Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Addicted to unity 2d!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Beans
    0

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogs Hair View Post
    Unity 2D is in the 12.10 repository although I have had no reason to install it. I did use 2D on 12.04 and enjoyed it though I didn't notice a performance difference.

    12.10 is the best release on my hardware since 10.10 I can only hope 13.04 works as well.With everything Ubuntu/Linux I wait and see.
    There is no Unity 2D in 12.10 repos, but dummy packeges, that is useless packages.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Beans
    0

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Quote Originally Posted by vanadium View Post
    I would second the explanation of kaldor. It is a good, brief explanation about the fundamental differences between Unity and unity-2D, and why unity-2D was discontinued.
    I am sorry, but I'd have to tell you that the fundamental difference of Unity 3D and Unity 2D is not that as kaldor had explained. There is more to it than the eye can see. In my country, people say that it darker under the lamppost. Unity 2D works very well in a 3D environment and not dependent on Compiz. It works with KDE too, in which Kwin is the composite manager and with all the eye candy.

    Check and see for yourself. I am not going to get into an argument with anyone, please. The new year's coming, so let's be happy!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Beans
    3,111
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Please reread Kaldor's post. It is a good summary of the essential differences. Nothing you say is contradicting his post.

    Of course, you can run unity-2D in a 3D environment. You can run it on metacity, but also on compiz.

    In contrast, Unity-3D is implemented as a compiz plugin, and thus can only run on compiz.

    Reread Kaldor's post carefully.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
    Beans
    3,068
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Quote Originally Posted by KiwiNZ View Post
    My opinion only, the two main issues with 12.10 is releasing in Beta quality and very poor driver support and implementation, both of which are unacceptable in a modern OS.

    It is my belief that delaying a release is less damaging than releasing on time but broken. The religious adherence to the six monthly release cycle needs to be reviewed.
    No worries, just treat it as a beta i.e. don't use it for important stuff. I have 12.04 and 12.10 gnome remix installed. The 12.10 was a horror when I first installed it, largely due to Nvidia issues I believe. It's pretty stable now especially with Nouveau video. I keep at least two installs. One for 'real work', another for ditzing around the web/visiting crapware infested sites/ etc. etc.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Beans
    0

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Quote Originally Posted by vanadium View Post
    Please reread Kaldor's post. It is a good summary of the essential differences. Nothing you say is contradicting his post.

    Of course, you can run unity-2D in a 3D environment. You can run it on metacity, but also on compiz.

    In contrast, Unity-3D is implemented as a compiz plugin, and thus can only run on compiz.

    Reread Kaldor's post carefully.
    I read Kaldor's post again and installed Unity again.

    Originally Posted by kaldor
    The issue isn't a matter of "eye candy vs stable/fast". The issue is that Unity 2d and Unity are both different projects with different codebases. This is why there's a feature difference between the two.


    And, I found that I was right. This is not a case of two different code bases. I looked in to all those files connected to Compiz and disabled some that I decided not needed for Unity(3D) to work and ran Unity 3D. What did I get? Unity 2D desktop!

    Unity 3D could not appear as I had disabled few files, but it pulled in Unity 2D desktop in full. Unity 2D shouldn't appear too as I had disabled some files also in Unity 2D. So, they can't be from 2 different code bases. There aren't any feature differences at all.

    In a way, I thank you for contradicting me, which led to a careful scrutiny. Anyway, I copied few files to my Documents and uninstalled Unity (3D).





  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Beans
    3,111
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    There may be common elements in use by the two systems. Here is some reading that may confirm or not confirm your view on the matter:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28user_interface%29, scroll down to "Unity vs. Unity 2D"

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Beans
    0

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Quote Originally Posted by vanadium View Post
    There may be common elements in use by the two systems. Here is some reading that may confirm or not confirm your view on the matter:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28user_interface%29, scroll down to "Unity vs. Unity 2D"
    I know about the alleged difference of Unity 2D and 3D. Everyone was trying to tell us that Unity 2D was made for haedware that won't work with 3D acceleration, but it works with that hardware, so, whether it was named 2D or not it is a very good UI for any new computer, or in other words, this 3D is not that needed, to have the launcher, dash and the global panel in the 3D environment. I believe, the gnome-wm would live for some time and that is a 3D environment. I am not talking about Metacity at all.

    Please read my post carefully; I wrote that neither Unity 3D nor 2D was supposed to appear as I had disabled certain files in both 2D and 3D, but when I ran Unity (3D), out jumped this so-called Unity 2D. When, I uninstalled Unity (3D) all came backto normal and Unity 2D vanished leaving something useful for me to work on.

    This 2D is a misnomer. It is not 2 dimensional, neither Unity is 3 dimensional. As the OP wrote in his heading "Addicted to 2D!", I agree with him. That was all that's needed.

    The Compiz devs ask us to note something. It is in http://wiki.compiz.org/Distributions
    If something is a plugin to an unstable something, how can I trust the plugin to work flawlessly? If the plugin, which is important to us users, and without which we can't work with Ubuntu, is so dependent on the unstable base, aren't we in trouble?

    So, should we or shouldn't we be addicted to 2D?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Lubuntu Development Release

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Everyone was trying to tell us that Unity 2D was made for haedware that won't work with 3D acceleration, but it works with that hardware, so, whether it was named 2D or not it is a very good UI for any new computer, or in other words, this 3D is not that needed, to have the launcher, dash and the global panel in the 3D environment.
    The idea being that 3D acceleration provides for effects that enhance the experience. Whether that is a good thing or not is a matter for you to decide.

    I believe, the gnome-wm would live for some time and that is a 3D environment. I am not talking about Metacity at all.
    ...what? If you mean gnome-shell (which uses libmutter as a window-manager backend AFAIK), then yes, it is a 3D environment.

