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!
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.
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.
I read Kaldor's post again and installed Unity again.
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).
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?
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.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.
...what? If you mean gnome-shell (which uses libmutter as a window-manager backend AFAIK), then yes, it is a 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.
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?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,
If I recall, if Unity failed, it was engineered (for end-user purposes) to start unity2D as a fallback.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.
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.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.
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.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 have been since 11.04. 2 years later, I haven't seen any evidence that we're in trouble.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?
Being addicted to something is generally bad. It's either expensive, bad for you, or just gets removed on the next release cycle.So, should we or shouldn't we be addicted to 2D?
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.
"Our intention creates our reality. "
Ubuntu Documentation Search: Popular Pages
Ubuntu: Security Basics
Ubuntu: Flavors
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?
Disabling means disabling, nothing else. The file is there, but is not allowed to work.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?
Well, yes and no.If I recall, if Unity failed, it was engineered (for end-user purposes) to start unity2D as a fallback.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
The answer to this is written above.We have been since 11.04. 2 years later, I haven't seen any evidence that we're in trouble.
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.Being addicted to something is generally bad. It's either expensive, bad for you, or just gets removed on the next release cycle.
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.Sorry if you think this is overly negative, I'm just intrigued as to what you are saying.
Bookmarks