Gnome Shell and Unity

[craig10x]

akavir...you may think the majority of ubuntu users dislike unity but it's actually more like a small but very VOCAL minority....you might be surprised how many DO like it a lot and are really enjoying the improvements (even though slow but steady) they are making on it...it was good in 11.04 but better in 11.10 and it pretty much rocks in 12.04...of course many of us are looking forward to even more features and customization for it, but it will come...and in the meantime we are enjoying using it very much...

just takes a bit of patience, spending time with it (like at least 2 weeks not an hour or two) and a positive attitude...
i think the problem is that some people just don't like to see any change...familiar is comfortable and there is unfortunately a lack of "adventure" in some of us...

[MALsPa]

Yeah, I don't know if Unity "has turned most users off." No definitive numbers to back up that claim. All I can really say is that I'm fine using it, and other people don't like it at all.

[bimsebasse]

just takes a bit of patience, spending time with it (like at least 2 weeks not an hour or two) and a positive attitude...
i think the problem is that some people just don't like to see any change...familiar is comfortable and there is unfortunately a lack of "adventure" in some of us...

No I think a lot of users are just very habitual creatures when it comes to the desktop, we all have some habits that we don't like to change for love nor money. They see an interface that doesn't look or work like Windows 95 and lack the ability or the will to adapt. These users are probably lost for Ubuntu forever no matter how much Unity is improved, it's still built around a workflow they can't adapt to.

[xenopeek]

I think I'm probably in the "lacking the will to adapt" group Though I like the way Gnome Shell is developing, and have seen from the start that it just needed time to mature, I just have so much joy using Cinnamon and that offers me the desktop I want. As for Unity, it kept crashing multiple times per day on my machine, and that lead to me switching to Linux Mint last year. As I don't have a wide-screen monitor, Unity also just takes up too much horizontal screen space for me to enjoy using it.

I'm mostly looking forward to Cinnamon's future development, and for my second desktop to Xfce 4.11 (which will migrate to Gtk+ 3).

[exploder]

I tried to use Unity in 11.04 and 11.10 but I kept experiencing lockups. Hardware support is finally to a point where I could use Unity. Unity is pretty slick once you get used to using it and it does not take very long to become familiar with it. I don't see anything wrong with people wanting the Gnome 2x style user interface but it is time for something fresh and different. I have read some posts where people say they hate Unity and can not be productive with it, that's just nonsense. It is the same thing with Gnome Shell. I have read some posts where people are warming up to Unity and Gnome Shell now that both are gaining features. I like both but I really like the style Unity has, it just has an elegant but modern look to me.

When someone sees me using my laptop I want them to know at first glance that I am not running Windows. Both Unity and Gnome Shell are moving away from a Mac or Windows type interface and with Windows Metro, Microsoft will be the one trying to play catch up now. It's not enough for Linux to be faster, more secure and more reliable, Linux systems need to have an interface that is better than it's competitors. Unity and Gnome Shell are rapidly improving and there are a lot of fresh ideas being developed. To me there should be a certain amount of excitement associated with the way things are going, not complaining.

Don't misunderstand me, I have Cinnamon installed on my kids computer and it takes everything my 7 and 3 year olds can throw at it. Gnome 3 has given all of us more choices than we have ever had and that's good for all of us.

[craig10x]

Big +1
I couldn't agree more

[bimsebasse]

Except that Windows Metro is light years ahead of both Unity and Gnome Shell in the MODERNUNINTUITIVETABLETMOBILEPHONEINTERFACEGARBAGE game and not exactly playing catch up, Unity and Gnome Shell are quite traditional in comparison.

Considering the wailing and gnashing of teeth Unity and Gnome Shell created and still create, I fear for mankind when Metro is out, the internet will break, the combined moaning will shake the foundations of the earth, continents will fall into the oceans.

