PDA

View Full Version : Nostalgia, or thoughts when I found an Ubuntu 9.10 installation



Dragonbite
February 17th, 2012, 02:56 PM
Last night I was looking through a hard drive before planning on wiping it out for a new installation and it ended up being an old Ubuntu 9.10 installation!

Now I may be alone, but I liked the brown/cocoa/orange theme. It was very classy and clean. The splash screen was clean, professional and this style is different than everything else available out there. This was also the last version, I think, with the buttons on the right.

What blew me away, though, was the sheer speed of 9.10 over 11.10 (my usual system on this laptop)!

The speed difference between this and Windows7 ( or Ubuntu 11.10 for that matter) is so dramatic! It reminded me of the selling point Ubuntu once had of being faster than Windows!

What has happened?!

I've used Unity, Unity 2D, Gnome-shell, Cinnamon and Windows 7 on this machine (with a brief flirt with KDE before I installed Ubuntu over it). All of these environments feel bloated, slow and stressing the video of the machine. Menus are counter-intuitive, customization has been reduced and the focus has shifted to uber-glitz at the cost of responsiveness.

When I clicked the menu button, it popped open without hesitation! No hesitation, no waiting for anything semi-transparent, no zooming in-or-out and waiting for that transition to finish. Boom! It was there.

It made me sad.

So much potential and benefits put into older versions are basically being wiped out in the matter of (only) 2 years, and it isn't only Ubuntu's fault; Gnome and Red Hat (the largest contributor to Gnome) are at fault too. Imagine what they could have done instead, if they didn't have their testosterone <snip> fight. (ok, sorry for the rant.. I'll scale it back now).

Part of what makes me sad is that this was the last time Ubuntu so very unique; speed instead of bloat, good-looking themes that stood out against the blue/black/purple/space/rolling-hill themes that everybody seems to be "different just like each other". It was when it could take over an older machine and give it a new and usable life!

And this isn't so very, very long ago! It was 6 months before the last LTS was released. It was only 2 years ago.

Now Ubuntu looks like a Mac, is making decisions that get people up-at-arms for little gain, and doing things just because they can?

No wonder I am having so much trouble trying to decided which way to go; Ubuntu, Fedora or openSUSE / Unity, Gnome-shell, Cinnamon or KDE (I've done Xfce.. it isn't completely out of the race either).

Yes, I'm an old fart, but I'm an old fart that remembers what made Ubuntu great "back then".

winh8r
February 17th, 2012, 03:09 PM
+1 to the above

Covers a great many of my own thoughts too!

blueturtl
February 17th, 2012, 03:17 PM
I've been around since 5.04 (the second release ever). I always thought brown was a bold choice for a theme even if a lot of people hated it. I also loved the Africa-inspired soothing sound scheme. Ubuntu was clearly different back then.

Functionality-wise, the system used to boot if you had 256 megs of RAM, however back then there were separate discs for Live-sessions and for installing the thing.

I too feel strong nostalgia toward those times, although I think it's the general development of Gnome that's really the culprit as far as performance goes.

As far as the new look goes, it's not bad - but kind of uninspired in my humble opinion.

Version Dependency
February 17th, 2012, 04:32 PM
I too have an older machine (almost ten years old) that still has 9.10 on it. I agree with you on the speed of 9.10...and I disagree with the brown color. Yuck! :D

I can understand the complaints that Unity, Gnome Shell, Cinnamon, KDE won't work well (or at all) on older hardware. But that's why I keep TWO installation CDs with me at all times...Ubuntu and Lubuntu. My sister recently had a computer that went down permanently and had to wait until payday to get a new machine. So I installed Lubuntu on a 12-year old computer I had in a closet and she used it for over a week. Said it ran better than the previous computer she had (running Vista).

Dragonbite
February 17th, 2012, 05:08 PM
The system I ran this one was not that old. It is about a 5 or 6 year old IBM Thinkpad T42 running a 1.8Ghz Pentium M chip and recently maxed out to the 2 GB of RAM and with ATI graphics.

