Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu Unity Ported To Fedora Using OpenSUSE

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the say-that-three-times-fast dept.

GUI 128

sfcrazy writes "The general tendency within the open source community is to a whole new wheel to push your own cart. A majority of open source projects are suffering from duplication. Luckily, we just noticed a great example of such collaboration (or using resources by different competing projects) within the distro community. Ubuntu's popular Unity shell is being ported to Fedora (the distro which leads the development of Gnome shell and its also the breeding ground of many latest technologies which are used by the rest of the GNU/Linux world). Interestingly developers users openSUSE's build service to create this port. openSUSE leads the development of Gnome and KDE along with LibreOffice." Calling Unity "popular" seems like a stretch, but it's certainly where a lot of Ubuntu work has been lavished; the cooperation that open source code fosters at least lets whoever wants to use or develop it do so.

cancel ×

128 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck yeah!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699357)

Poonity rocks on Oompoopoo so it should rock even more on Fedora. I can't wait to rin it on RHEL!! Suck on that, proprieturds!!!

Great, sort of (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#40699365)

So now that that's done, perhaps they can "port" Mate to Fedora too?

Gnome 3 and Unity isn't the answer. It's the question, and judging on user reaction, the answer is "no".

Re:Great, sort of (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#40699447)

Wait, what?! No, this is just crap.

GNOME 3 and Unity are not the answer PRIMARILY because no one was asking the damned question!!

People Don't Want GNOME Shell and Don't Want Unity.

"New Coke" sucks. We want Coca-Cola Classic now. Can we have it back?

Re:Great, sort of (4, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#40699497)

I want unity. I like it. I've used a half a dozen different linux guis and unity is the one that lives on my desktop every day. Sure it's got issues, but they all do in one way or another.

Also, new coke was preferred in taste tests prior to release over "classic" coke and pepsi -combined-.

The reason it failed was because the coca-cola corporation had underestimated the extent to which they themselves had integrated coke into american lifestyles and memories, and any perceived change to that would be viewed by the american public as dicking around with their childhood.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp [snopes.com]

honestly, new coke was pretty good. I miss it.

Re:Great, sort of (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#40699615)

In taste tests, people also routinely say they like Pepsi more than Coke. But this is purely becuase the taste tests are just small samples while many people can't stand drinking a full can of Pepsi because it's too sweet. [wikipedia.org] This was the same with New Coke. The taste tests of old vs new Coke gave them an erroneous result because it used the same flawed testing as the Pepsi Challenge.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#40699671)

I dunno, I think pepsi does pretty well for themselves.

especially considering that at the time of the whole coke classic / new coke debacle, pepsi was handily outselling coke.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#40699759)

The point wasn't how well Pepsi sells or sold, the point is those new Coke taste tests gave erroneous results such as the Pepsi Challenge did. And Pepsi wasn't outselling Coke as your own link says:

and it was only Coke's greater availability in restricted markets (such as soda vending machines and fast food outlets) that was keeping its numbers ahead of Pepsi's.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#40700059)

keep reading.
[quote] market surveys at the end of 1985 showed Pepsi ahead of New Coke and Classic Coke combined. [/quote]

also, since you said that "many people can't stand to drink a full can of pepsi" I was showing that however many your "many people" are, they aren't enough to stop pepsi from selling a metric shitload of product.

Re:Great, sort of (4, Informative)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#40700097)

Meh. I liked Crystal Pepsi. The caramel coloring in colas is purely for looks, and it curdles in you mouth.

But unless Unity supports desktop applets and user program launchers, I'm not going near it. Of all the insanely stupid things Gnome3 did...

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#40700299)

I liked crystal pepsi too. it was a little different, but in a good way.
pepsi crystal, which came out a few years later, was not the same thing at all!

Re:Great, sort of (1)

trimpnick (1362187) | about 2 years ago | (#40701903)

I liked Vanilla Coke myself, alas I didn't know many others who did

Re:Great, sort of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702795)

The caramel coloring in colas is purely for looks

Not true. It actually has a distinct, slightly burnt flavour.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699781)

None of this matters because RC Cola is better than Coke -or- Pepsi

Re:Great, sort of (2)

Reasonable Facsimile (2478544) | about 2 years ago | (#40700061)

None of this matters because RC Cola is better than Coke -or- Pepsi

Shasta, bitches!

Re:Great, sort of (2)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#40700257)

all true hackers drink jolt!

Re:Great, sort of (1)

genus_001 (547009) | about 2 years ago | (#40700683)

or Club Mate.

Re:Great, sort of (5, Interesting)

damien_kane (519267) | about 2 years ago | (#40699969)

Not only that, but the tests themselves were biased.

Case in point, a "blind" taste-test offered at a local waterpark that I was at as a teenager, with signs all around it clearly defining it as the "Pepsi Challenge"
This particular taste test was giving out prizes/awards. I had noticed that some people walked away with a bottle of pepsi, and some walked away with a chocolate bar, but nobody got to choose (they were simply being handed the prize).

I (correctly) assumed that those who chose Pepsi as the favorite received the beverage, and those who chose coke got the snack.
I prefer Coke, but I was thirsty and I knew which tasted like which. I chose Pepsi, and got a free beverage.
I told my friends, they attempted, and all got the same result.

At that point it wasn't a contest of coke vs pepsi, it was a contest of free beverage vs free snack on a hot, sunny day in a waterpark.

Re:Great, sort of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701017)

What's the difference between 19 and 21 tsp of sugar in a 355ml container, really? I find it hard to believe that those hardened sugar-crazed cretins (ie, anybody who volunteers for the "taste test") would be able to notice if you added a few dung beetles to the mix. Either Pepsi or Coke could be used to strip paint.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#40702433)

Bah, its all about what goes with it. RC Cola and Moonpies, Pepsi and peanuts, Coke and cashews. Of course with the Pepsi and Coke you'll need a bottle to pour in the peanuts and cashews respectively but it all comes down to having the right one with the right side.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699525)

Seeing as they are porting it, I am sure we want it. Also, the "new coke" sucks thing is kinda stupid, seeing as when they tested for the new coke, most people agreed it tasted a lot better, but people didn't want a new taste, so basically you are saying that for the sake of not having to adapt, we should throw away an improvement. That said, I don't know if unity is an improvement. It has a few not so bad features, but I do miss a lot of things as well.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#40699651)

Yes, in sip tests people liked New Coke more, but ths was a flawed testing method consistent with the erroneous results of the 'Pepsi Challenge'.

Re:Great, sort of (2)

mwolfe38 (1286498) | about 2 years ago | (#40699565)

I also like unity quite a bit. I would like it more if it were stable. Coincidentally, just yesterday I worked on an old man's windows computer and he had his taskbar on the left side of the screen the way unity has it. He said he does it since all the screens are widescreen it makes better use of his screen.

Re:Great, sort of (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40699595)

First Apple, then Microsoft, and now Canonical seem obsessed with making their desktops "pretty" rather than functional.

Mozilla also seems to have the same obsession..... just installed Firefox 13 on my brother's laptop, and I swear it looked like Chromium. He asked me to "make it look like it used to look" so I backed it off to Firefox 10 LTS which has the full dropdown menu. Change for the sake of change is usually bad, especially when the users just want it to work.

Take a look at cars: They've kept the same standard interface for as long as I can remember (back to the 60s at least). The shifter moved from the steering wheel to the floor, but otherwise I could drive an old 60s car or a modern 2013 car without difficulty.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about 2 years ago | (#40699663)

First Apple, then Microsoft, and now Canonical seem obsessed with making their desktops "pretty" rather than functional.

False Dichotomy

Take a look at cars: They've kept the same standard interface for as long as I can remember (back to the 60s at least). The shifter moved from the steering wheel to the floor, but otherwise I could drive an old 60s car or a modern 2013 car without difficulty.

And as far as Unity, the launcher moved from the bottom to the left. Yes you could list other changes, but I could list other changes to cars in the past 50 year as well.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699717)

False Dichotomy

True. Unity is neither functional nor pretty.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

karolbe (1661263) | about 2 years ago | (#40702135)

And you are a troll.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#40699695)

you can get the "old" firefox interface with any of the newer versions. I've got 14.0.1 installed right now with the old look.

just go into "view" -> "toolbars" and change the "menu bar" setting.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#40699801)

People hating on Firefox tend to ignore that, unlike Chrome, the UI is customizable. I'm running nightly and it doesn't look all that different from Firefox 3.6, and aside from them playing with the locations of some buttons (always reversible) it hasn't changed much, and rarely in ways that weren't reversible.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#40699869)

And you ignore the fact that most users don't want to dick around with shit just to get back to what should be the sensible default.

Re:Great, sort of (3, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#40700249)

huh? I thought one of the main knocks on unity was that linux users weren't allowed to dick around with the UI as much as they've classically been allowed to?

man, damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#40700365)

Huh? He was talking about the Firefox UI. Even still, if people have to needlessly dick around to get your DE or prgram usable you have failed big time. No one said take away cuatomizability, but you need sensible defaults or you just drive people away.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700481)

huh? I thought one of the main knocks on unity was that linux users weren't allowed to dick around with the UI as much as they've classically been allowed to?

And the reason people want to 'dick around with it' is because by default it sucks. It's OK on a tiny netbook screen, but it's horrible when you're trying to do real work on a real screen.

Re:Great, sort of (0)

iamgnat (1015755) | about 2 years ago | (#40700313)

And you ignore the fact that most users don't want to dick around with shit just to get back to what should be the sensible default.

This!

I've been an OS X user for almost 12 years now and am firmly expecting to drop it and switch to Linux next month when 10.8 doesn't fix the shit they messed up with 10.7. Apple's been messing with their UI for years now, but it's finally gotten to the level that it pisses me off daily that almost all my "muscle memory" is now broken because they've changed things too much. Sure some things can be reverted back to how they were (or some semblance there of), but little of it is documented and I shouldn't have to waste my time doing it.

I can understand enabling the new interface features for fresh installs, but when you are doing an upgrade is it really so hard to leave shit alone and provide the user information about why these new features are so "cool" and how to enable them if they want them?

On the topic of switching to Linux, does anyone know of good resource that details various window manager features and how to configure them? I've been out of the Unix/Linux desktop scene for a long time (late 90s) and so far I am no fan of Unity.

Re:Great, sort of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701805)

This what? Finish your sentences.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#40703055)

People hating on Firefox tend to ignore that, unlike Chrome, the UI is customizable. I'm running nightly and it doesn't look all that different from Firefox 3.6, and aside from them playing with the locations of some buttons (always reversible) it hasn't changed much, and rarely in ways that weren't reversible.

I can't minimize the bookmark and tab bars anymore. I really miss that. Now you have to go through the View menu where you can remove the bookmark bar from view, but not toggle it like the minimize button did. And the tab bar seems stuck no matter what.
Some might be comfortable with those changes, but they're still irreversible changes.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

kahless62003 (1372913) | about 2 years ago | (#40699901)

I'm not seeing a "view" menu because the menu bar is disabled. I found the option somewhere else too - the "Menu Bar" option is also available in the "options" submenu of the Firefox menu button.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

kahless62003 (1372913) | about 2 years ago | (#40699729)

No need to downgrade. In the title bar at the top, right-click on the space to the right of the "Open a new tab" button [+]. Click on "Menu Bar" in the context menu.

Re:Great, sort of (2)

DeathToBill (601486) | about 2 years ago | (#40699885)

I seem to be the lone voice here, and I don't understand. I *love* Unity. it is far and away the best, most usable UI I have worked with. Ever.

I say that as a dedicated Emacs user. Unity follows the Emacs philosophy into the graphical desktop - the fewer times I need to reach for that damned mouse, the better. Any app I want to launch is four key strokes away. Any menu item is three or four keystrokes away, and I don't have to remember the arcane sequence of accelerators, I just start typing what I want to do.

Why do people hate it so much? Performance gets trotted out a lot, but even the 2D version running in a VMWare box is usable.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700311)

Because it's only recently reached what could be called beta quality, it still sucks at multiple monitors, global menus are fucking lame, scroll bars that by default disappear are stupid and unintuitive, the dash is laggy, it's terrible at touch even when your monitor has touch capability, not allowing people to move the launch bar without needless dicking around, the fact that you need a third party program just to adjust fonts and other basic configuration, etc, etc.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

chilvence (1210312) | about 2 years ago | (#40701453)

What I don't get is why people moan so much about unity, when if they dont like it, there are 18 gazillion other linuxes out there to use. Or even just switch to classic mode! Unity is different on purpose, shitting all over it for its minor faults is akin to kicking a baby in the shins because they haven't properly preserved the grammar of their mother language.

Of course it isn't perfect, but the whole point is: at least its something different! Stagnant pools breed vermin...

Re:Great, sort of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701833)

What I don't get is why people moan so much about unity, when if they dont like it, there are 18 gazillion other linuxes out there to use

Because Unity isn't a Linux distribution?

Re:Great, sort of (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#40702781)

Being buggy is a 'mnor fault', now?

Re:Great, sort of (2)

utoddl (263055) | about 2 years ago | (#40703163)

I say that as a dedicated Emacs user.

There is no other kind of successful Emacs user.

Unity follows the Emacs philosophy into the graphical desktop - the fewer times I need to reach for that damned mouse, the better.

Exactly the point. You don't need a graphical interface. You already know the names of all the apps you want to run. But my mother and father do need a graphical interface, and they don't know the names of all the apps -- however few they are. They can't touch type and look at the screen at the same time. They need to nudge the computer with the mouse toward useful operations. They could do that before, and they can't with Unity, or with the GNOME Shell.

So, no you aren't a lone voice, but you are in the extreme minority. If I want to run my computer from the keyboard, I'll open a terminal. I like the terminal. And I like a real GUI. I don't much care for screens that are too short and too wide playing animations in response to undiscoverable key strokes, which as far as I can tell is the point of both Unity and the GNOME Shell. (I know you were just talking about Unity, but personally I'd toss them both in the same bin.)

Re:Great, sort of (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#40703221)

I say that as a dedicated Emacs user. Unity follows the Emacs philosophy

Use self-modifying code and eat CPU through busy-polling?
Jokes aside, I am sure that there are people who like Unity (and some who even like Gnome 3). But I think the great majority don't; especially those who are used to working with lots of different apps, or use xdm or VMs.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

genus_001 (547009) | about 2 years ago | (#40701299)

You could have just went to preferences and clicked the Menu Bar box.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

sensei moreh (868829) | about 2 years ago | (#40701341)

I'm using FF-14.0.1 on Fedora Rawhide, and, after a bit of (annoying but necessary) tweaking, it looks pretty much like FF has looked for quite a while.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#40702635)

May I make a suggestion? Look at Pale Moon [palemoon.org] for your brother as the LTS won't give you as long as you think, not with the way they've been spinning version numbers like a top, whereas Pale Moon has stopped any UI "enhancements" and version 12 because they too don't care for the direction Mozilla is taking. as a bonus its compiled for newer CPUs with the SSE flags so it actually gives it a nice kick in the pants.

As for what has been going on with OSes lately...sigh. if I wanted a God damned cell phone for a desktop i would have a damned desktop, just a cell phone! Why the fuck do they think everyone wants to have a cell phone UI everywhere? The only thing I have EVER agreed with SJVN on is that the new UIs all suck [zdnet.com] and nooo, not because we are 'scared of change" or any other bullshit, I've been through plenty of desktop UIs, from Win 3.x and 9x through BBox through KDE and Flux, no its because its all about the bling and aping fricking smartphones instead of actually designing for the fricking form factor. Its just the opposite of the retarded 'Hey lets make phones into teeny tiny desktops!" that MSFT did with WinCE for a damned decade, only now its "Hey lets make desktops into supergigantic smartphones".

Its all just a big giant clusterfuck and I'll be glad when these things bomb big time so they can actually focus on making desktops that work again, instead of feeling like my monitor should be touch and have a slide out keyboard just to deal with the mess.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#40702485)

I encourage you to have a look at the latest Unity in Precise Pangolin (Ubuntu 12.04).

They've fixed the worst problems and it actually works quite well for a developer workstation now.

-AltTab only cycles through the windows on the current virtual desktop, not all desktops.
-It's actually nice having icons in fixed locations. Good for muscle memory.
-Global menu is nice on a laptop. On a huge monitor it may not be. But you can turn it off with one of the tweak programs.
-"You have to know the name of the app" is a concern. But not most of the time.
-If you want a hierarchical menu of the installed apps, you can install Cardapio [launchpad.net] , which I did.
-Showing your most recently used files, apps, etc. is useful, because 90% of the time you're working with what you worked with yesterday.
-The multimonitor spec is pretty good

There are some annoyances with the indicators (they don't have tooltips anymore). Settings are also sort of dumbed down. But it's generally great for developers.

Re:Great, sort of (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699511)

Unity has never, and will never be the answer.

Honestly who thought porting Unity to SUSE was a good thing? Ubuntu users hated it, and because of that, many Gnome users have abandoned Ubuntu in favor of Mint. You can see a direct correlation on distrowatch between Mints sudden surge in ranking, and Ubuntu's sudden drop. It's really no surprise.

Re:Great, sort of (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699987)

Unity isn't the worst thing.
Having to use it for a week led me to find xmonad.

Re:Great, sort of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700491)

For the love of god - NOOOO!

Re:Great, sort of (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#40701541)

Gnome 3 and Unity isn't the answer. It's the question, and judging on user reaction, the answer is "no".

To be fair, the main reasons for the backlash are the same:

  • Released too early with major bugs
  • Linux users are notoriously change-averse
  • No marketing effort aimed at showing how the new is better than the old

In fact, the response to KDE 4 was quite similar. The Linux desktop folks need to learn how to test properly and to take some marketing lessons from Apple. It's the least they could do.

Re:Great, sort of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40703277)

The main reason for the backlash is that I and many others don't want a braindead cell phone UI for our desktops. It is a fundamentally flawed DE. For a smart phone, it may be usable (I wouldn't use it, it performs as well as a gutted walrus), but on a desktop it only gets in the way.

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about 2 years ago | (#40701715)

Gnome 3 and Unity isn't the answer. It's the question, and judging on user reaction, the answer is "no".

Well, somehow I have to thank Gnome 3/Unity. Without it I'd never have tried Sawfish, XFCE, finally moved my POP account into a private IMAP server, learned Mutt, found DeadBeef, expanded my Conky-Configuration to include even more awesome stuff...I'd never have looked beyond Gnome if it wouldn't have been for those two.

So, this might sound crazy, but thank you Gnome and Canonical! Thank you for pushing a technology which made me look beyond what I already had, and let me find even better things! Thank you! ... ... ... Okay, you can now end the joke, we get it...can we now get the real Gnome 3?!

Re:Great, sort of (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#40702365)

Gnome 3 and Unity isn't the answer. It's the question, and judging on user reaction, the answer is "no".

Maybe the question is "How do we make KDE 4.x look better?"

One summary, so many errors (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699423)

>> "Interestingly developers users openSUSE's build service"
Developers users? Developers used? Developers are using?

>> "A majority of open source projects are suffering from duplication. Luckily, we just noticed a great example of such collaboration"
I think there is a sentence missing in there. Or maybe the author doesn't know what duplication and collaboration mean?

>> "Calling Unity "popular" seems like a stretch"
Really? It's only the default desktop of the most widely used Linux distribution in the world. Popularity doesn't mean you like it, it's a measure of how many people use/like it. More people use Unity than just about any other open source desktop available, that makes it pretty popular.

Re:One summary, so many errors (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40699579)

All of the Ubuntu Users I know switch to Gnome 3 or Xfce as their first step after install. This is obviously a small-ish sample size (15 or so, and mostly IT people), I'm currently tolerating Gnome 3. I find that Unity, in addition to some of it's design faults is too slow.

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40699601)

... of course, my opinion shouldn't be trusted because I don't know the peoper "its" to use.

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699791)

Yeah, that's it. That's the reason your opinion shouldn't be trusted. I mean, you typing while drunk wouldn't figure into it at all.

Re:One summary, so many errors (2)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 2 years ago | (#40700051)

I don't know the peoper "its" to use.

Today's not treating you too well, is it?

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

DdJ (10790) | about 2 years ago | (#40699731)

Interesting. None of the Ubuntu users I know are using anything other than Unity.

But then, none of them were Linux desktop users until Ubuntu 12.04 either.

(Well, I was, back in the 1990s. But not for like 12 years or so. The main thing I've found annoying about Unity is how hard it is to turn off virtual desktops/workspaces. Was tempted to switch back to TWM until I figured it out.)

Re:One summary, so many errors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701899)

So are your friends sheep that do whatever they're told or trendsters that heard about Linux on reddit one day and wanted to be "different" like everybody else?

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | about 2 years ago | (#40700119)

I'm sure I could answer my own question with 2 seconds of googling, but for the sake of discussion: What are the differences between Unity and Gnome 3 besides performance ?

I've been using Ubuntu for quite a few years now and have never considered switching desktops, particularly to Gnome (and isn't Unity just Gnome with some changes or am I *way* behind the times ?) xfce is just too ugly for me. I'm one of those rare tech people who actually doesn't mind sparing a few CPU cycles to have something nice to look at, as long as it doesn't cause performance problems (I would even argue that for a lot of people a nice aesthetic UI can boost productivity as long as it's done properly - i.e: to create a more pleasant and intuitive user experience).

So, would I have any reason to want to switch from Unity to Gnome 3 ?

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

RanCossack (1138431) | about 2 years ago | (#40701077)

So, would I have any reason to want to switch from Unity to Gnome 3 ?

I don't use gnome3 myself, but I did try it out for a while, and it did a few things that might meet your needs better.

Gnome3 can look pretty good, with themes. To my personal taste, the default looks terrible, though. It's also a lot easier to customize than Unity is now, though this wasn't the case earlier.

I tried it out for a while, and I actually really like how it handles notifications, though your taste may go the opposite way. And Compiz still has issues with snapping on resize, so getting away from that is nice.

Gnome3 also will dynamically manage your desktops/workspaces, adding or deleting them as you move windows to them. I personally couldn't stand that, but from what I hear it matches some people's needs perfectly.

Unity better than Gnome Shell (4, Interesting)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | about 2 years ago | (#40700129)

Come on Unity is much better than Gnome Shell (of course, classic Gnome 2 is better than both). Just one reason why Gnome Shell is bad: you got clickable elements on all four sides of the default (Home) screen. In Unity, only the right side and the top are significant, similar to the Mac and Gnome 2, where the bottom (the dock in the case of the Mac) and top are significant.

Re:One summary, so many errors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701405)

When I installed ubuntu the other day (having been using scientific linux for several months) I was so pissed off by the interface that I immediately installed Fedora instead. Seriously, why is there a GIANT sidebar on my desktop with GIANT buttons and I can't even move or hide it! And when I go to drag windows around, they lag behind my mouse. And no window list? That is one thing I could never stand when I had to use an apple computer. It should at least be an option.

I'm not sure Gnome3 is any better, but it only works in fallback mode on this computer, so I'm not complaining yet.

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 2 years ago | (#40699719)

You missed some:

The general tendency within the open source community is to a whole new wheel to push your own cart

Yes, open source developers tend to accidentally a whole wheel.

openSUSE leads the development of Gnome and KDE along with LibreOffice

What? openSUSE doesn't lead anything, they use the software, and usually assist in its development.

Re:One summary, so many errors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700617)

They're talking about the openSUSE Build service (OBS), which allows a developer to build packages for multiple distros, and multiple architectures, using OBS. It's actually a very cool service and nothing else like it that I've ever seen. You might want to check it out before criticizing, as it is unique and openSUSE/SUSE lead the effort and it's availability to the public. http://build.opensuse.org.

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 2 years ago | (#40702287)

I know the OBS, I have used it for a couple of years, and although it was for only one project, I know how cool, useful and unique it is. I would never dispute its value to both distributions and developers. However, it is not what the summary says.

Re:One summary, so many errors (4, Insightful)

RDW (41497) | about 2 years ago | (#40699753)

Really? It's only the default desktop of the most widely used Linux distribution in the world. Popularity doesn't mean you like it, it's a measure of how many people use/like it. More people use Unity than just about any other open source desktop available, that makes it pretty popular.

Unity's 'popularity' is almost entirely dependent on the strong Ubuntu brand (built with Gnome 2). How popular would Unity be if it were presented as an equal choice at installation with Gnome 2 (or MATE)? The spinoff distributions offer alternative defaults, of course, but Xubuntu, Lubuntu and Kubuntu have much lower profiles than the flagship Ubuntu brand. I'd be very surprised to see Unity enthusiastically adopted by the broader Linux community (packaging it is one thing; getting more than a handful of users to install it is quite another). Meanwhile, Ubuntu's 'new desktop paradigm' has probably done more than anything else to boost the popularity of Mint (v13 with MATE is much closer to 'classic Ubuntu' than any of Canonical's recent offerings).