    Please read my post carefully; I wrote that neither Unity 3D nor 2D was supposed to appear as I had disabled certain files in both 2D and 3D,
    How is 'disabling' (here I read "removed"-disabling files?) a logical way to test for anything other than whether or not a desktop environment can survive having its files removed?

    but when I ran Unity (3D), out jumped this so-called Unity 2D. When, I uninstalled Unity (3D) all came backto normal and Unity 2D vanished leaving something useful for me to work on.
    If I recall, if Unity failed, it was engineered (for end-user purposes) to start unity2D as a fallback.

    This 2D is a misnomer. It is not 2 dimensional, neither Unity is 3 dimensional. As the OP wrote in his heading "Addicted to 2D!", I agree with him. That was all that's needed.
    So, if unity2d is not 2-dimensonal, what is it? AFAIK Qt uses 2D hardware acceleration or software rendering to perform whatever it's doing at the time. If you can provide code examples showing it is using 3D acceleration (OpenGL?), I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

    The Compiz devs ask us to note something. It is in http://wiki.compiz.org/Distributions
    If something is a plugin to an unstable something, how can I trust the plugin to work flawlessly?
    We can't. We just have to trust that Canonical knows what it's doing. And, so far, it does. I've never had a horrible crash while using Unity, and they perform extensive testing to ensure that the version of Compiz they ship is stable enough.

    If the plugin, which is important to us users, and without which we can't work with Ubuntu, is so dependent on the unstable base, aren't we in trouble?
    We have been since 11.04. 2 years later, I haven't seen any evidence that we're in trouble.

    So, should we or shouldn't we be addicted to 2D?
    Being addicted to something is generally bad. It's either expensive, bad for you, or just gets removed on the next release cycle.

    Sorry if you think this is overly negative, I'm just intrigued as to what you are saying.
    Last edited by MG&TL; December 30th, 2012 at 08:35 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Obscurial Springs
    Beans
    15,204
    Distro
    Ubuntu Budgie Development Release

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Quote Originally Posted by OluszDes View Post
    There is no Unity 2D in 12.10 repos, but dummy packeges, that is useless packages.
    You are correct , I saw the packages in synaptic but did not check the description.
    "Our intention creates our reality. "

    Ubuntu Documentation Search: Popular Pages
    Ubuntu: Security Basics
    Ubuntu: Flavors

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Beans
    0

    Re: Addicted to unity 2d!

    Quote Originally Posted by MG&TL View Post
    The idea being that 3D acceleration provides for effects that enhance the experience. Whether that is a good thing or not is a matter for you to decide.
    ...what? If you mean gnome-shell (which uses libmutter as a window-manager backend AFAIK), then yes, it is a 3D environment.
    I didn't mean gnome-shell or libmutter. Unity is the launcher, the global menu and the dash, the rest is Compiz. It is Compiz that gives the 3D effect. We have been using Compiz for so long, we have sort of forgotten that it is the only thing that gives 3D effects/environment in Gnome, Xfce and Lxde. As a plugin, Unity uses Compiz. It could use Metacity and Gnome-wm, as both happily work in 3D. Take a old distro, say Lucid and add Compiz to it, you get your 3D. Take the same Lucid and add Unity and you get your Unity 2D or 3D. The thing is Unity 3D is made to work only with Compiz and cannot also live without Gnome 3, but the so-called Unity 2D can live without both of them and work with pure KDE, LXDE or XFCE. A problem?

    How is 'disabling' (here I read "removed"-disabling files?) a logical way to test for anything other than whether or not a desktop environment can survive having its files removed?
    Disabling means disabling, nothing else. The file is there, but is not allowed to work.

    If I recall, if Unity failed, it was engineered (for end-user purposes) to start unity2D as a fallback.
    Well, yes and no.

    So, if unity2d is not 2-dimensonal, what is it? AFAIK Qt uses 2D hardware acceleration or software rendering to perform whatever it's doing at the time. If you can provide code examples showing it is using 3D acceleration (OpenGL?), I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
    No, not at this stage. I can, but I won't at this stage. I have no Unity 3D in my laptop, but Unity 2D is there, at least the parts I need. My window manager is gnome-wm and Compiz doing all kinds of effects. I have the Compiz cylinder moving away from the screen, when I change workplaces. In Quantal and Raring with their "3D accelerations" that doesn't work.

    We can't. We just have to trust that Canonical knows what it's doing. And, so far, it does. I've never had a horrible crash while using Unity, and they perform extensive testing to ensure that the version of Compiz they ship is stable enough.
    If Compiz crashes everything would crash. Unity is a plugin of Compiz, but when you install CCSM and try to make effects work, what happens? Unity goes haywire. You have to manually restart your computer, after enabling some of them. Nothing responds.

    Now tell me, why this Unity 3D, which is based on Compiz, crashes when you enable few of Compiz's own effects? Why you have to restart all the time, if you enable/disable some of those effects? Why it doesn't crash, when you are using the so-called Unity 2D?

    We have been since 11.04. 2 years later, I haven't seen any evidence that we're in trouble.
    The answer to this is written above.

    Being addicted to something is generally bad. It's either expensive, bad for you, or just gets removed on the next release cycle.
    How true! Are you addicted to Unity 3D? The OP meant that he liked it and found it better than the so-called Unity 3D, not exactly addicted. Personally, I don't want Unity 3D, but I like parts of Unity 2D and I use them. Its an application, which is useful to me for everyday work, so I use it. No addiction whatsoever.

    Sorry if you think this is overly negative, I'm just intrigued as to what you are saying.
    Absolutely not! This is Recurring Discussions, so no one should feel bad, if the other has a different idea. Its good to discuss, not argue, but discuss and that way we become knowledgeable.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •