed on Karmic. I have faith that something as wonderful as Ubuntu can't get it wrong three times in a row, so I believe in Natty, and hope to get the alpha4 download next month, although the alpha 2 was better than alpha3 for my objectives.

If I move to Natty, and finally leave Karmic, I'll have clearlooks classic with crux window borders, and my buttons on the RHS, and my menus where I expect to see them. I can close my windows by myself, and usually run three desktops, so I don't need my computer trying to tell me where my menus have gone nor where my buttons have flown to.

Bring on the best of Natty, let me choose how my desktop is layed out, and let me do it MY WAY, and let me do it once, and not with each login.

BigCityCat

March 26th, 2011, 02:56 PM

Based on what I see right now. I will probably be using Lucid till the three years runs out. I expect by that time, one of Unity or Shell will have improved to the degree I would choose to use it. Or everyone will move to another distro(should say DE like XFCE) and will have improved it. I really like what I have with Lucid. It would take a lot for me to change what I currently have.

Probably will never use Natty. Other than testing.

BigCityCat

March 26th, 2011, 03:08 PM

Oh yeh and doing a poll was a good way to keep your thread from being moved to the stickied unity thread. 'm surprised this wasn't moved to reoccuring.

kostageas

March 26th, 2011, 03:51 PM

I won't have to worry about this issue until 12.04.1 when I finally upgrade. :popcorn:

scouser73

March 26th, 2011, 04:06 PM

Unity, looks nice and is easy to navigate around now that I have Synapse installed.

I think the overall aesthetics of it are good and it will become better over time.

Sean Moran

March 26th, 2011, 04:15 PM

What would be absolutely wonderful, would be a little toggle-switch up at the centre of the top-panel, (or as required) where the user could click to switch between work and play, intense and relaxed, hard and easy, and we could alternate from that panel toggle between intensive work where we must have the menus in the windows by the by, and times of relaxation, where we can have the menus incorporated into the panel, because we're not in a hurry. Working hard requires one type of bicycle, and taking it easy likes a more relaxed style, open to new ways. When you're working hard, the worst thing is to have to learn to use new tools.

spook1980

March 26th, 2011, 04:32 PM

going to stick with what i always use as from what i can see from my testing gnome-shell is not ready for the desktop, and unity is looking like a POS, i will stick with gnome-classic until gnome-3 is ready for the desktop or unity is fixed so it doesn't behave/look like a complete failure.

spook1980

March 26th, 2011, 04:35 PM

and from the looks of it the developers should prob look into making something else default as from the poll indicates that a thired of us will not be using that POS unity

NightwishFan

March 26th, 2011, 05:28 PM

and from the looks of it the developers should prob look into making something else default as from the poll indicates that a thired of us will not be using that POS unity

Ooooo... could you be any more antagonistic?

1. The concept of vocal minority eludes you obviously.
2. Opinion
3. It is too late to change it now and complaining about it (especially here) will certainly not help.
4. Gnome classic is available by default.
5. sudo make me a sandwich

Retlol

March 26th, 2011, 07:31 PM

Either classic or shell. I tried unity and it's not for me. Maybe on a laptop, but not on my big screen.

Maybe kde, if it's stable.

foutes

March 26th, 2011, 09:10 PM

I will stick with 10.10 on my 12.1in netbook for now.

Natty is a space hog on this small screen.

I will move to natty if I can delete Unity with no ill effects and use Gnome 3 when it's ready.

Philsoki

March 27th, 2011, 12:16 AM

5. sudo make me a sandwich
Like a boss.:)

Zero2Nine

March 27th, 2011, 12:43 AM

I will at least give unity a fair try.

Copper Bezel

March 27th, 2011, 07:06 AM

I think Unity is a real selling point of Natty. I'm not going to be using it myself, but it's the best option with default settings.

I have AWN configured to do everything Unity does, and it's a little prettier, so I'll be sticking with that.

bsussman

March 27th, 2011, 02:51 PM

Unity is simply inappropriate for a desktop - it is optimized for small screens where one is entitled to take a lot of room for simple things, just to allow for (fat) fingers, where cumbersome kb/mouse substitutes are necessary.

Unity is only the future if the project is changing from a general to a mobile market. This should have been left in the netbook package and offered in a highly visible manner, in a laptop/notebook package.

OTOH the competent among us will just take the trouble to make other, more conventional choices available - the same solution when the project made the inappropriate decision regarding gimp.

If ubuntu gets too unfriendly to conventional desktop users, we can always switch back to general packagings such as Ubuntu's mother - Debian.

Unity? No thanks. :(

bsussman

March 27th, 2011, 02:56 PM

What would be absolutely wonderful, would be a little toggle-switch up at the centre of the top-panel, (or as required) where the user could click to switch between work and play

Great idea :D

I have always thought X made a bad choice by not allowing a preservation of all child tasks with a switchout of actual window manager tasks. The need to logoff/on to achieve this is much more of a burden that it first appears!

I do not know whether the basic design of X would allow it but it is worth presenting as an option.

kansasnoob

March 27th, 2011, 03:53 PM

For now I'll be using classic w/o effects. Unity-2d has some potential, and I certainly prefer it to gnome-shell, but when it comes to just actually getting things done the classic desktop is simply faster and more intuitive IMHO.

I'm very curious what Oneiric will present for options? The gnome3 devs do NOT intend to offer the old style easily customizable panels except as a "fall-back" for hardware that won't run the gnome-shell UI.

That's certainly the case ATM in Fedora 15. On my Intel Atom box gnome-shell is the only option, but on an old VIA box it automatically falls back to the old default panels, but many applets won't work ATM.

If gnome3 is too darn difficult to customize I'll likely give either Xfce or Lxde a real run for their money. They're not as easily customized as good old Gnome but I've used both on low powered hardware, and IMO they both beat Unity or gnome-shell ATM.

Random_Dude

March 27th, 2011, 04:03 PM

I'll try Unity, if I don't like it I'll just run other window manager, but certainly not gnome.
Classic Gnome will stop being supported, so might as well get used to it, and I didn't like gnome-shell.

Of course, I'll keep Unity around (just in case) and select another window manager on the log in screen. ;)

BTW, what is the substitute for GDM in 11.04?

Cheers :cool:

msrinath80

March 27th, 2011, 05:04 PM

For now I'll be using classic w/o effects. Unity-2d has some potential, and I certainly prefer it to gnome-shell, but when it comes to just actually getting things done the classic desktop is simply faster and more intuitive IMHO.

+ 10000000000000....

If you keep changing interfaces just because you have nothing else to do (or you are simply trying to stay employed/useful by doing something familiar), ultimately you will estrange the existing user-base. What most dev folks have to realize is that you reach a peak when you balance productivity and aesthetics. Bang! You stop right there and move on to something else. Any further perturbation of this state will only cause increased misery. The 'so-called' new user is NOT an idiot. Stop treating them like one! Given enough time they will get used to the concept of a taskbar in a panel, alt-tabbing etc. For those of us set in our ways, all we want is something familiar to get the job done. Sure throw in stuff like compiz if you want, but retain the basic idea that we are all used to! I switched and honestly gave all other UIs a try. This includes using pure awn, pure docky, pure cairo, hybrid docks etc. but at the end of the day I missed my panel sooooooo much that I brought it back!

Now, I've been using GNOME since like 1998. Nothing too great. Back then, parts of it would crash lots of times. We lived with it. After like a decade of work it is now finally stable and useful. And this is the time they pick to "innovate" with "revolutionary" concepts rather than appreciate the "evolutionary" stability gained. If we (existing mature user-base) follow the trends set by the "Unity" and "Gnome Shell" folks, we have to necessarily revert to a more unproductive and unstable UI for another decade or so! Fortunately, for us we still have choice. If you loooovvveeee Unity or if you lovvvveeeeeee GNOME-shell, then good for you my man. I'm happy with my UI. So are you :-)

Attached is my current GNOME 2 desktop on Debian squeeze. Since I have enough room due to the widescreen lcd, I have chosen to retain awn on the left primarily for launchers and a notification area that can span multiple rows unlike the gnome panel which is stubborn about using only one row. The panel itself is on top, clearly showing my battery status, and most importantly featuring a fairly thick button style tasklist that I can use efficiently to switch between applications when using the mouse. The efficient GNOME 2 workspace switcher will actually let me move windows across workspaces without switching to them or zooming to full screen apriori. Compiz is disabled as it interferes with this feature. The time is also clearly shown as is the current weather. What more could I ask for :-)

Just my 0.02$

Copper Bezel

March 27th, 2011, 05:40 PM

Unity is simply inappropriate for a desktop - it is optimized for small screens where one is entitled to take a lot of room for simple things, just to allow for (fat) fingers, where cumbersome kb/mouse substitutes are necessary.

Pixels are at a higher premium on small screens than otherwise, because those screens are almost always at a lower resolution. Unity, with the taskbar set to auto-hide, does actually take up fewer pixels for a maximized window than the classic desktop does by combining the menu bar, titlebar, and panel; if no window is maximized, the vertical space is exactly the same as it would be in classic Gnome without a panel, assuming that the window has a menu bar to be displaced. However, that doesn't by itself mean that Unity is designed for small screens, and it would make no sense on a touch device without some serious tweaking.

The Dash screen certainly uses larger target areas than a menu does, but I've never heard anyone claim that Opera or another web browser was clearly designed only for netbooks or tablets because it included a Speed Dial.

I don't know what a "cumbersome keyboard/mouse substitute" is, because you seem to be referring either to a touch interface or a trackpad and, well, keyboard. I also don't know what competence has to do with the difference between a netbook and a desktop (or for that matter why people are still using mice, which are fairly cumbersome substitutes for multitouch trackpads.)

Understand that I'm not necessarily advocating Unity here, and I do find several of its features rather cumbersome, but preferences are preferences, and while Unity was initially released for the Netbook Edition, there's nothing about its design that is netbook-oriented and nothing about anyone's preference of one interface or the other that makes them more "competent."

Edit: Now, one thing that can be said about the screens Unity is designed for is that they're widescreen ones. With a 3:4 aspect ratio, two horizontal panels can make a lot of sense. Not so much with a 16:9 one. Both Unity and Gnome Shell are designed to take this into account.

Exodist

March 27th, 2011, 06:06 PM

Exodist

March 27th, 2011, 06:11 PM

azurehi

March 27th, 2011, 11:14 PM

Old Video Card using Nvidia 96 is my issue. Now works for Maverick. Canonical seems to moving away from old hardware...so many other choices besides 11.04.

galacticaboy

March 27th, 2011, 11:23 PM

Gnome Classic, I just got used to Linux and Ubuntu and Gnome dammit, I am not going to make myself all confused again!

Primefalcon

March 27th, 2011, 11:23 PM

Unity from what I have seen I honestly like, gnome shell on the other hand is..... well I don't.....

galacticaboy

March 27th, 2011, 11:29 PM

Although Shell is coming alone, I still feel regular gnome is best bet for 11.04. Unity is nothing impressive and annoying. In my personal opinion Unity is a waste of time and KDE should be adopted as Ubuntus main desktop.
reasons:
- Fast
- Stable
- Full Featured
- Easy to use
- Already successfully implemented as Kubuntu..

Really tho, if Gnome doesnt work for ubuntu anymore, why re invent the wheel?