It is the first system which runs Unity and Gnome-shell that I am allowed to install those on it. My previous laptop could only run their fallback modes.

So the laptop would have been about 3 years old when 9.10 came out and it is wicked fast. Faster than I suspect XP would run on it!

Simple Name
February 17th, 2012, 05:21 PM
+1 except for 9.10, which ( in my opinion ) was a downgrade from 8.10 ( still in love with this version .. clean, fast, not bloated .. ah ).

mikewhatever
February 17th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Instead of brooding about the past or about what could have been done, cheer up and accept, that life is change. Getting stuck in the past is never the way to go.

wsandner
February 17th, 2012, 06:35 PM
What blew me away, though, was the sheer speed of 9.10 over 11.10 (my usual system on this laptop)!

The speed difference between this and Windows7 ( or Ubuntu 11.10 for that matter) is so dramatic! It reminded me of the selling point Ubuntu once had of being faster than Windows!


Even with modern hardware 11.10 feels really sluggish at times with Compiz running. I generally like the new stuff, but run in 2D mode most of the time.

Dragonbite
February 17th, 2012, 07:20 PM
Instead of brooding about the past or about what could have been done, cheer up and accept, that life is change. Getting stuck in the past is never the way to go.

"Those that don't remember the past are bound to repeat them."

Ok, so that isn't all that accurate :)

To ignore some of the positive traits of older version that initially drew people in is almost like forking a distribution or desktop environment and start again at square one!

Now you don't go to Ubuntu to re-vitalize old hardware because some graphic cards are not supported and with each release gets more and more hardware and graphic heavy. Nevermind that being heavy has long been a KDE detractor.

Now that Ubuntu looks almost like Mac and other distributions you don't see a screenshot and immediately say "that's Ubuntu!". It used to be you could look at a web page or blog post and if there is an Ubuntu screenshot you didn't even have to look at it to know it is of Ubuntu! Just the colors could tell you. Not any more.

I understand that they have to move forward, and to improve. "Evolve or die". But that doesn't mean you have to forget the past.

HansKisaragi
February 17th, 2012, 09:22 PM
Cinnamon is not bloated.. It instant loads..

Dragonbite
February 17th, 2012, 09:24 PM
Even with modern hardware 11.10 feels really sluggish at times with Compiz running. I generally like the new stuff, but run in 2D mode most of the time.

I was doing that with Unity 2D and it didn't make too big of a difference so I returned to full Unity.

I was fooling around with an openSUSE LiveCD runnign KDE and turned off the desktop effects to see if that would speed it up. I know that from a CD it is going to be slower than installed on the hard drive, but still it only produced a few benefits.

I may have to see when Fedora 17 comes out and see what they changed/worked to handle non-hardware accelerated systems. Will it be like Unity 2D compared to Unity, or will it be completely different?

wolfen69
February 17th, 2012, 09:43 PM
I think it's the general development of Gnome that's really the culprit as far as performance goes.

When people are trying to install a recent gnome based release on old(er) hardware, is it really any surprise it's slower? On recent model computers, 11.xx has no problems running fairly quick. Would you expect windows 7 to run good on 6yr old hardware? Why expect the same of ubuntu? Match the OS to the hardware. I'm surprised more people don't strive for this.

I don't expect ubuntu 11.10 to run fast on my meager netbook, and that's where lubuntu comes in. I've actually heard people complain that 11.10 won't run on their 10 yr old computer, but xp does. Therefore ubuntu is junk. #-o

BeRoot ReBoot
February 17th, 2012, 09:57 PM
Now I may be alone, but I liked the brown/cocoa/orange theme. It was very classy and clean.