[xenopeek]

Regardless of any desktop flamewars we could start here about the (in)sanity of Unity and Gnome Shell, as Linux users we should be proud that we have all these desktops that we can install, customize, or fork as we want

[exploder]

bimsebasse, I have to agree that Gnome Shell and Unity seem more traditional compared to Metro. One of my friends at work was trying Metro and did not like it at all. My wife is a die hard Windows user and has said that she will stick with Windows 7 until it no longer does what she wants because she does not like Metro, (my wife is a gamer). Watching a demo of Metro was enough to turn me off to it.

I think Gnome Shell and Unity offer new ideas without complicating things too much. I can understand not wanting to maintain and interface for every type of device that comes along and to me it looks like Gnome Shell and Unity could get the job done without making things very difficult. I also like the idea of using extensions to customize things to your liking. Cinnamon seems to be the best choice for people that want a traditional desktop because it is like a complete extension pack for Gnome 3.

I have never been a big fan of drastic changes but I can see the need for the changes that are taking place. I was originally drawn to Mint because of the Mint menu, I thought at the time that the traditional Gnome layout was not as modern. I was eventually convinced to try the traditional layout because of an argument me and another guy had on the Ubuntu forum had. The guy made a convincing argument and we both walked away from the discussion with something to think about. I must also say that I have respect for the guy for the way he presented his views to me, he did so in a very civil manor.

I did not instantly like Unity, the early versions were pretty buggy and were not customizable without quite a bit of work. I did like the 10.04 netbook remix that Oz Unity used and Marc themed to look nice, I thought it looked cool and it worked just fine for the most part. I have tried some of the tweaking utilities for Unity in 11.10 and 12.04 and they seem to help make things better for people that want more customizing.

I think that over time Gnome Shell and Unity will be more customizable than Gnome 2x was. Some people will switch to other desktop environments and it has always been like that. The thing is, change is here and it makes sense to at least give it a try because you just might learn to appreciate it. Gnome Shell and Unity can not be considered clones of the Mac OS or Windows and I think that is good for attracting manufacturers and new users. Too many people expect Linux to be like a free version of Windows and we all know that they are completely different. I am glad Ubuntu decided to go their own route because it adds more new ideas to the mix,between the two we will see some originality. HUD is pretty original, the idea of lenses and scopes is good and the new concepts with application menus in general is getting very interesting.

I think that if more people contributed ideas rather than just saying they hate Gnome Shell or Unity things would progress quicker. I see so many people that complain but never really provide any real feedback to what they don't like or give any real detail to their complaint. Some people simply do not give any of the new ideas any chance at all. I try to keep in mind that just because I do not like the way a particular feature is presented at the moment does not mean that there aren't bigger plans that revolve around it in the future. There has not been much change to the user interface since Windows 95 came out and since then lots of new devices have come to exist. Microsoft made a bold move with Windows 95 and they changed the way people viewed computers, is there anything wrong with people trying to do this now? I am sure there were people that did not like the Windows 95 user interface at the time but it did become the standard. With the success of Android it demonstrates that people are looking for something fresh and Gnome Shell and Unity just might be the next successful systems with manufacturers and the general public.

craig10x took the right approach, he looked at and used Unity with an open mind. You have to be open minded and consider the things to come. There are changes coming for Unity that will be developed between now and the next LTS release and in my opinion they are pretty exciting changes. Things change weather we like it or not, change is the very nature of Linux distributions and I think the direction things are going is going to make Linux more popular in a short amount of time.

[MALsPa]

I tried to use Unity in 11.04 and 11.10 but I kept experiencing lockups.

I'm still in the dark ages with Unity. The only Ubuntu versions I have running here, 10.04 on one machine, 11.04 on another; haven't looked at anything more recent yet.

I've got GNOME Shell in Fedora 16, and I do sorta like that better than Unity, I think mainly because I like the "dynamic workspaces" in GNOME Shell. But I do enjoy using 11.04, and haven't had any issues at all with lock-ups, but I've only tried 11.04 and Unity on one machine (Compaq Presario CQ56-219WM Notebook).