I disagree with you on the KDE thing, KDE is ugly, not stable at all, and not to easy. I have had so many problem with KDE it is unreal. The task bar crashes all the time, it runs so slow, and things are so confusing, especially since everything starts with a damn K. lol But we all have our opinions, personally, I favor Gnome over KDE, but I am sure some like it.

kostkon

March 27th, 2011, 11:49 PM

Copper Bezel

March 27th, 2011, 11:56 PM

Well, that's a little silly. KDE is kind of accepted as the glitzier alternative to Gnome.

I mean, come on, rounded menu corners. Geez. = )

and things are so confusing, especially since everything starts with a damn K. lol

As opposed to a damn G, lolz.

I'd be rather passionately disinclined to use KDE over Gnome myself, but you don't need to exaggerate.

idef1x

March 28th, 2011, 03:10 AM

I don't know when you tried KDE for the last time, but 4.6 works like a charm on my netbook. Not more slow then Gnome. And KDE difficult?? It works a bit different then Gnome, but that's not an excuse for saying it's difficult.

I allways loved Gnome for it's simplicity (looks), but i like KDE better cause it looks better and i like to play with the widgets ;-)

Anyway when Natty is out i will just use the complete KDE again or full Gnome or if you can only choose between shell or unity i would change to another window manager, cause that's actually what we're talking about isn't it?

beew

March 28th, 2011, 03:13 AM

I don't know when you tried KDE for the last time, but 4.6 works like a charm on my netbook. Not more slow then Gnome. And KDE difficult?? It works a bit different then Gnome, but that's not an excuse for saying it's difficult.

I allways loved Gnome for it's simplicity, but i like KDE better cause it looks better and i like to play with the widgets ;-)

Anyway when Natty is out i will just use the complete KDE again or full Gnome or if you can only choose between shell or unity i would change to another window manager, cause that's actually what we're talking about isn't it?

kpackagekit sucks big time. Wireless still suck occasionally, recently I experienced the odd problem of not being able to use kwrite as root in Fedora 14. Apparently that is a kde problem.

And wt? with "desktop" in kde?? It is not even a desktop!

Warpnow

March 28th, 2011, 03:23 AM

Like alot of other people have said, I'll use XFCE like always.

idef1x

March 28th, 2011, 03:30 AM

recently I experienced the odd problem of not being able to use kwrite as root in Fedora 14. Apparently that is a kde problem.

No that's not a KDE problem. You shouldn't use the root account in the first place ;-)

beew

March 28th, 2011, 03:31 AM

No that's not a KDE problem. You shouldn't use the root account in the first place ;-)

I mean doing something like sudo gedit in Ubuntu.

Copper Bezel

March 28th, 2011, 03:34 AM

I mean doing something like sudo gedit in Ubuntu.

Fedora does handle this a bit differently, but I'd guess you've encountered that by now; rather just using sudo in a terminal, you have to start a root terminal from within the other terminal, etc. As idef1x said, it's nothing to do with KDE. It's just Fedora being paranoid.

Anyway when Natty is out i will just use the complete KDE again or full Gnome or if you can only choose between shell or unity i would change to another window manager, cause that's actually what we're talking about isn't it?

No, actually. The window managers involved are Kwin, Mutter, and Compiz, and no one is talking about any of those. = )

idef1x

March 28th, 2011, 03:40 AM

I mean doing something like sudo gedit in Ubuntu.

Don't you mean to run kate then insteas off kwrite? kwrite is the full KDE office writer (no need to say that you have to install it first, cause it's not standard installed).

sudo kate or kdesudo kate works fine for me, so still no KDE problem :-)
Maybe it's Fedora not letting you do it?

beew

March 28th, 2011, 04:05 AM

Don't you mean to run kate then insteas off kwrite? kwrite is the full KDE office writer (no need to say that you have to install it first, cause it's not standard installed).

sudo kate or kdesudo kate works fine for me, so still no KDE problem :-)
Maybe it's Fedora not letting you do it?

I use KDE in Fedora, kwrite is installed by default instead of kate. There is no kdesudo of course so you run as root with su -

kostageas

March 28th, 2011, 05:07 AM

None. I won't worry about this issue until 12.04.1 when I do a fresh install up from 10.04

toogooda

March 28th, 2011, 06:33 AM

I want to learn to use Unity , but if I can't customize it I won't use it for long .

Its built on compiz, come on! you know customization will be bundled and already is in alpha 3!

Copper Bezel

March 28th, 2011, 07:03 AM

Depends on what you want to customize. So far as I've seen, Unity allows customization of exactly all of the things that are provided by Compiz itself.

beew

March 28th, 2011, 07:08 AM

Its built on compiz, come on! you know customization will be bundled and already is in alpha 3!

Not all Compiz functions are working in Unity. Try the rotating cube (that is a pretty major one)

Version Dependency

March 28th, 2011, 07:18 AM

Not all Compiz functions are working in Unity. Try the rotating cube (that is a pretty major one)

I don't speak German but this guy seems to have a working cube in Natty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhFz-wv6Qw
:guitar:

beew

March 28th, 2011, 07:23 AM

I don't speak German but this guy seems to have a working cube in Natty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhFz-wv6Qw
:guitar:

Yeah, I have too (thanks to instruction from the forum) but it involves hacking the Unity configuration file so it is not the case that the option is bundled in.

Also the rotating cube now looks strange because the top panel and the Unity bar doesn't rotate along with the desktop. I manage to make it look more normal by making the top panel transparent.

So it is not fully functioning as it should.

cariboo

March 28th, 2011, 07:40 AM

This thread is drifting off topic, for technical issues, please post in the proper sub-forum, Natty Testing & Discussion (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=394)

Copper Bezel

March 28th, 2011, 08:27 AM

Also the rotating cube now looks strange because the top panel and the Unity bar doesn't rotate along with the desktop. I manage to make it look more normal by making the top panel transparent.

If you're using Expo instead, that behavior makes more sense visually than moving the panels with the windows, and Unity is meant to work with Expo. This is kind of the definition of "a feature, not a bug."

I CAN MEET YOUR NEED, PLEASE REVIEW MY ENTIRE LIST OF AVAILABLE GOODS AND SERVICE BELOW AND LET ME KNOW IF I CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE. I ALSO HAVE BANKLOGINS THAT WILL BE INTERESTED TO YOU

I don't want this to be a real bot, because it's hilarious if it's satire.

beew

March 28th, 2011, 08:34 AM

If you're using Expo instead, that behavior makes more sense visually than moving the panels with the windows, and Unity is meant to work with Expo. This is kind of the definition of "a feature, not a bug."

I don't want this to be a real bot, because it's hilarious if it's satire.

Yeah but you can't do both at the same time so why only offer one option? It is a loss of functionality,.

Copper Bezel

March 28th, 2011, 09:08 AM

In a technical sense of the term, yes, although it's not the kind of "functionality" that Canonical is actually concerned with. Since it would make little sense to work out the details of a feature that isn't even supported by default, this is really an argument about why the cube was eschewed in the first place, not about its implementation, and that rapidly becomes an argument on whether or not Canonical should be developing toward the ideal implementation of a single workflow (Apple-style) rather than keeping the system open to as much flexibility of features as possible in an a la carte way even if it means a loss of some functionality or smooth integration in the way those parts work together (what I'd think of as the whole Compiz project's style.) It's a dead argument, because both decisions have clearly been made.

ojdon

March 28th, 2011, 09:54 AM

I'm currently running Unity on my Viewpad 10. But I'd love to get Gnome-shell working. I tried installing it before but I'm getting missing icons/background/etc. :( Shame really, I tried Gnome-Shell on Fedora and it seems like the best possible interface for a Tablet. A very clever mix of a Desktop/Tablet and Netbook interface all in one. :)

If anyone has successfully install Gnome-Shell on Natty please give me a bell! I'd love to hear how to do it!

idef1x

March 28th, 2011, 04:44 PM

I use KDE in Fedora, kwrite is installed by default instead of kate. There is no kdesudo of course so you run as root with su -

It's still better to use sudo in my opinion, so you run something as root without becoming it..

Npl

March 28th, 2011, 04:52 PM

whatever works without compositing, that automatically means classic gnome I guess.

Exodist

March 28th, 2011, 05:04 PM

I disagree with you on the KDE thing, KDE is ugly, not stable at all, and not to easy. I have had so many problem with KDE it is unreal. The task bar crashes all the time, it runs so slow, and things are so confusing, especially since everything starts with a damn K. lol But we all have our opinions, personally, I favor Gnome over KDE, but I am sure some like it.

KDE has known to be problematic every time they release a new version. But 4.5 has been very very stable. No crashes at all on my end. But early 3 and 4.0 when they first released even I would dodge them like a bad plague. I expect since 4.6 is so stable and working good now, they will jump to 5.0 again and then its all down hill again for stability. /sigh

Gnome2 was one of the best desktop enviroments ever. It was easy to use, stable, fast and over all accepted by many users. The whole Gnome Shell fiasco is a real shot in the foot if you ask me. They totally took the Desktop Usability Guildlines and thrown them out the window. I feel Unity is a last stand to keep Ubuntu on the GTK/Gnome path. IMHO..

MasterNetra

March 28th, 2011, 05:11 PM

I'll start of using Unity if I don't become comfortable with it in a month I might drop to classic. But trying 2D version of it atm in Natty (seperate partition) sense 3D is still buggy and unstable as heck for me. Its not as simple or as straight forward as Gnome 2.x is, but I might get used to it.

gnomeuser

March 28th, 2011, 06:43 PM

I think I will end up using Unity. I quite like a number of the features primarily the global menus is a feature of which I have grown very fond.

In Unity I miss features akin to Windows 7's Aero peek to make the single workspace scale beautifully rather than force me to use workspaces against my will. I also really hate the autohiding dock and always set it to be always present, if in hiding mode it tends to cover important text or buttons (mostly here pinned tabs in Chromium are problematic). It is also extremely glitchy and tends to fail to hide itself in situations where it should. It is broken, if fixed it might work, though I think auto hiding will end up being problematic for users.

GNOME-shell is better looking in it's current incarnation than Unity and I am curious about it's lightweight workspace solution which seems to me to be able to do a similar, if less impressive and less efficient, job to webOS's fantastic card and card stacking feature.

However every time I use it I find the need to zoom out to the activities view to change window or using alt+tab (which isn't always suitable) annoying. It is slow and cumbersome, and it also leads me to forget work.

I think Unity is better suited for me and long term has better designs. I would though wish it would move away entirely from workspaces which is a complete malfeature.

neu5eeCh

March 28th, 2011, 08:19 PM

Probably Unity, as long as its as customizable as the current gnome. I strongly dislike widgets and overly intrusive, mouse dependent, and fidgety windows managers (which is why I don't like KDE). I just want, as one blogger condescendingly referred to it, an icon bucket. On my own laptop, the gnome panels are not expanded and are auto-hidden. Docky is on the left. My apps get all the real-estate, which is the way I want it. I hope Unity allows me that. Just get out of the way.

More important than Windows Managers, in my view, is the move to Wayland. Compared to that, the move to Unity is petty. Wayland is what will make or break Ubuntu's future, not the WM. When videos play smoothly, when the speed of image manipulation is equal to an Apple, when Firefox4 can provide (of all things) hardware acceleration in Linux, then we'll be talking. The X Windows system desperately needs to be dumped.

idef1x

March 29th, 2011, 03:08 AM

I expect since 4.6 is so stable and working good now, they will jump to 5.0 again and then its all down hill again for stability. /sigh

I taste a bit of negitive sense here...first wait and see if the learn from their mistakes and if not....changing window manager is not such a big deal on Linux :-)
For the moment I'm happy with KDE 4.6 on my netbook...

IWantFroyo

March 29th, 2011, 03:13 AM

msrinath80

March 29th, 2011, 04:13 PM

I don't understand any of the Unity hatred going around. For me, it is a nice, clean, and responsive GUI that I'm looking forward to using. I understand some people won't like it, but no use being derogatory. You still have Gnome right in front of you at boot.

It's more of expressing your democratic opinion than hatred. Look up at the numbers in the poll at this very thread. What do you see?

NightwishFan

March 29th, 2011, 04:19 PM

It's more of expressing your democratic opinion than hatred. Look up at the numbers in the poll at this very thread. What do you see?

The opinions of the vocal minority.

neu5eeCh

March 29th, 2011, 04:54 PM

Quick question: Are there other Distros interested in Unity?

I heard that Fedora had interested but backed away for one reason or another.

DoubleClicker

March 29th, 2011, 06:23 PM

Personally I'm quite happy with the way I have my current desktop, and don't see any advantage to with either Gnome Shell or Unity.

Interfaces that bounce in and out have always driven me crazy, thats why, when Apple introduced Exposé, the first thing i did was to disable it.

One thing I really hate about unity is that Launchbar is pinned to the left side, when I prefer to have it on the right side.

My hope is that ubuntu will continue, to support Indicator Appmenu for gnome panel. thats the one piece of the unity interface, that I do use.

Quick question: Are there other Distros interested in Unity?

I heard that Fedora had interested but backed away for one reason or another.

I don't know of any other major distros, that will be using it as the default interface, but Debian, Arch and Gentoo are all in the process of packaging it for their repositories, it just might take them a little longer.

mrd030485

March 29th, 2011, 06:27 PM

I agree unity is awful and nearly impossible to use. Tried it out the other day and it is not intuitive at all.

3Miro

March 29th, 2011, 06:37 PM

I don't know of any other major distros that will be using it as the default interface, but Debian, Arch and Gentoo are all in the process of packaging it for their repositories, it just might take them a little longer.

Unity is a Dock + Menu for Compiz, thus every distribution that already has compiz in their repos would probably provide Unity as well.

Debian and Fedora are currently using the light Metacity, so I don't know what they will do with the two options (Gnome-shell and Compiz-Unity) being heavier and requiring hardware acceleration.

Arch and Gentoo don't have a "default" DE setup so there is nothing more to do than to add Unity to the repos.

tdrusk

March 29th, 2011, 08:28 PM

I am currently running Debian stable with Gnome 2.30.2 and LOVING it. My hardware supports it and it does everything I need.

With that being said, I will most likely use whatever Debian chooses will go in the desktop package(if anyone knows please tell). If I dislike it I will change it, but I have to say that Debian's selection of packages is superb and I agree with a majority of them.

NightwishFan

March 29th, 2011, 09:27 PM

I am currently running Debian stable with Gnome 2.30.2 and LOVING it. My hardware supports it and it does everything I need.

Same here. :) Though if Debian packages Unity I probably will use it.

beew

March 29th, 2011, 09:36 PM

The opinions of the vocal minority.

True. But if the majority is silent how do you know their opinions or that they even have any?

PRC09

March 29th, 2011, 10:31 PM

At the risk of creating an argument,what is the thing about Unity that makes it such a supposed change to the desktop other than the appearance.By the look of the following link,the only thing I can see that looks any different is that the Apple dock is customizable......I have never used a Mac but they sure look very similar.....

http://www.apple.com/findouthow/mac/#positiondock

msrinath80

March 29th, 2011, 10:58 PM

True. But if the majority is silent how do you know their opinions or that they even have any?

Good point. While it is clear from this poll that the majority (who voted) aren't quite happy with the proposed state of the UI, given the total number of responses to this poll, it is plausible that either most have made their peace with whatever has been inflicted on them, OR have possibly jumped ship to another DE/distro?

NCLI

March 30th, 2011, 01:39 AM

Good point. While it is clear from this poll that the majority (who voted) aren't quite happy with the proposed state of the UI, given the total number of responses to this poll, it is plausible that either most have made their peace with whatever has been inflicted on them, OR have possibly jumped ship to another DE/distro?

Sure doesn't look like it:
http://i.imgur.com/kz1nG.png

JDShu

March 30th, 2011, 01:59 AM

It doesn't really make sense to use Shell on Ubuntu. The whole point of Ubuntu is that everything works together nicely without needing to hack around at things. If I wanted to mess around, I'd use Arch. If I wanted to use Shell, I'd use Fedora.

Legendary_Bibo

March 30th, 2011, 02:16 AM

If I do find it worth it to upgrade to Natty then I'll use Gnome Classic with Compiz. Gotta have my wobbly windows. Gnome shell looks cool, but the way I set up things is faster, and unity is just another dock. I don't like global menus either.

cariboo

March 30th, 2011, 04:19 AM

Wobbly windows still work in Unity. :), remember that gnome-shell uses mutter, so you can't use compiz.

Legendary_Bibo

March 30th, 2011, 04:51 AM

Wobbly windows still work in Unity. :), remember that gnome-shell uses mutter, so you can't use compiz.

Ah, I see. Well then I'll give Unity a go then.

ctrlmd

March 30th, 2011, 04:57 AM

between unity x shell = unity
between unity x gnome classic = gnome classic

Johnsie

March 30th, 2011, 11:13 AM

It's called 'Unity' and yet it has effectively split the Ubuntu community in half.

scouser73

March 30th, 2011, 12:51 PM

It's called 'Unity' and yet it has effectively split the Ubuntu community in half.

There will always be changes to Ubuntu that people will & won't like, the fact that there is a choice for the end user is paramount. Unity, Ubuntu Classic Desktop, Gnome 2 or Gnome Shell or any other iteration which can be used. I wouldn't say it's split the community in half, but I would say it's a talking point, albeit a minor one at that.

azurehi

March 30th, 2011, 05:12 PM

There will always be changes to Ubuntu that people will & won't like, the fact that there is a choice for the end user is paramount. Unity, Ubuntu Classic Desktop, Gnome 2 or Gnome Shell or any other iteration which can be used. I wouldn't say it's split the community in half, but I would say it's a talking point, albeit a minor one at that.
"minor"?, really now. Just Why is Shuttleworth pushing Unity so hard?

gnomeuser

March 30th, 2011, 05:19 PM

Wobbly windows still work in Unity. :), remember that gnome-shell uses mutter, so you can't use compiz.

That is actually a killer feature for me. I really love the physical feel windows get when wobbling is enabled. It makes my desktop feel more real and more fun.

beetleman64

March 30th, 2011, 06:05 PM

Nothing's perfect, but Unity is (just) a step forwards enough to use it. I suspect that with Fedora being tied so closely to Gnome, they'll use Gnome Shell, and SuSE will do the same, as their focus is more on KDE. I can see how Ubuntu would feel a little vulnerable if they don't want to use Gnome 3, so it's perhaps unsurprising that they want to go on their own.

cariboo

March 30th, 2011, 07:37 PM

Most of this development cycles effort was placed on Unity, Gnome 3 will be part of the Oneiric Ocelot. As Ubuntu is still, and will always be a gnome based distribution.

nrundy

March 30th, 2011, 08:49 PM

here's a short guide on using Gnome-shell. Some of the features described sound great to me: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/CheatSheet

A gripe I have about Unity is how I'm forced to display two panels (top panel & launcher). Even with gnome 2x I only use one panel. With Unity I HAVE to have two showing on the desktop :( Too much real estate is taken up. If I could move the Launcher to the right side, this might put it out of the way enough for me. But that's not an option. Anyways, if anyone knows of a guide to unity, please post the link!

nrundy

March 30th, 2011, 09:20 PM

more important than windows managers, in my view, is the move to wayland. Compared to that, the move to unity is petty. Wayland is what will make or break ubuntu's future, not the wm. When videos play smoothly, when the speed of image manipulation is equal to an apple, when firefox4 can provide (of all things) hardware acceleration in linux, then we'll be talking. The x windows system desperately needs to be dumped.

+1

one thing i really hate about unity is that launchbar is pinned to the left side, when i prefer to have it on the right side.

+1 If forced to have a second panel, Iwant it out of the way. left side puts it front and center.

We'll be able to install gnome-Shell on Natty without issue right?

Simian Man

March 30th, 2011, 09:34 PM

When videos play smoothly, when the speed of image manipulation is equal to an Apple, when Firefox4 can provide (of all things) hardware acceleration in Linux, then we'll be talking. The X Windows system desperately needs to be dumped.
I have all of those things working on my machine, they have more to do with the quality of your drivers than any problems with X. Hating on X is popular for some reason, but abandoning it, and abandoning all of the work put in to get drivers the way they are now would be a horrible waste. I assure you that video on Linux has come a long way in the past ten years.

There will always be changes to Ubuntu that people will & won't like, the fact that there is a choice for the end user is paramount.

You didn't pick up that he was pointing out the irony in the name "Unity" :).

gnomeuser

March 30th, 2011, 09:53 PM

Most of this development cycles effort was placed on Unity, Gnome 3 will be part of the Oneiric Ocelot. As Ubuntu is still, and will always be a gnome based distribution.

With the global menus, notification and application indicators providing a GNOME3 experience is going to be really difficult. I tried the GNOME3 PPA and it really doesn't feel anything like e.g. the GNOME3 liveUSB distribution based on openSUSE.

Pulling off doing both Unity and GNOME-shell while allowing both their full native glory sounds like a hard challenge to me.

The again I have been surprised before, Ocelot should be fun.

cariboo

March 30th, 2011, 10:11 PM

With the global menus, notification and application indicators providing a GNOME3 experience is going to be really difficult. I tried the GNOME3 PPA and it really doesn't feel anything like e.g. the GNOME3 liveUSB distribution based on openSUSE.

Pulling off doing both Unity and GNOME-shell while allowing both their full native glory sounds like a hard challenge to me.

The again I have been surprised before, Ocelot should be fun.

I admit, I'll be surprised if they pull it off too. I can see gnome-shell needing to be a completely different session, without any of the Ubuntu enhancements.

NCLI

March 30th, 2011, 10:45 PM

"minor"?, really now. Just Why is Shuttleworth pushing Unity so hard?
Because he believes, and I agree, that Unity is a great UI.

azurehi

March 31st, 2011, 12:24 AM

Because he believes, and I agree, that Unity is a great UI.

RC1 on 3/31. I cannot use Unity because Compiz is required (I guess)...will I be able to then select Ubuntu Classic? Nvidia 96 finally got "fixed" in 10.10.

Lucradia

March 31st, 2011, 02:32 AM

Other: Xubuntu / XFCE or OpenBox.

Copper Bezel

March 31st, 2011, 06:22 AM

I admit, I'll be surprised if they pull it off too. I can see gnome-shell needing to be a completely different session, without any of the Ubuntu enhancements.

Once Unity moves to the Gnome 3 base, they're just going to be two alternative shells. You couldn't somehow run them both at once, and Shell almost certainly won't be installed by default.

Gnome 3.0 != Gnome Shell, and Unity running on Gnome 3 isn't going to look appreciably different from Unity on Gnome 2 (except for the independent changes Canonical makes to the Unity UI and 3.0's rearrangement of Gnome's own features, settings, and applications.)

gnomeuser

March 31st, 2011, 07:39 AM

Once Unity moves to the Gnome 3 base, they're just going to be two alternative shells. You couldn't somehow run them both at once, and Shell almost certainly won't be installed by default.

Except you'd still on Ubuntu have a notification implementation with widely differing goals. Application Indicators work in a different way than the GNOME-shell tray.