Gods, no. I still remember showing up in class with that theme installed. Oh, the joys of being taunted about the "diarrhoea OS". Even the current default theme is an improvement on that.

cwklinuxguy
February 17th, 2012, 10:03 PM
About 1.5-2 yrs ago, when I first wanted to try Ubuntu, the release I had on CD was 9.10. I popped it in and fell instantly in love. However, I've been dissatisfied with all of the releases after Karmic...their speed has decreased, especially with all this unnecessary 3D acceleration. Really, Unity could've been accomplished with a heavily modified LXDE as well as a heavily modified Docky or AWN setup--they don't need all this heavy 3D compositing for a good-looking setup. I'd bet you that if someone tried to reproduce a Unity-type environment using even Gnome 2 (MATE), Docky, and a couple other addons, they could do pretty well and still get 1.5-2 times the speed of the current Unity environment. Not to brag around, but I am working on an Ubuntu respin that uses MATE, which I hope can become an updated version of what Karmic was. More info is here (http://paradiseos.wordpress.com).

Dragonbite
February 17th, 2012, 10:05 PM
When people are trying to install a recent gnome based release on old(er) hardware, is it really any surprise it's slower? On recent model computers, 11.xx has no problems running fairly quick. Would you expect windows 7 to run good on 6yr old hardware? Why expect the same of ubuntu? Match the OS to the hardware. I'm surprised more people don't strive for this.

I don't expect ubuntu 11.10 to run fast on my meager netbook, and that's where lubuntu comes in. I've actually heard people complain that 11.10 won't run on their 10 yr old computer, but xp does. Therefore ubuntu is junk. #-o

Why is it 9.10 is much faster than Windows XP even though XP came out some 6 years (???) before 9.10?!

Microsoft has the reputation of almost needing new hardware whenever a new version comes out, while Linux has a reputation of breathing new life into older machines.

Supposedly Windows 8 will run on anything Windows 7 runs on (including applications), and Windows 7 I think is supposed to have lighter requirements than Vista.

Meanwhile Linux had regressed support for and is even now with spotty support for some Intel video. Desktop environments require hardware acceleration or forces you into a second-class citizen "fallback" mode.

Has Linux changed places with Windows?

cwklinuxguy
February 17th, 2012, 10:09 PM
Has Linux changed places with Windows?

Almost feels that way, doesn't it? I used to be able to brag about my Linux setup beating the crap out of a Windows installation in terms of speed and performance. Now Windows 7 beats the crap out of most Linux installations that I've tried.

BigSilly
February 17th, 2012, 10:15 PM
When people are trying to install a recent gnome based release on old(er) hardware, is it really any surprise it's slower? On recent model computers, 11.xx has no problems running fairly quick. Would you expect windows 7 to run good on 6yr old hardware? Why expect the same of ubuntu? Match the OS to the hardware. I'm surprised more people don't strive for this.

I don't expect ubuntu 11.10 to run fast on my meager netbook, and that's where lubuntu comes in. I've actually heard people complain that 11.10 won't run on their 10 yr old computer, but xp does. Therefore ubuntu is junk. #-o

Completely agree with you here. Time has moved on and at least the Ubuntu family of distros offers something for pretty much every hardware requirement. We love all of them here, and use Ubuntu, Xubuntu and Lubuntu on our various bits and pieces.

It's sad to read of Ubuntu fans feeling this way, but I look at Ubuntu now and it blows me away, even more so than my first install of 7.04 Feisty Fawn all those years ago. It amazes me what it's become today. I did a fresh install of 11.10 on my desktop the other day, and it's true testament to how amazing it is that I didn't have to do any configuring of any sort. No tweaking of config files or scripts. It all just works as it should. The only things I had to do were install my favourite programs, change the background, and I made the Unity bar persistent in CCSM. Hell, even Plymouth worked without any major upset.

And it all runs beautifully. For free! I mean come on! Cheer up guys. :D

Old_Grey_Wolf
February 17th, 2012, 10:56 PM
I liked Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex). The default wallpaper looked like the Ibex had stepped in something brown with one of it's hooves :)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Ubuntu_screenshot.png/220px-Ubuntu_screenshot.png

cwklinuxguy
February 17th, 2012, 11:04 PM
@wolfen69: Yes. I absolutely expect Ubuntu to run well on older hardware--it's Linux, and that's what Linux has a reputation for being able to do.