I decided to just wait on 12.04 because everything's running fine and I'm in no hurry to move on. I'm thinking that I might even wait a couple of months until 12.04 is released to take a look at it, but I'm not sure.

In any case, I'm comfortable with either GNOME Shell or Unity, and I'm quite familiar with KDE, Openbox, Xfce, etc., so I feel great about the various options we have. It almost doesn't matter what default any particular distro goes with.

[exploder]

I have Fedora 16 with Gnome Shell running on one of my machines and plan on leaving it the way it is for the time being because it works fine. I installed Ubuntu 12.04 on my new laptop because it was the only thing I found that supported the new ATI graphics and the Ralink WiFi well. The more I used 12.04 the more I liked the changes to Unity and I decided to install it on my main desktop. I do not mind dealing with the bugs in 12.04 at this stage of development because I know that everything is geared toward fixing them now.

I was able to get 11.10 to run properly on my main computer with all of the updates that are now available but I really like the features of Unity 5.8. I used to enjoy Ubuntu development back in 8.04 and 12.04 has been a great cycle so far. I do not like fighting with hardware issues and 12.04 has been good with the hardware on all of my systems. I was not originally that interested in Unity until I started using it. Fedora 16 started out as a way to have a stable operating system on a computer that my wife might want to use occasionally. I did want to try Gnome Shell and Fedora was a good opportunity to give it a try. The computer with Fedora on it runs so well that I decided to leave it as it is.

[cwwgateway]

In the last maybe 2 weeks, I've decided to dedicate myself to living with Unity (I still run Mint 12 with Cinnamon in a virtual machine). I am really starting to warm up to it now. I think that it will be really good in Ubuntu 12.04. I just have to do the same with stock gnome shell and I will probably be able to make that usable. However, I'm still going to run Mint 13 with Cinnamon as my default desktop. I look at it this way - Unity I can now use and be happy with, but it doesn't increase (nor does it decrease) usability for me. It is pretty bug-less (although sometimes the launcher-bar doesn't appear when my mouse pushes against the left side of the screen). I really like that it has a good 2d mode. However, Cinnamon lets me work in my old, familiar, gnome 2 way with lots of good new gnome 3 technologies. So, I am going to use cinnamon because it allows me to tune everything exactly the way I want it. That is my one problem with Unity. If I want to customize something, I can't (although I've heard that this is much better in 12.04). I actually wrote a list of thing that I wanted Unity to be like to get to where I would use it over Cinnamon, but I realized that it ended up being basically my Cinnamon setup. So I like Unity a lot, I'm going to hold out commenting on gnome shell until I try it (preferably 3.4), and I right now have what I want with Cinnamon.

[exploder]

cwwgateway, I like what you wrote and the fact that you used Unity for two weeks. I also respect your choice of environments because you have taken the time to explore things before you made your choice. I would be interested in your views on Gnome Shell when you have had the chance to really try it out. Do you think you might give Gnome Shell two weeks like you have done with Unity? Like you, I wanted actual hands on experience before making a choice. I have Cinnamon, Gnome Shell and Unity running on different computers and they all have their good points. Cinnamon has held up the best for my 3 year old son, you should have seen the mess he made out of KDE 4....

[cwwgateway]

cwwgateway, I like what you wrote and the fact that you used Unity for two weeks. I also respect your choice of environments because you have taken the time to explore things before you made your choice. I would be interested in your views on Gnome Shell when you have had the chance to really try it out. Do you think you might give Gnome Shell two weeks like you have done with Unity? Like you, I wanted actual hands on experience before making a choice. I have Cinnamon, Gnome Shell and Unity running on different computers and they all have their good points. Cinnamon has held up the best for my 3 year old son, you should have seen the mess he made out of KDE 4....

Thanks. I kind of have a dilemma with gnome 3 because I'm going to try Gnome 3.2 if I try it now, but I also want to try gnome 3.4 because while it might have some bugs because it was just released, it also has some new features and fixes. Unfortunately, no distribution that I know of has a stable release with gnome 3.4, so I don't think I'm going to be able to thoroughly try it until Ubuntu 12.04 comes out. And I would really recommend to people in general when trying software, try things for a while. I really didn't like Unity when I first tried it. That's because I used it for half an hour and then got annoyed. But different doesn't always mean worse. Linux itself is a big step from Windows, and many ways you do things are different. Almost anyone on the forum would get annoyed with someone who only tried Linux Mint for half an hour or even a day and decided that they liked Windows better, and therefore wrote about all of the problems (I'm thinking specifically that they tried to install something from the internet). I equate this to desktop environments and all software - using it for only a day, or even two weeks, doesn't make you an expert. I'm going to keep an open mind with gnome, and I might try KDE for a long period like two weeks (I'm pretty new to linux in comparison with a lot of people, so I really haven't tried a lot of things that most people have).

[exploder]

Just saw this about Fedora 17 and thought some might be interested.

http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2012/04/05/ea ... a-17-beta/

I like Fedora 16 quite a bit with Gnome Shell 3.2 and Fedora 17 looks like it will be even better. My wife has been using the computer with Fedora 16 on it quite a bit lately! I think my wife is more open minded about Linux since she got a new Android phone. I bet she spent a good 5 hours on the Fedora machine last night and she was using it this morning to get some things done. My wife has always complained about Linux systems in the past but she seems to get along just fine in Gnome Shell. I doubt my wife would ever switch to Linux full time because of the games she runs but it is nice seeing her finally take to Linux for some things.

[MALsPa]

exploder -- Quite cool that about your wife and GNOME Shell and Linux!

About Fedora 17, well, the way I've been going at it with Fedora is to have both of the most recent releases installed. That way if the new release doesn't work out so well I have the old one to fall back on. I decided to do this because folks said that Fedora isn't always good from one release to the next (so far, I haven't found that to be the case). So right now I have F15 KDE and F16 GNOME.

So I was planning to replace F15 KDE with F17 KDE, and then in six months, replace F16 GNOME with F18 GNOME, and on like that.

F17 GNOME looks tempting, though!

With either the KDE or GNOME versions, I've been having great luck with Fedora (since I started using it with F14). Somehow, even with the short release cycle, and with being a so-called "bleeding edge/testing ground for RHEL" distro, they seem to put out a product that's about as polished and solid as Debian Stable -- or, at least it seems so here. I might be exaggerating a bit, but I'm very impressed with the distro.

Anyway, thanks for the link. The first thing that I noticed there was that apparently GNOME Shell in Fedora 17 has the power off option by default. In Fedora 16, I had to add an extension for that.

[exploder]

MALsPa, I noticed the shutdown option too. I used to run Fedora back when it was Fedora Core, I started with 5 and 6 and it always worked. Fedora has always been good about releasing bug fixes and I like how they offer newer kernels. Anther thing I like is how on Fedora Plymouth works perfectly, it's a minor thing but it is nice seeing it work for a change. I plan on looking at Fedora 17 when it goes final and maybe upgrading the computer that is running Fedora.

[bimsebasse]

Anyway, thanks for the link. The first thing that I noticed there was that apparently GNOME Shell in Fedora 17 has the power off option by default. In Fedora 16, I had to add an extension for that.

Hehe, same here, the way they handled it in Gnome 3.2 was mindnumbingly, confusingly daft.

[MALsPa]

Hehe, same here, the way they handled it in Gnome 3.2 was mindnumbingly, confusingly daft.

Is it something that GNOME corrected, then?

[exploder]

I have not been able to find out anything about the shutdown dialogue being added by default but I would think that enough people have complained that they should have. The shutdown missing was my wifes only complaint.

Edit: Everything I have found so far suggests that the extension is still needed.