Moving to a GNOME 3 Platform base for Unity would not change that.

roddie

March 31st, 2011, 09:21 AM

I'll try both the finished incarnations of GNOME-Shell and Unity before deciding whether to move away from GNOME 2.

It's a shame that GS is incompatible with Compiz as some of the features seen as eye candy are actually very useful.

As someone mentioned already, the Unity shell is too Mac-like in its default form and I personally don't like buttons on the left, launchers or a global menu; it does seem to have some very slick other features though.

Rasa1111

March 31st, 2011, 09:27 AM

Gnome classic.
No Unity.
No global menus.

Lucradia

March 31st, 2011, 10:39 AM

Gnome classic.
No Unity.
No global menus.

If I recall, gnome-panel will not be installed by default in GNOME 3.0 and newer. Not sure what effect that will have on the gnome and gnome-core metapackages in ubuntu.

neu5eeCh

March 31st, 2011, 01:27 PM

A gripe I have about Unity is how I'm forced to display two panels (top panel & launcher).

If that's true; if Unity forces me to use their panel and launcher, then I definitely will not be using Unity. Period. But that's hard for me to believe. Is it true? That would make Windows 7 more configurable.

If true, then I'm looking at Gnome, LXDE or XFCE.

gnomeuser

March 31st, 2011, 03:35 PM

I decided to give GNOME3 a proper trial. I installed the GNOME3 LiveUSB distribution (openSUSE 11.4 based) and so far I quite like it.

rg4w

March 31st, 2011, 03:39 PM

Gnome 3.0 != Gnome Shell
Now I'm ultra-confused, as I (and apparently more than a few bloggers) thought they were different names for the same thing.

So Gnome is now forking their own project, maintaining two different code bases?

NightwishFan

March 31st, 2011, 03:41 PM

How hard is it to understand that the Gnome Shell is just a part of Gnome 3. ;)

Copper Bezel

March 31st, 2011, 04:15 PM

Seriously. No one ever confused Gnome with the Gnome Panel.

Except you'd still on Ubuntu have a notification implementation with widely differing goals. Application Indicators work in a different way than the GNOME-shell tray.

And Ubuntu's notification area isn't going to change regardless of what Gnome does, because Canonical is fairly attached to it.

If that's true; if Unity forces me to use their panel and launcher, then I definitely will not be using Unity. Period. But that's hard for me to believe. Is it true? That would make Windows 7 more configurable.

Windows 7 doesn't make it any easier to replace the shell, and it certainly doesn't offer alternatives in the repos. = P The Superbar can be set to auto-hide and the skin and icon theme can be changed. Unity allows the icon size to be changed and 7 allows the Superbar to be moved to different screen edges. It's exactly the same amount of customizability if you choose to use the Unity shell.

neu5eeCh

March 31st, 2011, 04:26 PM

It's exactly the same amount of customizability if you choose to use the Unity shell.

Wow. That's not a ringing endorsement.

Sounds like it's much less configurable than Gnome 2.x or possibly Shell.

I've tried downloading and running Natty in VB, but the install always reverts to Gnome 2.x rather than Unity - even with 3D enabled. Can one remove the icon bar, move the panel or remove it as in gnome?

beew

March 31st, 2011, 04:31 PM

Can one remove the icon bar, move the panel or remove it as in gnome?

No.

cariboo907 said he heard rumors that the Unity bar would be movable in 11.10 but I read that it is unmovable by design according to SABDFL
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/12/ubuntu-unity-launcher-wont-be-moveable/ (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/12/ubuntu-unity-launcher-wont-be-moveable/)
Maybe he has changed his mind? He has done that before, he said the icon size on the unity bar was fixed by design as well, but when a hack to change icon size came up he gave the go ahead to incorporate it in the Unity package. (I wish Cariboo is correct, serious)

The top panel is fixed even if you disable the Unity plugin (in the Unity desktop, not the classic mode) if you do that a ugly black space would be left where the top panel used to be.

neu5eeCh

March 31st, 2011, 05:42 PM

No.

cariboo907 said he heard rumors that the Unity bar would be movable in 11.10 but I read that it is unmovable by design according to SABDFL
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/12/ubuntu-unity-launcher-wont-be-moveable/ (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/12/ubuntu-unity-launcher-wont-be-moveable/)
Maybe he has changed his mind? He has done that before, he said the icon size on the unity bar was fixed by design as well, but when a hack to change icon size came up he gave the go ahead to incorporate it in the Unity package. (I wish Cariboo is correct, serious)

The top panel is fixed even if you disable the Unity plugin (in the Unity desktop, not the classic mode) if you do that a ugly black space would be left where the top panel used to be.

Then contrary to Copper Bezel's claim, Unity is, for the time being, *less* configurable than Windows 7.

That decides it. Basta. I'll be sticking with Gnome. I just want to be able to maximize my desktop and configure it. I can imagine Shuttleworth's rationale and wish him the best of luck with a standardized Ubuntu desktop. It's a good thing. New users will appreciate it, vendors will appreciate it, etc... but I doubt more experienced users will like having their desktop dictated to them (at least *I* don't).

Not to sound like a broken record, but Wayland is where I'm really pinning my hopes.

beew

March 31st, 2011, 05:55 PM

Not to sound like a broken record, but Wayland is where I'm really pinning my hopes.

Actually Wayland is what really worries me (agree with you that Unity seems trivial by comparison) If they do it right it will be great, but if they rush to make it the default without the proper software and hardware backup and vendor supports it would pretty much break your graphic cards and renders many software unusable (especially media players, visualization softwares etc).

I hope they won't rush to unveil a half baked product with a lot of fanfare (like with Unity) and force it on users who need to actually use their computers,--as oppose to compulsive upgraders and people who just use the computers for beta testing,-- until it is ready and offer the option to swap out Wayland for X when Wayland becomes Ubuntu default. Unlike the gnome panel X will still be the mainstream for a long time to come. It worries me when I read people writing stuffs like Nouveau is almost there so we can tell Nvidia to f-off etc. These people obviously don't ccare about actually getting the best (or even just acceptible) performance from hardware they pay for. Fortunately Mark S's response seem to be more sane, at least on paper.

kio_http

March 31st, 2011, 05:56 PM

Kde!

neu5eeCh

March 31st, 2011, 06:32 PM

Kde!

KDE is wasted on me. I don't want to see the WM. I just want to see my apps. And I want them to have as much of the screen as I can possibly manage (laptop).

If I had a desktop monitor with acres and acres of on screen real-estate and a rip-snorting CPU, I might cotton to KDE.

Simian Man

March 31st, 2011, 06:45 PM

KDE is wasted on me. I don't want to see the WM. I just want to see my apps. And I want them to have as much of the screen as I can possibly manage (laptop).

If I had a desktop monitor with acres and acres of on screen real-estate and a rip-snorting CPU, I might cotton to KDE.

How does KDE waste space compared with the other major desktops? Kwin actually gives you the option of removing windows borders and grouping windows together along with an Aero Snap effect which utilizes space really well. I use it on a laptop too and find it better than Gnome, if anything.

NightwishFan

March 31st, 2011, 06:51 PM

How does KDE waste space compared with the other major desktops? Kwin actually gives you the option of removing windows borders and grouping windows together along with an Aero Snap effect which utilizes space really well. I use it on a laptop too and find it better than Gnome, if anything.

Again, I agree. I recently found out a simple option to set up KDE for "low mem low end cpu" in the Control Centre, and it actually runs as snappy as Gnome even in a virtual machine now. On 32-bit Debian 6, KDE4 uses only 150mb of RAM at boot.

I would use it, except the vast majority of software I use would be GTK any way (evince, gedit, midori, thunar/nautilus) I know they run just fine under KDE though if I find an easy way to replace Dolphin with Thunar I have no reason not to use KDE other than I like gnome/xfce a bit better.

Copper Bezel

March 31st, 2011, 06:56 PM

Then contrary to Copper Bezel's claim, Unity is, for the time being, *less* configurable than Windows 7.

Effectively, yes. There are exactly the same number of degrees of freedom, but some of them are less useful. The only perk is that you don't have to use it.

The top panel is fixed even if you disable the Unity plugin (in the Unity desktop, not the classic mode) if you do that a ugly black space would be left where the top panel used to be.

It's going to take very little effort for someone to find a hack for that, and I'm going to make it a project for myself when I move up to Natty if no one else posts a tutorial by then.

neu5eeCh

March 31st, 2011, 07:01 PM

It's going to take very little effort for someone to find a hack for that, and I'm going to make it a project for myself when I move up to Natty if no one else posts a tutorial by then.

Glad to hear it. And that's the beauty of open source. O:)

FreeTheBee

March 31st, 2011, 09:04 PM

Although I am not looking forward to Unity I will give it a chance when Natty is released.
For now I can only base my opinion on screen shots and youtube, but to me Gnome Shell and Unity seem very similar. Both look very obtrusive, with large menus, large icons and very mouse oriented. While, I prefer a simple clean interface and am using the mouse less and less (call it a Vim virus :)). I assume Gnome development will mainly focus on the shell, so in the long run I doubt classic Gnome will be a real option. It seems to me, I will have to start looking more into alternatives.
I have been playing with Awesome WM on Arch linux for a while now on a second laptop. Perhaps I will end up going more in that direction. Although, I do think I will always keep something like xfce, or gnome around.

nrundy

March 31st, 2011, 09:12 PM

actually, from what I'm reading, it sounds like both desktops are incorporating keyboard shortcuts into the design. Gnome-shell has a whole sub-menu designed to access keyboard functions in sections of the desktop (ctrl + Alt + Tab). And Unity has neat shortcuts as well: http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/unity-keyboard-mouse-shortcuts

beew

March 31st, 2011, 10:08 PM

I am not crazy about Unity but I would use it instead of the classic desktop in Natty if for no reason than to make requests and follow its development so hopefully something better will emerge by 11.10. Unless someone comes up with a fork the gnome 2 setup will be phased out, probably there wouldn't even be a classic desktop option by 11.10, so may as well have some input and try to get some options and features I want to be implemented in Unity

My main machine is still going to be Maverick. No reason to upgrade really, everything is working 10-10 perfect and I am enjoying everything it has to offer immensly. :) It is going to stay probably til 12.04. I will, however, upgrade my Lucid install in an older machine to Natty around June when the inevitable Natty bugs have been fixed. In the mean time I keep Natty on a external drive for testing only.

neu5eeCh

April 1st, 2011, 07:14 PM

Finally. Finally. Finally. Got to try out Unity in Virtualbox. In fact, Unity *does* allow one to autohide the panel and it seems, for the most part, just as customizable as the Gnome panel (which is essentially what it appears to be). Given that, I personally am back on board with Unity. I like it. I'll use it.

Edit: There was no launcher (as I always see in screenshots). Where does one find the launcher?

neu5eeCh

April 1st, 2011, 07:20 PM

Simian Man

April 1st, 2011, 10:41 PM

Right, but KDE doesn't offer me anything that Gnome doesn't (for my needs), and Gnome requires fewer mouse clicks to get things done.

That's just my experience. I would love to see how you've set up KDE your laptop, though, I'm always ready to be persuaded.

It's a pretty basic KDE setup. I've just made the panel a bit smaller, replaced the normal taskbar with smooth tasks (which uses icons instead of full titles for open programs) and set the panel to autohide.

I also find KDE has some features that reduce mouse clicks such as Krunner - which is closer to Gnome Do than the Gnome Alt-F2 thingy, the desktop folder widget, and the menu which has favorites and is searchable - unlike the Gnome menu.

This is just my experience though :).

nrundy

April 2nd, 2011, 01:14 PM

man, I cannot stand having that Launcher on the left side in Unity. And using the Hide/Dodge feature drives me nuts. I like most everything else about Unity though. I dislike having the Launcher on the left so much though it's unlikely I'll be able to use Unity. Hopefully the option to put it on the right will come in time.

Have to figure out what Desktop I'm going to use in the meantime. I guess gnome-shell.

Copper Bezel

April 2nd, 2011, 01:24 PM

To a certain extent, I do understand why it's locked down over there. I had a conversation with someone recently (actually a devoted Windows user) who pointed out that the taskbar is the only navigation sidebar ever that isn't on the left edge of the content area.

nrundy

April 2nd, 2011, 03:00 PM

the problem is that I primarily interact with applications when I'm working on a computer. The OS facilitates this interaction but I'm staring at the application, not the OS, when I'm working. Having the Launcher on the left forces me to interact with the OS before the application because my western-culture interacts left-to-right when reading etc.

Plus the thing I like about Windows is there is only one OS control bar. With Gnome-2 I could use only 1 panel. Now with Unity I am forced to use 2 panels (launcher and top panel). There's just too much OS and there is not even an option to tone the OS presence down. This design literally forces applications to the side.

One of the things I am looking for in modern applications is judicious use of space (much like Firefox 4's (in Windows) and Chrome's putting tabs over the titlebar). Unity was supposed to be designed with this as a primary principle. But much like Firefox 4 can't put tabs over the titlebar in Linux, Unity has failed to yield more real estate. In fact, compared to windows, it yields less.

As for not giving users an option to tone down the OS presence, there probably is a good reason (code wise) for not offering it. But it doesn't change the fact that Unity failed in its mission in its current implementation.

Copper Bezel

April 2nd, 2011, 03:30 PM

As you said, it just depends on how you interact with applications and which ones you're using and so on. Most people really do want task-switching and launching to be immediately accessible, and as you say, reading left to right, the leftmost column makes the most sense for task management for that reason. If you're used to having a visible panel and you're using an application with a menu bar, Unity saves a lot of vertical space by putting the menu bar and title bar inside that panel. After finding AWN's Transparency mode, any other auto-hide seems like a regression to me, but the Unity Launcher's Dodge Active Window mode is still a huge step up from the Gnome Panel's terribly sluggish and unpredictable Autohide mode.

Unity's really trying to do two very different things at once, though - it's providing some rather advanced features but keeping them simple enough for any user. Where those objectives conflict, simplicity is going to be preferred. It's also designed to work stock and solve problems for applications that are themselves stock, so it's going to be less useful for someone used to a hidden menu bar and window decorations in Firefox than for someone who is using Firefox for the first time.

Edit: I don't think the reasons behind the shell's "presence" have to do with the code.

nrundy

April 2nd, 2011, 03:43 PM

Why not just provide users the option to put the Launcher on the right side then? What would be the reason to not provide this just as an option?

Copper Bezel

April 2nd, 2011, 03:54 PM

That bit I don't fully get. I know it's on mandate from Shuttleworth himself, and I think it has to do with his secretly being Steve Jobs.

Niedzwiedz

April 2nd, 2011, 04:10 PM

I am undecided at this point. To make an honest opinion as to For/Against it will take some time.

When my woman comes home with a new hair style or color, I am thinking to myself, OMG!!! WHAT!! Have you done!!! Arrgggg!
Then I come down to Earth and say; "Well, it is a drastic change, so, give me a little time to get used to it, but, it is interesting!"

Unity is a drastic hair change to myself! It is different, much different.
When the Beta 1 released it was time to install and do a true evaluation of all things considered. So, only had a Day+ to think more down the earth.
I am used to opening Places and then a window that stays open to click and close what in there, not to open one thing to have it close and have to open again to do the next whatever? Then I minimize Firefox and it not where it used to go. These are just minor learning inconveniences.

I looked on a positive side. My Dell D-610 has LCD damage along the bottom of the screen that normally hides anything that is there. I bought it this way used so people understand I take better care of my equipment. So, I thinking unity can be good for this Laptop. Everything is up and out of the "Dead-Zone". This a Dual Boot with my Windows XP for work purposes.

Today I will install 11.04 on an old Emachines with the Socket 478 and give this a closer look as a stand alone have to work OS! Maybe it not a bad new "HairDo"?

t.rei

April 2nd, 2011, 04:12 PM

...Unity has failed to yield more real estate. In fact, compared to windows, it yields less.

And that is why I have the unity launcher set to autohide and use docky with setting to "dodge active windows". So I get the nice few more pixels when maximizing windows that the unity "panel" gives you, and the functionality of a proper dock. The unity launcher just causes way too much mouse-movement and clickedy to feel smooth when working. (unhide by going to the TOP corner, then going down to whatever launcher you want).

Oh and I also replaced alt+f2 with synapse - at least that launcher is fast enough for my command typing.

There is still a lot to be done if unity is supposed to be used on a DESKTOP and not just touchscreen notebooks. ;)

rg4w

April 2nd, 2011, 04:17 PM

Why not just provide users the option to put the Launcher on the right side then? What would be the reason to not provide this just as an option?
That's not in B1? I had heard that it was a planned option.

I don't know myself, because apparently the beta's quite popular: whenever I try to access it it takes more than a minute for the page to load and then when I start the download it says it'll take more than six hours to complete. No mirrors?

nrundy

April 2nd, 2011, 05:38 PM

I'm faced with the problem when using gnome-shell where for example I have a couple applications open (say Firefox and Nautilus) and I open GIMP with its three small windows and they overlay the other windows and it's confusing trying to spot the gimp windows from every other window. But there is no way to minimize windows (that I can find) in gnome-shell. I need a way to minimize all windows except the active window (GIMP). Boy this is totally unintuitive and such a fundamental requirement for Desktop use. How the heck is this thing less than a week away from release and the user can't minimize windows!!!

Current gnome-shell does not have window buttons to maximize or minimize windows. And with no dock/launcher no way to hide windows. What a mess.

rcayea

April 2nd, 2011, 05:44 PM

I have always used Ubuntu as my main Linux OS and I personally will not use Unity. It is too gimmicky for me, right now - based on beta release testing. Anyway, Gnome Shell looks way better and for my money will probably always use that. The basic design is better imho.

tjeremiah

April 2nd, 2011, 05:57 PM

samwin

April 2nd, 2011, 05:58 PM

The unity launcher just causes way too much mouse-movement and clickedy to feel smooth when working. (unhide by going to the TOP corner, then going down to whatever launcher you want).

hi t.rei.

i want to make sure i understand correctly. when you set the launcher to auto hide, what makes it appear again? You move the mouse to the upper left corner (like in gnome shell)?

I never set the gnome 2 panel to auto hide because every time my mouse accidentally touched the border it would appear and i wasn't intending for it to appear. it caused me aggravation. Will the unity launcher appear if my mouse touches the left side border? or is it only if it goes to the left upper corner or hit the super key?

cariboo

April 2nd, 2011, 06:38 PM

The Launcher only appears if you move your mouse to the upper left corner, to the left of the Home button.

rcayea

April 2nd, 2011, 07:10 PM

:confused: Gnome Shell is more gimmicky, more things to do to get things done than in Unity

Well, I'm not here to argue so I will say, I guess that is the beauty of living in a free world. We can choose based on what we like.

tjeremiah

April 2nd, 2011, 07:23 PM

Well, I'm not here to argue so I will say, I guess that is the beauty of living in a free world. We can choose based on what we like.

yeah, I myself dont want to argue :P . I just fount that when using Gnome Shell, it was a heck of a lot of things to do to get things done than in Unity. Gnome Shell does however have a "cool" UI.

Copper Bezel

April 2nd, 2011, 07:23 PM

The Launcher only appears if you move your mouse to the upper left corner, to the left of the Home button.

And see, that's a dealbreaker for me, because that's my Scale corner. (But I also just found out about Compiz standalone, so this is no longer my issue at all.)

wgarider

April 2nd, 2011, 08:18 PM

I was all set to install XFCE or Gnome but Unity isn't as bad as I was thinking........

mmix

April 3rd, 2011, 12:24 AM

had tried unity on ubuntu 11.04, not bad, but my curiosity,
i am using gnome3 on fedora 15, not bad, actually, much better to my taste.

RJ12

April 3rd, 2011, 01:42 AM

Well, I haven't tried the latest GNOME shell for a while so right now I am leaning towards Unity (I am really liking it!). But when GNOME Shell comes out in a few days I will be trying it out too :)

smellyman

April 3rd, 2011, 01:49 AM

I did a full install of 11.04 on my laptop yesterday. Must say I was more impressed than I thought I would be.

I think it works quite well on a laptop because it is so keyboard shortcut friendly. I don't like touching the trackpad if I don't have to.

Now on a desktop, I don't know yet. I like to customize the DE too much.

BrokenKingpin

April 3rd, 2011, 02:14 AM

Xfce

defishguy

April 3rd, 2011, 02:53 AM

Unity hasn't been the most productive environment for me. I enjoyed a few of the Compiz plugins but generally I didn't customize much. Visually Unity is as ugly as anything I have ever seen. There doesn't seem to be anything that is remotely consistent in the interface. We have an AWN dock that might or might not be there depending on where a window opens, we have a global menu that's always there, unless it isn't. We have to search for an application by name instead of visually unless it's visual in the dock after we add it. Installing the dropbox client couldn't be done in the software installer. Google Chrome can't be "clicked to install" either in Beta 1. I mean no offense but the gui looks like it's been cobbled together.

gr34t3st

April 3rd, 2011, 03:00 AM

After running 11.04 and Unity for a couple of weeks now, I've fallen in love with Unity. If some new features and lenses are added, it will become even better. I will always have a soft spot for the shell, though.

tatojo

April 3rd, 2011, 06:48 AM

Configurability! was a powerful reason to get into Linux. It is very annoying to get Remix or Unity to behave at will. People in Ubuntu (in Linux) is right in seeking for a wider audience to use GNU/Linux systems, but, please, don't forget all we, people who likes to be in control. Are you trying to swap us back to the command line?

QIII

April 6th, 2011, 06:58 PM

angry_johnnie

April 6th, 2011, 07:02 PM

probably gnome-shell. i´m not too much into docks. classic gnome is nearly perfect as it is, but gnome-shell seems ok, for a change.

msrinath80

April 6th, 2011, 07:45 PM

At the risk of offense:

If you like a childish, hand-holding interface at the lowest common user denominator and want to have a netbook look on your desktop because your 24" wide-screen monitor has no more real estate than your netbook, go with Unity and avoid hard things like real customization and personalization.

Shiny, 3D baubles are like chrome on a Harley. As we say, "Chrome don't get you home." A "slick" interface a la Windows or Mac doesn't do much by way of improving the overall performance of an OS. You can wax your Corsair as much as you want, but it's still a Corsair. That has been one of my complaints with Microsoft. Shiny new interfaces to wow the crowd.

Sorry. Haven't been around on the forum much. Too busy going back to Debian because this whole deal kind of torques me off.