Gremlinzzz
February 17th, 2012, 11:06 PM
Blink your eyes and 11.10 will be gone and todays noob will be nostalgia,over unity:popcorn:

cwklinuxguy
February 17th, 2012, 11:07 PM
I find that hard to believe. As I've already said, they could have implemented their same ideas using LXDE, Docky, and Gnome Do, and it's would be MUCH more efficient and wouldn't carry a ton of bloat.

Erik1984
February 17th, 2012, 11:37 PM
I also have good memories of older Ubuntu versions (especially Gutsy) but I prefer the newer versions any time. If you have an older machine however I can understand that the latest versions might feel a bit heavy and bloated.

nothingspecial
February 17th, 2012, 11:44 PM
I also have good memories of older Ubuntu versions (especially Gutsy) but I prefer the newer versions any time. If you have an older machine however I can understand that the latest versions might feel a bit heavy and bloated.

I've posted this before, but here's my Xubuntu 11.10 as Gutsy :)

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3082/screenshotat20120206114.png

Andrew_P
February 18th, 2012, 12:06 AM
What blew me away, though, was the sheer speed of 9.10 over 11.10 (my usual system on this laptop)!

The speed difference between this and Windows7 ( or Ubuntu 11.10 for that matter) is so dramatic! It reminded me of the selling point Ubuntu once had of being faster than Windows!

What has happened?!

What happened? Creeping Featurism and Code Bloat. Too much reliance on interpreted scripts instead of compiled native code. Developers who work on bleeding edge hardware and never test their creations on a sub-1-GHz Pentium III machine with 512 MB of RAM. That's what.

Hylas de Niall
February 18th, 2012, 12:21 AM
To OP: yep! Even comparing 10.04/10.10 to 11.10 is a heartbreaking drop in performance, both speed and stability.

Ubu 11.10 was crashing repeatedly on my desktop, for no good reason that i - or anyone who tried to help me - could fathom So i switched back to 10.10 ...and it was like installing a couple of gb more ram and upgrading the cpu!

What a difference!

:D

Hylas de Niall
February 18th, 2012, 12:23 AM
I've been around since 5.04 (the second release ever)I too feel strong nostalgia toward those times, although I think it's the general development of Gnome that's really the culprit as far as performance goes.


I agree - that or the 3.xx kernels?

robsoles
February 18th, 2012, 12:33 AM
I loved 9.10 and hardly hated 9.04 - I got every machine depending on me to 10.04 when it came out but for a LiveCD session I am quite happy to use 9.10 and when I need to rescue a machine or overcome something using such a session the 9.10 disc is usually easier to find :biggrin:

wolfen69
February 18th, 2012, 02:42 AM
Developers who work on bleeding edge hardware and never test their creations on a sub-1-GHz Pentium III machine with 512 MB of RAM. That's what.

Why should they? There are distros out there for users who like to use stone age hardware.

What about the people who have cutting edge hardware? Why should they be forced to use something that looks like windows 2000, and has the footprint of windows 95? At least the people with antique computers have choices, and can still use linux. Don't want eye candy? Use something else.

If you can't afford a modern computer capable of running the latest OS's, my heart goes out to you. But some of us actually like eye candy, and features not available in older operating systems. There's still plenty of choices available to you, or anyone else wanting a "lightweight, windows 3.1-like experience".

Dragonbite
February 18th, 2012, 03:40 AM
What happened? Creeping Featurism and Code Bloat. Too much reliance on interpreted scripts instead of compiled native code. Developers who work on bleeding edge hardware and never test their creations on a sub-1-GHz Pentium III machine with 512 MB of RAM. That's what.

Not even that old of hardware would be handy. Like I said, my system is about 5 years old which, considering support for systems is getting longer and longer these days (3/5 for LTS, 7 for Red Hat moving up to 10, Win XP is supported until 2013(+/-) I think) should not be out of the ballpark of usability. How powerful are tablets?


I agree - that or the 3.xx kernels?

I did not consider that about the kernel. Isn't there a power regression with the 3.xx?


Why should they? There are distros out there for users who like to use stone age hardware.

What about the people who have cutting edge hardware? Why should they be forced to use something that looks like windows 2000, and has the footprint of windows 95? At least the people with antique computers have choices, and can still use linux. Don't want eye candy? Use something else.

If you can't afford a modern computer capable of running the latest OS's, my heart goes out to you. But some of us actually like eye candy, and features not available in older operating systems. There's still plenty of choices available to you, or anyone else wanting a "lightweight, windows 3.1-like experience".

I haven't said that eye candy should not be available. Or that developers should not support modern technology as well as possible older ones. At the same time, why should this eye candy be required? Why should there be practically no difference between the 3d and 2d versions in the case of resources?

Instead of Linux being superior on resources compared to Windows, it is not about the same. Yes, 11.10 works on my system with Unity (3D), but now it works about as well as Unity 2D, Gnome-shell and Windows 7 Enterprise Edition.

Developing only for the "latest and greatest" because there are other distributions for those with older (is 2 yr old hardware "older"? Who's to say?) is not only immature and condescending, it is severely short-sighted and the type of thinking that will push more people away from Linux.

A significant number of people try Linux on a machine that has been replaced with a newer one. Now we're going to say "the heck with them" because we only want to have shiny, eye candy that only works in newer systems?

Wasn't Ubuntu originally to bring computers to people that would otherwise not be able to afford Windows or Apple?

mikewhatever
February 18th, 2012, 03:45 AM
"Those that don't remember the past are bound to repeat them."

Remember the past, don't get stuck in it. Hope you can still see the difference.


To ignore some of the positive traits of older version that initially drew people in is almost like forking a distribution or desktop environment and start again at square one!

I really doubt that the interface (Gnome2) or the brown theme alone drew people to Ubuntu. IMHO, Ubuntu is great because of many big and small things, don't narrow your sight, take a broader look.


Now you don't go to Ubuntu to re-vitalize old hardware because some graphic cards are not supported and with each release gets more and more hardware and graphic heavy. Nevermind that being heavy has long been a KDE detractor.


Ubuntu was never intended as an OS for old hardware. Try Lubuntu or Xubuntu instead. Supporting old hardware forever because of nostalgia doesn't make a good roadmap for any project.


Now that Ubuntu looks almost like Mac and other distributions you don't see a screenshot and immediately say "that's Ubuntu!". It used to be you could look at a web page or blog post and if there is an Ubuntu screenshot you didn't even have to look at it to know it is of Ubuntu! Just the colors could tell you. Not any more.


I think Ubuntu looks nothing like OSX, and when you see screenshots with Unity, I hope you'll still know what it is, unless the past closes in on you. That said, if you like the human theme so much, use it with Gnome Classic, it is in the repositories.



I understand that they have to move forward, and to improve. "Evolve or die". But that doesn't mean you have to forget the past.

See above.

Dragonbite
February 18th, 2012, 04:29 AM
I am amazed at the people thinking this is about going back to an older version of Ubuntu, that it is a rant to regress. Nostalgia has not been my primary focus or argument here.

Is it nostalgia that I liked the older brown (well, the later brown, orange and red.. not the earlier brown), or is it a matter of preference and opinion?

Am I stuck in the past that I wonder why distribution releases just over 2 years apart are so different in their performance on the same hardware?

Is it nostalgia to have the opinion that Unity is not fully intuitive yet (which I think I may be in good company, according to the other threads on this topic)?

Am I stuck in the past for wanting to see "Linux for Humans" maintain that status while it continues its innovation and progress?

Am I foolish to remember that there are people out there with older machines, little or no internet who use Linux because it gives them something Microsoft and Apple won't?

Copper Bezel
February 18th, 2012, 04:32 AM
It's actually pretty funny - I started with 8.04 and have used each version, including 9.10, but 10.04 was one of my favorite releases. Everything got easier. So I think of 9.10 as the last release before things started getting really impressive. = )

I honestly haven't noticed any performance loss.


I find that hard to believe. As I've already said, they could have implemented their same ideas using LXDE, Docky, and Gnome Do, and it's would be MUCH more efficient and wouldn't carry a ton of bloat.
"Same ideas" doesn't mean the same results. It's perfectly fine to say that the differences don't matter to you. But you need to acknowledge that the differences exist, and some of them are very important to some users and use cases. Gnome's handling of hotplugging external monitors and its workspace management, for instance, are must-have features for me, and they're more important than, say, Unity's superior visual effects and search, or LXDE's light weight.