Couldn't agree with you more. This shell business, trying to maximize vertical pixels using global menus (F11 key anybody?), un-configurable docks, and 3D effects etc. is no use to me as well. There will never be a universal one-size-fits-all approach to anything in this world. Trying to force the netbook concept onto laptops and desktops makes absolutely no sense.

barthus

April 6th, 2011, 11:01 PM

Well, I just wait a couple of months and try out the shell or unity in a virtual-box environment, when I have some time.
My system needs to work, and with Ubuntu 10.10 I can do my job quite well. May be I wait until Ubuntu 11.10 (?) ...

cariboo

April 6th, 2011, 11:21 PM

Couldn't agree with you more. This shell business, trying to maximize vertical pixels using global menus (F11 key anybody?), un-configurable docks, and 3D effects etc. is no use to me as well. There will never be a universal one-size-fits-all approach to anything in this world. Trying to force the netbook concept onto laptops and desktops makes absolutely no sense.

I totally agree with the part I bolded. Ubuntu isn't a one size fits all, unless you want to use the defaults that are provided on the Live Cd.

Johnsie

April 6th, 2011, 11:38 PM

The Windows 7 startbar is alot better than Unity. IMO Gnome2 has the best panels of any operating system and wont be beaten by anything shiny. From the figures I can see that there is alot of people who think pushing unity is a bad idea. It simply isn't ready to be used in the production environment. I know people have put alot of work into Unity, but please wait until it is ready before making it default.

azurehi

April 6th, 2011, 11:50 PM

If I install Natty Beta 1 on my main computer, along with XP, will I be able to update to Natty final if I keep updating the Beta?

cariboo

April 7th, 2011, 12:50 AM

If I install Natty Beta 1 on my main computer, along with XP, will I be able to update to Natty final if I keep updating the Beta?

This is the second time I've seen this question from you, yes keep updating, and you will have the equivalent to the final release on the 28th.

azurehi

April 7th, 2011, 01:22 AM

This is the second time I've seen this question from you, yes keep updating, and you will have the equivalent to the final release on the 28th.
I don't recall posting it here before, sorry:confused:

Thanks for the info though.

irrdev

April 7th, 2011, 01:43 AM

I'll be using Unity on my laptop and KDE (Kubuntu) on my desktop. I particularly would like to use Unity-QT. The GTK+ toolkit hasn't truly progressed with the 3.0 release, while the Gnome Shell is a perfect example of software developers trying to do a ui designer's job. I'm a developer, too, but I need a functional desktop for normal use and not something that is best used with a myriad of keyboard shortcuts.

themarker0

April 7th, 2011, 03:05 AM

All the above. All three look good to me.

I'll use each for a reason, i'm sure i can find that.

bruce89

April 7th, 2011, 03:22 AM

The GTK+ toolkit hasn't truly progressed with the 3.0 release

I'm not sure how you can say that. GTK+ 3.0 is substantially improved in almost every possible way.

while the Gnome Shell is a perfect example of software developers trying to do a ui designer's job

This is not correct, plenty of designers have been involved in the Shell design. The usual complaint is the opposite of yours, that too much design was done.

NightwishFan

April 7th, 2011, 03:28 AM

I'm not sure how you can say that. GTK+ 3.0 is substantially improved in almost every possible way.

This is not correct, plenty of designers have been involved in the Shell design. The usual complaint is the opposite of yours, that too much design was done.

I think I can agree with this. They did some controversial decisions though. They have to start somewhere.

Using KDE on a real system for the first time in at least a year shows me how much that a shell just needs to stay out of your way to be productive. KDE is fine, in fact I like it more than Gnome 2, however the quick visual aspect of the gnome shell, and the one click launcher/taskbar of Unity are right up my alley. I am thinking about sticking with KDE until either of the other two hits Debian Testing.

XFCE is an option of course (a very good one).

smellyman

April 7th, 2011, 04:08 AM

At this point I don't see a huge difference between GS and Unity so it seems be a duplication of effort. I have Unity installed now and I must admit I am a fan of it on a Notebook.

I will give GS a shot next and see what the pluses and minuses are, but they appear to be quite similar.

I like the easy of use with the keyboard shortcuts of Unity, hopefully GS is the same.

Compiz is a big plus for me though, I can't live without my zoom desktop for my bad eyes. :) Does GS have this feature?

fontis

April 7th, 2011, 04:31 AM

I don't know yet. But to be fair I really doubt I'll like Unity that much. Haven't tested it yet so that's why I'm not going to judge it too harshly now, but it looks as if its wasting more space on my 15" laptop monitor than the classic gnome does. And it also seems to force you to do more clicks to get something done.

So I don't know. Maybe it's awesome, but from the looks of it, it doesn't really feel that innovative, in fact it feels like not a step backwards, but rather a rocket-jump.

Copper Bezel

April 7th, 2011, 05:07 AM

This is not correct, plenty of designers have been involved in the Shell design. The usual complaint is the opposite of yours, that too much design was done.

That's a complete non sequitur. Saying "too much design" is the same as saying "too much development." I think what you mean is that the result is overworked (and it certainly is, in comparison to Unity.)

azurehi

April 7th, 2011, 05:50 AM

Installed 11.04, updated. When I use synaptic to install anything it locks up. If I use software center, it locks also and I get an error message, something about "aptd closing unexpectedly". Navigating is so different and not at all intuitive, to me at least.

d3v1150m471c

April 7th, 2011, 06:25 AM

i abhor things sitting on my screen, taking up space, menu's popping up in the middle of my desktop asking me to launch something, dockbars. I like my two simple panels that aren't overwritten by a window, my gnomenu, and my simple transparent terminal/conky on my desktop. I'll be using gnome.

demilord

April 7th, 2011, 08:25 AM

Most of this development cycles effort was placed on Unity, Gnome 3 will be part of the Oneiric Ocelot. As Ubuntu is still, and will always be a gnome based distribution.

I heard Mark Shuttleworth saying something else, that he didn't like some things the gnome developers are doing with gnome 3, and thats why he choose Unity as the main line for Ubuntu

demilord

April 7th, 2011, 08:37 AM

+1

+1 If forced to have a second panel, Iwant it out of the way. left side puts it front and center.

We'll be able to install gnome-Shell on Natty without issue right?
Not only that, I am left handed and would definitly prefer it on the right right side... but thats just me...

VanillaMozilla

April 8th, 2011, 11:13 PM

Classic, probably. Or KDE. Or another distro if it comes to that.

My computer is the only chance I ever get to see a clean desktop. I don't want no stinkin' dock.

Don't want no stinkin' bling.

Don't want increased memory, CPU, or GPU requirements.

Don't want a desktop that crashes. EVER.

Don't want to spend days fixing the damn desktop.

Don't want no new bugs.

Don't want to troubleshoot every damned new program or environment.

Just fix the bugs, don't make new ones just to rearrange the furniture.

So if I upgrade from Maverick, is there any way I can keep the perfectly adequate Gnome DisUnity I've got, guaranteed? 'cause if upgrading sticks me with a downgrade, I'm not so sure I want to upgrade.

Little Bones

April 9th, 2011, 07:53 AM

Unity for me, been really impressed with Beta 1 so far! A lot of the usability problems I had with the Alphas (I ran all of them) have been sorted as expected. They keep adding new features and it just works - and is beautiful - right out of the box.

Johnsie

April 9th, 2011, 08:12 AM

You must be using a different Beta1 from the rest of us lol. Are you sure it's Ubuntu 11.04 you've downloaded? :D

DeadSuperHero

April 9th, 2011, 08:45 AM

Well, I've really enjoyed the direction it's been going in...so Gnome Shell, for me.

guff8

April 9th, 2011, 08:56 AM

+1 Unity :D

Justin Trouble

April 9th, 2011, 09:39 AM

I'm Running Gnome-shell/Gnome 3 in Natty already!

NCLI

April 9th, 2011, 10:11 AM

Classic, probably. Or KDE. Or another distro if it comes to that.

My computer is the only chance I ever get to see a clean desktop. I don't want no stinkin' dock.
Then you'll be glad to know autohide is on by default.

Don't want no stinkin' bling.
Define bling.

Don't want increased memory, CPU, or GPU requirements.
Great, you'll be glad to know that Unity 3D uses no more resources than Gnome 2.XX with Compiz, and Unity 2D uses no more resources than Gnome 2.XX without Compiz.

Don't want a desktop that crashes. EVER.
You'd better stop using computers then, because that desktop doesn't exist. My gnome-panels crash at least once a month in 10.10, and I have no idea why.

Don't want to spend days fixing the damn desktop.
...have you tried Unity?

Don't want no new bugs.
Uh, ok, I really think you need to stop upgrading your computer at all then.

Don't want to troubleshoot every damned new program or environment.
Then don't upgrade. All software evolves over time, and this progress introduces new bugs and regressions. Not much you can do about that.

Just fix the bugs, don't make new ones just to rearrange the furniture.
Again, no one does this. Besides, fixing a bug often causes new bugs.

So if I upgrade from Maverick, is there any way I can keep the perfectly adequate Gnome DisUnity I've got, guaranteed? 'cause if upgrading sticks me with a downgrade, I'm not so sure I want to upgrade.
No. The gnome 2.XX in Natty will be slightly different from the one found in 10.10, just like the one in 10.10 is slightly different from the one found in 10.04, just like the one in 10.04 is slightly different from the one found in 9.10, just like the one in 9.10 is slightly different from the one found in 9.04, just like the one in 9.04 is slightly different from the one found in 8.10, just like the one in 8.10 is slightly different from the one found in... Do I need to go on?

Of course, you can choose Gnome 2.XX at the login screen, just choose "Ubuntu Classic" before logging in. However, using Ubuntu is not, has never been, and will never be, a static experience.

If you don't like that, stop updating.

Sijmen

April 9th, 2011, 11:29 AM

I won't be using unity... even though I will continue to test and support it with those who will be using it in my local area.

Personally I can't stand dock bars... they remind me too much of macs. I can't stand global menus either, they remind me too much of macs. Too much of it reminds me about macs. However, that's why I like Linux so much... I can change what I don't like, a complete 180 degree approach from that found on a mac.

Edit: I wonder if the artwork is still done on a mac and not using some of the free/open software found on Linux?

What is your setup like? I tried searching for a screen shot from you, but couldn't find any. I'm curious as to how you buildup your desktop. I like minimalism and my Mac desktop auto-hides the menubar and the dock and it has no icons either.

MrNatewood

April 9th, 2011, 12:24 PM

Will try Unity. If won't like will switch to classic gnome or xfce(more probable as classic gnome is EOL).

t.rei

April 9th, 2011, 02:37 PM

If the bugs in gnome3 get removed, I guess thats where I'll go. It's just smoothness and matches my way of working right now. Except a few minor issues (like where do I adjust keybindings, key-management, login-screen, ... ) but it's really quite usable already.

andymorton

April 9th, 2011, 03:56 PM

KDE for me from now on. I started using it a couple of months ago and can't imagine going back to Gnome or using Unity.

andy :)

Merk42

April 9th, 2011, 04:22 PM

i abhor things sitting on my screen, taking up space, menu's popping up in the middle of my desktop asking me to launch something.Where in Unity or GNOME Shell does this happen??

I'll be using gnome.
Unity, Shell and Classic (ie Panels) are all GNOME

gsmanners

April 9th, 2011, 04:38 PM

I'm undecided. I like the ideas behind Unity (and most of the ideas behind GS), but I have a sneaking suspicion that Unity and GS won't *really* be ready till 12.04.

LarsKongo

April 9th, 2011, 04:48 PM

I haven't tried gs or unity, but gs do look really ugly by default. I really wonder why the gnome team likes to waste so much space? Half their applications consists of whitespace with no function other than look ugly. Unity looks better, but I don't know if it's functional.

So what will I use? No idea. I need to try them both first. KDE if both fails to meet my standards.

rudihawk

April 9th, 2011, 07:28 PM

I just installed the Beta of Natty, so far I'm liking unity, it's really not as bad as everyone is making it out to be!

I think it is really slick and polished, and it can only get better as more features are added!

I'm sticking with Unity for now!

barthus

April 9th, 2011, 09:49 PM

Unity just a month away and shell looking usable now to, what will you use with Natty?

I tell you what I will do with Natty: I will install it into a Virtual Box and see how it works. If positive, since this Window manager has been created for people who are not really familiar with 'weird things' like the shell, I will probably install Natty on all computers of the rest of my family. They will then profit of an OS that can compete with Windows 7 and this strange OS which is called X (?).

We will see ...

rend

April 10th, 2011, 12:47 PM

I actually like the whole natty upgrade, newer kernal fresh ui with
gnome classic desktop, universal menus are nice, more MAC like.
I am a bit disappointed that gnome classic is going to be discontinued with 11.10. Unity for me requires more clicks and typing.

NCLI

April 10th, 2011, 04:00 PM

VanillaMozilla

April 11th, 2011, 03:55 AM

Then you'll be glad to know autohide is on by default.Good.

Great, you'll be glad to know that Unity 3D uses no more resources than Gnome 2.XX with Compiz, and Unity 2D uses no more resources than Gnome 2.XX without Compiz.I would hope it uses less. At the moment Compiz is using 58 MiB, but I'm unable to verify that it's doing anything useful, or indeed anything at all.

My gnome-panels crash at least once a month in 10.10, and I have no idea why.Mine does too, and there's really no excuse for it.

...have you tried Unity?No, I told you, I already spend too much time configuring and fixing computers, without finding some new thing to fix. Of course I'll try it, but if I have to fuss with it or it's not better than the alternatives, it's history. Some of us just want a computer that works, OK?

Uh, ok, I really think you need to stop upgrading your computer at all then.That would be stupid. I want the bug fixes, and I need up to date security. The nice thing about Ubuntu is that updates usually just fix stuff without fuss.

Of course, you can choose Gnome 2.XX at the login screen, just choose "Ubuntu Classic" before logging in.Right. Good to hear, but if it disappears, as rumored, I could be looking at other distros.

Rasa1111

April 11th, 2011, 04:02 AM

Alright..

I feel it is my duty (seeing all the crap I've been talking about Unity)
To mention that I have downloaded the natty beta and loaded it onto a USB drive, and have been using it for *almost* 2 days.

I should say that, it is not quite as bad as the alpha disc I had burned a couple weeks earlier.

Still homely as can be, and still lacks a lot imo...
But I can honestly say that since Ive been testing out this beta..
My feelings are starting to change.. slightly. lol

I guess it's not the worst thing in the world. :P

I'm starting to kinda like the global menu as well..
Though it seems kinda silly to have it when windows are not maximized.

So, anyway...
To any devs who may be reading, and have seen all my crap talking about unity.....
I will still say "Good job", as it is.

I figured I could embrace it, or keep bitching..
and honestly.. I really do not like to bitch. lol

So my apologies. <3

wolfen69

April 11th, 2011, 04:10 AM

Gnome 3/Shell. One of the best DE's I've ever used, and it still has a way to go.

Rasa1111

April 11th, 2011, 04:18 AM

After you mentioned "GNOME3 rocks" the other day,
I had to go check it out..
and Ive only watched a few videos on it so far...
But from what Ive seen.. I do want it! lol

Looks awesome.

K_45

April 11th, 2011, 04:26 AM

I've switched to KDE as I got tired of Gnome. Very slick. I'd recommend it over other desktop environments unless you have a really slow system.

VanillaMozilla

April 12th, 2011, 05:38 PM

unless you have a really slow system.
"Really slow", as in >3 years old? Sounds like bloat and feature creep. My 286 handled most of the functions of a modern desktop, and did it very fast; my 386 did it all. Now we need a dual core just to display a directory. Resist bloat, resist feature creep, folks.

marl30

April 12th, 2011, 05:48 PM

I've switched to KDE as I got tired of Gnome. Very slick. I'd recommend it over other desktop environments unless you have a really slow system.

Same here. KDE has matured so much that I have no complain anymore.

Bapun007

April 12th, 2011, 05:55 PM

i like gnome shell more then unity . So i use gnome shell

K_45

April 12th, 2011, 10:08 PM

"Really slow", as in >3 years old? Sounds like bloat and feature creep. My 286 handled most of the functions of a modern desktop, and did it very fast; my 386 did it all. Now we need a dual core just to display a directory. Resist bloat, resist feature creep, folks.

Really slow as in 1GB of RAM or less. There are still options for a 386 - something like IceWM - but if you have a cheap $90 quad and 8GB of RAM for $90 - well KDE works just fine.

azurehi

April 12th, 2011, 11:01 PM

i like gnome shell more then unity . So i use gnome shell

installed gnome shell...very different and I could not eve find a restart or shutdown icon.

However, I could NOT get back to Ubuntu Unity or Gnome Classic.

From what I saw of Gnome 3, I find it difficult to use. I had to reinstall 11.04 to get rid of it.

marl30

April 12th, 2011, 11:18 PM

installed gnome shell...very different and I could not eve find a restart or shutdown icon.

However, I could NOT get back to Ubuntu Unity or Gnome Classic.

From what I saw of Gnome 3, I find it difficult to use. I had to reinstall 11.04 to get rid of it.

Same thing happened to me when I installed Gnome 3 from the official ppa. I had to reinstall 11.04. I've been using Kubuntu 11.04 ever since and find myself so in love with KDE.

From what I've seen of Gnome 3, it was a bit more user-friendly than Unity in some ways; however it's the little things that they overlooked that makes me not consider it an option for a new DE. Some of these same little things are why I've decided that I'm not ready for Unity either.

PaiSand

April 12th, 2011, 11:18 PM

Unity is not intuitive, hard to learn, you have to navigate to not find what you want (like the wine menu), you can't make the icons smaller, is not intuitive at all, it's ugly as hell... and yeah, is not intuitive.

Hell no, I don't use it.

Merk42

April 13th, 2011, 12:02 AM

Right. Good to hear, but if it disappears, as rumored, I could be looking at other distros.Considering that it will disappear because the creators, GNOME, will stop supporting it, good luck finding it in another distro in the long run.

marl30

April 13th, 2011, 12:12 AM

Considering that it will disappear because the creators, GNOME, will stop supporting it, good luck finding it in another distro in the long run.

Well, for those sticking with classic Gnome, perhaps Gnome 3 and Unity will mature by the time they stop supporting it.

Simian Man

April 13th, 2011, 12:21 AM

"Really slow", as in >3 years old? Sounds like bloat and feature creep. My 286 handled most of the functions of a modern desktop, and did it very fast; my 386 did it all. Now we need a dual core just to display a directory. Resist bloat, resist feature creep, folks.
I happen to *like* features. Nothing is stopping you from running Windows 3.1 or Red Hat 1 if you really want to.

I've switched to KDE as I got tired of Gnome. Very slick. I'd recommend it over other desktop environments unless you have a really slow system.

I concur, KDE blows the rest out of the water.

marl30

April 13th, 2011, 12:30 AM

I happen to *like* features. Nothing is stopping you from running Windows 3.1 or Red Hat 1 if you really want to.

I concur, KDE blows the rest out of the water.

Since KDE has ironed out most of the issues that caused people to choose Gnome over it, the primary argument many in the Linux community still have against KDE it that it reminds them too much of Windows.

K_45

April 13th, 2011, 01:19 AM

Since KDE has ironed out most of the issues that caused people to choose Gnome over it, the primary argument many in the Linux community still have against KDE it that it reminds them too much of Windows.

True but the Windows way works well. Sure you can change it, but generally the bottom panel/taskbar + desktop/plasma workspace works efficiently. I won't use distro's that try to "Macify" the GUI.

kef_kf

April 13th, 2011, 01:35 AM

I concur, KDE blows the rest out of the water.

too right, as someone who has tried and quit kde time and again since 4.0, im not going to even download ubuntu. 4.6 is THAT good.

thanks for making unity/gnome debate irrelevant to me kde devs! :smile:

ratcat

April 13th, 2011, 01:54 AM

Unity or gnome shell will not run on the Compaq Sempron. I will not buy a new computer to get e-mail and internet. We are a Apple studio, linux runs errands. I spend enough with Steve Jobs and his updates! :popcorn:

tlcstat

April 13th, 2011, 03:02 AM

Greetings,
+1 Unity on a 15" Toshiba Laptop
+1 Unity on a 10" Toshiba Netbook

rudihawk

April 13th, 2011, 08:18 AM

I thought I was going to really hate using Unity.

Truth is I love it, it rocks!

CraigPaleo

April 13th, 2011, 08:47 AM

Since KDE has ironed out most of the issues that caused people to choose Gnome over it, the primary argument many in the Linux community still have against KDE it that it reminds them too much of Windows.

Total KDE convert here but I think it looks too much like Gnome 2. :D

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_5TpWn9MxsFs/TY-PU-GVb7I/AAAAAAAAAMk/Fsr0-gwrdes/s720/GNOMIFIED.png

rudihawk

April 13th, 2011, 09:31 AM

Total KDE convert here but I think it looks too much like Gnome 2. :D

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_5TpWn9MxsFs/TY-PU-GVb7I/AAAAAAAAAMk/Fsr0-gwrdes/s720/GNOMIFIED.png

Thats because you made it look like Gnome! :P

user1397

April 13th, 2011, 10:03 AM

Well since I'm getting a new computer with pretty decent specs, speed won't be an issue, therefore for me there is no point in using a minimalist version of gnome or another wm (openbox etc).

I also dislike the idea of continuing to use something which is already behind the curve, aka gnome2 (by behind the curve I mean its own developers are discontinuing it and are moving forward).

So this leaves me with 3 choices: gnome3, unity, or kde4.

I just recently tried the gnome3 live cd and the latest beta of natty. Although there are countless improvements, it is still not my bag of tea.

I have been using ubuntu with gnome2 since 5.10 breezy badger. I am quite used to this interface, and I will surely miss it, but I think it is finally time we part ways.

Therefore, I think I will finally try kde as my default DE. It is modern yet familiar, and is now quite stable.

Kubuntu Natty here I come...

rudihawk

April 13th, 2011, 10:05 AM

I just installed KDE and tried to use it :/

It's horrible, how can people like that?

Lucradia

April 13th, 2011, 10:14 AM

I just installed KDE and tried to use it :/

It's horrible, how can people like that?

I have to agree. Most of the keyboard shortcuts aren't set to what they were in the GNOME Edition. IE: You can't switch desktops with the keyboard unless you change the hotkeys.

I also find the overall appearance annoying, as with the bar at the bottom. It feels too tacked on, and stubborn.

CraigPaleo

April 13th, 2011, 10:15 AM

I just installed KDE and tried to use it :/

It's horrible, how can people like that?

You've spent way too much time with it. Take a break and come back to it later. :p

Lucradia

April 13th, 2011, 10:16 AM

You've spent way too much time with it. Take a break and come back to it later. :p

Especially when you would have to use it every day, so that would be irrelevant :P

CraigPaleo

April 13th, 2011, 10:22 AM

Especially when you would have to use it every day, so that would be irrelevant :P

I was being sarcastic. He didn't even spend enough time to figure out how it works and it isn't even as foreign as GS or Unity.

Johnsie

April 13th, 2011, 10:43 AM

I think I might give KDE a try after seeing some of these shots. I take it the Kubuntu project still exists?