Unity or Shell works perfectly well on a netbook with a 1.6 Ghz processor and two gigs of RAM, so I don't really know what the fuss is.


I may have to see when Fedora 17 comes out and see what they changed/worked to handle non-hardware accelerated systems. Will it be like Unity 2D compared to Unity, or will it be completely different?
No, the difference is all on the hardware side, and it actually makes things run slower, but it allows you to run a DE designed for hardware acceleration when it isn't present.

wolfen69
February 18th, 2012, 02:31 PM
Am I foolish to remember that there are people out there with older machines, little or no internet who use Linux because it gives them something Microsoft and Apple won't?
No, you are not. But there is an ubuntu derivative that will be good for those less fortunate folks. Lubuntu being one of them. It is simply not possible for canonical to move in the direction they want to go, and cater to everyone.

If one needs a lighter DE, simply choose one of many other distros that cater to these needs, or do a minimal install and build it yourself. I don't see what the big deal is.

It's simply not possible (within reason) to provide the masses with a modern, full featured distro, while still catering to people with win95 era pc's. There are other alternatives for those people.

But anyway, back on topic. I don't really get all that nostalgic over OS's. I like to look forward, not backwards, and like the current direction ubuntu is headed. But if you really miss the brown look, you can still get all of the old wallpapers.

mörgæs
February 18th, 2012, 02:55 PM
Those were the days:
http://maketecheasier.com/a-brief-history-of-brown-ubuntu-feature-timeline/2010/03/16

I am no big fan of Unity, but still I believe that Canonical has made the right choice. For people younger than I the touchscreen is the standard, and a mouse-and-menu system is the exception.

coffee412
February 18th, 2012, 03:20 PM
I just finished reading all these posts in the thread. From this and other posts here is where gnome developers and the distros went completely wrong.

Unity and gnome3 should have been released as installable options and the default desktop should have remained gnome2. Why? Because there are users that like the g3 and those that prefer the g2 desktops. This would have been a better option and would have made everyone pretty happy. Those that like a new type of desktop could use g3 and those that enjoy stability and speed could continue with g2.

However, Something is really wrong in the linux world. No longer are the users needs considered. Instead poor decisions are being touted as "Great advances in the desktop enviroment". Which clearly is not the case. Instead it has created chaos and fighting among the users of linux.

What will the future bring? We have already seen the rise of mint with the mate de and also cinnamon de. As these mature by providing what users really want and need we will probably see g3 and unity displaced in the long run.

I feel sorry for those that are trying linux for the first time. They get a bad impression from the beginning seeing a desktop that is completely different from what they are used too. Thus, They will go back to windows or whatever and think bad thoughts about linux.

Having a menu system like winXP / Win7 / gnome2 is not a bad thing. It works quite well and provides a quick way to access your programs. If it was not a good menu system then it wouldnt have survived all this time in various ways.

For those that feel g3/unity is a great DE then fine. That is what you like. However others do not always share your opinion. Either way, opinons of others should be respected. Not everyone is comfortable (i.e) driving a ford, buick, honda, toyota. IMHO the only thing that the gnome developers have done is create a rift within the linux community.

Take care all,

coffee :D

kevinmchapman
February 18th, 2012, 03:41 PM
coffee412, you have KDE, Xfce, Mate and Cinnamon, and you still want the Gnome devs to maintain Gnome 2? I do not think there is any shortage of menu-based systems.

I would agree, however, that something is really wrong in the linux world. Instead of just getting on with using what they want, the conservatives just cannot resist whining about the new choices.

ikt
February 18th, 2012, 07:18 PM
o hai debian ;)

mikewhatever
February 18th, 2012, 08:38 PM
I just finished reading all these posts in the thread. From this and other posts here is where gnome developers and the distros went completely wrong.