BlacqWolf

April 13th, 2011, 08:28 PM

Although Shell is coming alone, I still feel regular gnome is best bet for 11.04. Unity is nothing impressive and annoying. In my personal opinion Unity is a waste of time and KDE should be adopted as Ubuntus main desktop.
reasons:
- Fast
- Stable
- Full Featured
- Easy to use
- Already successfully implemented as Kubuntu..

Really tho, if Gnome doesnt work for ubuntu anymore, why re invent the wheel?

In my opinion, this is KDE:

-Ugly, toy-like interface that looks somewhat like an UI right between Windows and Mac

-Rips off the Windows start menu

-Slow to the point that some high-end machines tend to lag the curser

-Unstable

-Harder to use

-Not as intuitive

-Some items require too many keystrokes to set, too many clicks and alternate-clicks, whereas the same settings and features are only a click or two away in Unity/Gnome

carl_pr

April 13th, 2011, 08:43 PM

i am not sure, last time i used unity on my netbook i didnt like it, i removed ubuntu overall. I suppose ill stay with the classic for now but not sure, maybe ill try it out from a USB bootable when it release

Copper Bezel

April 13th, 2011, 08:50 PM

Honestly, I'm not using either as established earlier in the thread, but at first blush, with default settings, KDE has the more intuitive interface, and although it's far too cluttered for my tastes, it's also much more impressive-looking. I like Gnome in that it seems more modular, which suits my purposes, but that's not necessary for most users.

It's also not possible for a keybinding to be intuitive; they're just conventions (like Alt+Tab) that may or may not be universal across environments. Ctrl+Alt+[Arrow] is not universal (it rotates the monitor in Windows.)

KDE apps follow some very different conventions, and I don't really like them, but I understand the reasoning. I feel like any single app in KDE is a "suite," including the bloody text editor, where in Gnome, you'd get the equivalent with three different applications.

K_45

April 13th, 2011, 10:02 PM

In my opinion, this is KDE:

-Ugly, toy-like interface that looks somewhat like an UI right between Windows and Mac

-Rips off the Windows start menu

-Slow to the point that some high-end machines tend to lag the curser

-Unstable

-Harder to use

-Not as intuitive

-Some items require too many keystrokes to set, too many clicks and alternate-clicks, whereas the same settings and features are only a click or two away in Unity/Gnome

Toy like interface? I'd say Unity has more Mac influences. If you think its slow your version of a high end machine must be a Pentium II and the rest is only because you haven't spent a few weeks with it.

BlacqWolf

April 13th, 2011, 11:43 PM

If you think its slow your version of a high end machine must be a Pentium II and the rest is only because you haven't spent a few weeks with it.

Slow? The machine I was using was an HP running with an AMD Phenom 2.2GHz quad-core processor, 1066MHz 8GB memory and an AMD/ATI Mobility Radeon HD 6550 (or something like that, I don't care to look up the exact model right now.) with a 600MHz core speed and 1GB of memory. And don't DARE say anything about Intel. Intel is the worst company I've ever seen - the most defects in their products, the worst graphics (them and nVidia both)and audio, and the absolute WORST processors.
And, continuing on with KDE, I say anything that comes with it preinstalled as the default environment might as well be called ToyOS, because that's all KDE is. As far as Unity goes with OS X influences, I say that it has a lot of Ms/Apple work in it, but also a lot of great original ideas from the Ubuntu devs themselves. And I like it. It has a pretty good interface, saves a lot of space, it's very easy to get around, and allows me to work more efficiently. But if you don't like it - fine, Ubuntu 11.04 and 10.10 netbook both come preinstalled with Unity and Gnome. If you want another desktop, fine -that's either a few clicks in Software Center or an apt-get away. But I'm done arguing with this. I don't see why continue arguing other which is better when it is just an opinion in this case.

But you're right, I haven't spent a few weeks to play around with it. And now that you suggested it, I will install KDE and use it for a few weeks to get used to it and customize it.

K_45

April 13th, 2011, 11:57 PM

Slow? The machine I was using was an HP running with an AMD Phenom 2.2GHz quad-core processor, 1066MHz 8GB memory and an AMD/ATI Mobility Radeon HD 6550 (or something like that, I don't care to look up the exact model right now.) with a 600MHz core speed and 1GB of memory. And don't DARE say anything about Intel. Intel is the worst company I've ever seen - the most defects in their products, the worst graphics (them and nVidia both)and audio, and the absolute WORST processors.
And, continuing on with KDE, I say anything that comes with it preinstalled as the default environment might as well be called ToyOS, because that's all KDE is. As far as Unity goes with OS X influences, I say that it has a lot of Ms/Apple work in it, but also a lot of great original ideas from the Ubuntu devs themselves. And I like it. It has a pretty good interface, saves a lot of space, it's very easy to get around, and allows me to work more efficiently. But if you don't like it - fine, Ubuntu 11.04 and 10.10 netbook both come preinstalled with Unity and Gnome. If you want another desktop, fine -that's either a few clicks in Software Center or an apt-get away. But I'm done arguing with this. I don't see why continue arguing other which is better when it is just an opinion in this case.

But you're right, I haven't spent a few weeks to play around with it. And now that you suggested it, I will install KDE and use it for a few weeks to get used to it and customize it.

Fair enough, but Intel's Sandy Bridge processors, despite the SATA flaw, are better than anything than AMD currently has.

BlacqWolf

April 14th, 2011, 12:23 AM

Fair enough, but Intel's Sandy Bridge processors, despite the SATA flaw, are better than anything than AMD currently has.

Ok, but I haven't heard of sandy bridge.

And if I PO'd you about the thing of Unity vs. KDE, sorry about that. I just get a bit competitive sometimes ;)

K_45

April 14th, 2011, 02:04 AM

Ok, but I haven't heard of sandy bridge.

And if I PO'd you about the thing of Unity vs. KDE, sorry about that. I just get a bit competitive sometimes ;)

No problem. I've gone back to Xubuntu. KDE is a bit too sluggish for me. For a full desktop, at Xubuntu is still relatively lightweight.

Copper Bezel

April 14th, 2011, 05:12 AM

pony-tail

April 14th, 2011, 05:18 AM

I am going to stick with 10.04 lts until support expires or Canonical comes up with something that is actually useful to me . If they do not bring out anything useful by the end of 10.04 lts support I will just change distros to one that does .

K_45

April 14th, 2011, 05:25 AM

Does Xubuntu really qualify as a "full" desktop, though? I see a much bigger division between Xubuntu and Gnome than between Xubuntu and LXDE. I mean, I honestly think the difference between the latter two is about the difference between KDE and Gnome (where KDE is the more "full" environment.) (And I'm not ripping on XFCE - I use XFCE parts myself, and no major KDE parts as such for that matter - but XFWM is most definitely not comparable to KWin, XFCE-Panel is little more than lxpanel with transparency, and the settings management in XFCE lacks several features I'd need to compare it to Gnome's.)

That depends on you definition of a "full" desktop. At least for me, Xubuntu is acceptably cut down, with a lightweight file manager and window manager. I don't see any setting I might be missing.

marl30

April 14th, 2011, 07:21 AM

I just installed KDE and tried to use it :/

It's horrible, how can people like that?
I wonder what version of KDE you tried? Anything below Maverick and KDE 4.5 was horrible. KDE 4.6.2 is completely awesome. I ran it in Maverick before using it with Natty. It's even faster in Natty, twice as fast as Unity, I might add.

weasel fierce

April 14th, 2011, 07:23 AM

KDE :)

But I have no hate on for Unity and I rather enjoyed gnome shell too when I tested it a long time ago

Copper Bezel

April 14th, 2011, 07:32 AM

That depends on you definition of a "full" desktop. At least for me, Xubuntu is acceptably cut down, with a lightweight file manager and window manager. I don't see any setting I might be missing.

Right, and the semantics were the only thing I was arguing. = ) I'm certainly not arguing its usability (and I love Thunar to death; wouldn't use anything else as my default file manager.)

XFCE trackpad settings, though. Baffling. But that's another topic entirely. = )

marl30

April 14th, 2011, 07:41 AM

Does Xubuntu really qualify as a "full" desktop, though? I see a much bigger division between Xubuntu and Gnome than between Xubuntu and LXDE. I mean, I honestly think the difference between the latter two is about the difference between KDE and Gnome (where KDE is the more "full" environment.) (And I'm not ripping on XFCE - I use XFCE parts myself, and no major KDE parts as such for that matter - but XFWM is most definitely not comparable to KWin, XFCE-Panel is little more than lxpanel with transparency, and the settings management in XFCE lacks several features I'd need to compare it to Gnome's.)
I know of someone running XP that is in need of a lightweight distro because of only having 600 MB of ram, which XP quickly eats up and slows down his system. I told him I would look into LXDE and XFCE to see which was the lighter on system resources. He's used Gnome before, so I wouldn't want to introduce him to a DE which lack certain settings comparable to XP and Gnome.

NikoC

April 14th, 2011, 08:01 AM

Hmmmz, I gave Unity and Gnome 3 a try for a couple of days and for now, Gnome 3 is my favorite of the 'new' desktop environments. I can not really put my finger on it, but it looks and feels 'nice'.

Though I have to say, I'm not fully convinced by either! So I'm sticking to Classic Gnome! If support ever stops, I think I might give Gnome 3 a chance or switch to KDE.

Joeb454

April 14th, 2011, 12:26 PM

I've used Unity on my main desktop for a while now - since just before beta1 I believe.

I really like it, so that'll be my first choice. I haven't given Gnome3 a try yet though, so I'll probably try that out at some point and see how it compares.

Linux_junkie

April 15th, 2011, 11:54 AM

I've today downloaded Ubuntu 11.04 beta2 and ran it from the CD. This is my first usage of Gnome2+Unity and first impressions is that it ain't bad. One thing that felt a little strange is that the application menus appear on the top taskbar rather than on the application window itself. This I feel will confuse a few people when / if they upgrade but once people get used to it I think they will like it. The virtual desktop switcher also will take a little time to get used to it and it does not allow you to switch to another application on a different virtual desktop like Gnome3 does.

I have now tried both Gnome3 (alpha) and Ubuntu 11.04 (beta2) and do like them both but I think Gnome3 has a slight edge to it. I think the only people who don't like Gnome2+unity shell are the die hard Gnome 2 (original) users but everyone else I think you will like it.

Please not that these are my personal opinions.

VanillaMozilla

April 15th, 2011, 04:40 PM

I know of someone running XP that is in need of a lightweight distro because of only having 600 MB of ram, which XP quickly eats up and slows down his system. I told him I would look into LXDE and XFCE to see which was the lighter on system resources.
???
I am running Windows AND Ubuntu Maverick on a computer with 384 MB, 900MHz. Both run fine, but Windows runs faster. Of course, it's perfectly possible to muck up either system so nothing will run. If he's using up all the memory on something that genuinely needs all that memory, a change in OS probably won't help. Or if he's just loaded the computer down with garbage -- if problem is between chair and keyboard -- well, who knows what will work? More memory?

Jaecyn42

April 15th, 2011, 08:19 PM

Voted Other/Undecided

10.10 is probably going to be my last Ubuntu distro, I'm getting antsy for something different.

Tried out Crunchbang recently on my laptop and I really like OpenBox, so I'll probably be sticking with that. Might try Gentoo (w/KDE) on my desktop, if I ever get around to it.

Not to knock Ubuntu/Gnome/Unity or anything, just seems like I'm headed in a different direction than Canonical.

Nothing wrong with that, I never intended to stick with Ubuntu forever. I've learned a lot since Karmic and feel I'm ready for something a little less user-friendly.

:D