Unity and gnome3 should have been released as installable options and the default desktop should have remained gnome2. Why? Because there are users that like the g3 and those that prefer the g2 desktops. This would have been a better option and would have made everyone pretty happy. Those that like a new type of desktop could use g3 and those that enjoy stability and speed could continue with g2.

Well, those who like the Gnome2 type interface can have it, which is pretty decent, don't you think?


However, Something is really wrong in the linux world. No longer are the users needs considered. Instead poor decisions are being touted as "Great advances in the desktop enviroment". Which clearly is not the case. Instead it has created chaos and fighting among the users of linux.

What you describe as chaos and confusion seems to be the natural state of the Linux world. I'd also add never satisfied users, flame wars, endless debates and dramas over nothing. Is there any wonder the Linux user is not being considered when designing an interface? ;)



What will the future bring? We have already seen the rise of mint with the mate de and also cinnamon de. As these mature by providing what users really want and need we will probably see g3 and unity displaced in the long run.


Do you mean the rise in the distrowatch PHR? Do you really think mouse clicks can replace real software?




I feel sorry for those that are trying linux for the first time. They get a bad impression from the beginning seeing a desktop that is completely different from what they are used too. Thus, They will go back to windows or whatever and think bad thoughts about linux.

Odd reasoning. Those looking for a free version of Windows will leave and think whatever they will anyway, but those looking for a change might actually like Unity or Gnome Shell.



Having a menu system like winXP / Win7 / gnome2 is not a bad thing. It works quite well and provides a quick way to access your programs. If it was not a good menu system then it wouldnt have survived all this time in various ways.

For those that feel g3/unity is a great DE then fine. That is what you like. However others do not always share your opinion. Either way, opinons of others should be respected. Not everyone is comfortable (i.e) driving a ford, buick, honda, toyota. IMHO the only thing that the gnome developers have done is create a rift within the linux community.

Take care all,

coffee :D

If you want to use the drop down menus, please do, no one forces you to use anything else or drive a car you don't want. If you want your opinion respected, learn how to give respect yourself, especially where it's due.

SoylentSteak
February 19th, 2012, 01:23 AM
I've been using Ubuntu since 8.04 and I do miss the cleaner, more efficient look. I was using 9.04 for the first time in ages today on an old system and it brought back a lot of memories.

wolfen69
February 19th, 2012, 04:54 AM
I would agree, however, that something is really wrong in the linux world. Instead of just getting on with using what they want, the conservatives just cannot resist whining about the new choices.

I whole heartedly agree. But since when have people in the linux community just moved on without complaining? I'll never understand it. Geez, these are DE's, not life and death.

Getting involved with projects, or starting your own, is what's it's all about. Complaining on message boards accomplishes nothing. But yeah, there are many menu based DE's to choose from, and be happy with. :D

wolfen69
February 19th, 2012, 04:57 AM
I've been using Ubuntu since 8.04 and I do miss the cleaner, more efficient look.

It's still there! There's Xubuntu and Lubuntu. Xubuntu is the new gnome 2. Check it out.

Dragonbite
February 19th, 2012, 05:11 AM
I whole heartedly agree. But since when have people in the linux community just moved on without complaining?

I don't think it is limited to the Linux Community.

wolfen69
February 19th, 2012, 05:22 AM
I don't think it is limited to the Linux Community.

Very true. ;)

mips
February 19th, 2012, 11:10 AM
It's still there! There's Xubuntu and Lubuntu. Xubuntu is the new gnome 2. Check it out.

Yeah, I love my XFCE setup.

coffee412
February 19th, 2012, 01:55 PM
coffee412, you have KDE, Xfce, Mate and Cinnamon, and you still want the Gnome devs to maintain Gnome 2? I do not think there is any shortage of menu-based systems.

I would agree, however, that something is really wrong in the linux world. Instead of just getting on with using what they want, the conservatives just cannot resist whining about the new choices.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I have been busy at work.
-------------
The problem is not that there are no alternative Desktop Enviroments to pick from. The problem is how they implemented the introduction of unity/gnome3.

I dont recall me saying that there was a shortage of Desktop enviroments.

Changing your DE to an unproven and buggy (because of quick release) DE doesnt make much sense. Its always better to start off as an alternative and keep improving it until it gains wide acceptance then decide whether to make it your flagship DE.

As for liking gnome3 or unity I dont. It was a bad move and only time will tell.

For those that like gnome3 or unity - fine. Glad you do.

Have a good one...

;)

keithpeter
February 19th, 2012, 02:29 PM
Hello All

5 pages of posts and no mention of the RHEL clones (e.g. CentOS) yet unless I've missed something.

CentOS 5.x has support until 2017 and runs kernel 2.6.18 or there abouts and will run on non-pae hardware (e.g. Centrino laptops like the thinkpad T4x series)

CentOS 6.2 is the current one with support to 2020 and runs 2.6.32 ish but has point updates later. Note: no simple way to support non-pae hardware

If you are really sure that Ubuntu 9.10 did what you want, and really want to have the same experience again, try a CentOS live CD. More work getting hardware going however, Ubuntu has always done hardware support really well in my (limited) experience.

Controversial claim: the operating system we all run is GNU/Linux. The various distributions and flavours differ mainly in package update mechanism and choice of processes to run. Linux = Choice. Make yours!

buckeyered80
February 19th, 2012, 03:04 PM
I was surprised to see some people saying that Windows 7 was running faster than the new Ubuntu. I have a dual-boot system with Ubuntu 11.10 and Win 7, and Ubuntu is much faster. Even if I use Unity 3D, it is way faster than Win 7. My system is about 4 years old too. Yes, it is a little more Mac-like now...with the dock and the global menu system. I don't mind it, because I like Macs but I can never shell out the money for a Mac.

kevinmchapman
February 19th, 2012, 05:47 PM
Changing your DE to an unproven and buggy (because of quick release) DE doesnt make much sense. Its always better to start off as an alternative and keep improving it until it gains wide acceptance then decide whether to make it your flagship DE.

As for liking gnome3 or unity I dont. It was a bad move and only time will tell.


Always better for whom? Not the developers, that's for sure. They do not need the workload of looking after two complex DEs. Then who decides when it is ready and has wide acceptance when no figures are available? You? Me? I think the developers have already made that decision :)

In any case, I would suggest they already have wide acceptance, considering the most popular distros have made the switch. Most users do not post on blogs and forums, so there must be plenty of uncomplaining users just using these interfaces. No idea whether they are happy, of course, but using them...

I can't speak for Unity, but GS has proven stable for me. Similarly, "bad move" is opinion, not fact, so no comment.

wolfen69
February 19th, 2012, 07:35 PM
The problem is not that there are no alternative Desktop Enviroments to pick from.
Linux has more DE's to choose from than any other OS on earth. Is it really an issue?

Always better for whom? Not the developers, that's for sure. They do not need the workload of looking after two complex DEs. Then who decides when it is ready and has wide acceptance when no figures are available? You? Me? I think the developers have already made that decision :)

In any case, I would suggest they already have wide acceptance, considering the most popular distros have made the switch. Most users do not post on blogs and forums, so there must be plenty of uncomplaining users just using these interfaces. No idea whether they are happy, of course, but using them...

I can't speak for Unity, but GS has proven stable for me. Similarly, "bad move" is opinion, not fact, so no comment.
Well said.

Dragonbite
February 20th, 2012, 05:37 PM
The problem is not that there are no alternative Desktop Enviroments to pick from. The problem is how they implemented the introduction of unity/gnome3.

I dont recall me saying that there was a shortage of Desktop enviroments.

Changing your DE to an unproven and buggy (because of quick release) DE doesnt make much sense. Its always better to start off as an alternative and keep improving it until it gains wide acceptance then decide whether to make it your flagship DE.


Linux has more DE's to choose from than any other OS on earth. Is it really an issue?

I think he is more mentioning that it was the "introduction" of Unity at issue, not whether or not there are other desktop environments.

Some people may see the way Unity has been handled as "my way or the highway" with the "highway" meaning a different distro or environment.

Anybody remember the number of "I love/hate Gnome" threads that used to come out before?