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

DdJ (10790) | about 2 years ago | (#40699839)

I'd be very surprised to see Unity enthusiastically adopted by the broader Linux community (packaging it is one thing; getting more than a handful of users to install it is quite another).

If you mean current Linux users, that's one issue. But another issue is: to what extent will Unity entice non-Linux users to become Linux users?

(I'm talking about on the desktop.)

I personally know very few people who use Ubuntu on the desktop. Of those people, none used it at all before 12.04, and none have switched away from Unity.

(I happen to be in this set myself. I've been a Linux user on servers since well before the switch from a.out to ELF. I used it on the desktop in the mid to late 90s, but not since -- every time I gave it a try, I quickly went back to other desktop operating systems. But now I'm using Ubuntu, and so are non-techie relatives, and a couple of other people around me.)

Re:One summary, so many errors (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#40702511)

I personally know very few people who use Ubuntu on the desktop. Of those people, none used it at all before 12.04, and none have switched away from Unity.

My sister started using Ubuntu (with Gnome 2) when it was 8.x. When Ubuntu switched everybody to Unity she deicded to give it a try before considering migrating to a different DE. She's not particularly fond of it, but she's put enough time into learning how to use it that she's not interested in switching. After all, the only thing she really wants is to be able to get work done, so as long as the DE doesn't actively get in her way it's OK with her. (I've used it a few times on her box while giving her tech support. Personally, I hate it.)

BTW, both of us are senior citizens; she uses Ubuntu, while I prefer Fedora with Xfce. Neither of us is your steriotypical twenty-something Linux geek. I mention this only because we're probably not in Unity's target demographic, and some of you might find that significant.

Yay we have (dis)Unity! (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40699449)

I'm not sure but I suspect this is the main reason I couldn't get Ubuntu to run on my 386 MB laptop. Unity was using too much memory and ran like a snail (similar to Vista). I switched to LXDE (lubuntu).

Re:Yay we have (dis)Unity! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700147)

386MB is a strange amount of RAM to have. Does that include a 2MB video card?

Re:Yay we have (dis)Unity! (2)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 2 years ago | (#40700847)

Linux Mint's MATE interface is the way to go. lightweight, fast, familiar ui, and reasonably customizable.

What next "popular" Blackberry playbook?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699475)

Ubuntu's popular Unity shell is being ported to Fedora
And in other news:
The "popular" Blackberry playbook is a raging success!
Unity more popular than Zune!

Are you not entertained? (1)

DeTech (2589785) | about 2 years ago | (#40699647)

From my real world experience most people don't mind Unity. I even use it at home. Just stick a terminal somewhere and it's just as good as any other "dock"

Why would you need to "port" it? (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#40699691)

Does it not use the standard gnome/gtk/... libraries? I've heard Unity sucks pretty bad, but if it requires special "ubuntu" extensions, that's just sick.

Re:Why would you need to "port" it? (1)

robmv (855035) | about 2 years ago | (#40700175)

I am sure it does not need to be ported, only packaged for any distribution, the problem with Unity is that Ubuntu had to patch many applications to use the new features that it provides, like the notifications API for example. That they are building it on OpenSUSE service and not directly on Fedora repositories is probably (I am guessing) because Fedora has an strict policy of not patching upstream projects, if you need new features, add those to the original project (if you convince the project managers that what you have done is good and needed)

Re:Why would you need to "port" it? (1)

geek (5680) | about 2 years ago | (#40700647)

Port is possibly the wrong term but to answer your questions, no, it doesn't use the standard upstream libraries. Canonical heavily patches and tweaks things to make them work. It's hack upon hack, the vast majority of which are rejected by upstream so Canonical just releases their own packages for it. This is why Unity will never be in the main Arch repos because their packages aren't compatible with upstream in most cases.

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699705)

It's spreading!

Title made my brain hurt... (2)

ndtechnologies (814381) | about 2 years ago | (#40699747)

seriously, it did.

Re:Title made my brain hurt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702073)

+1

tro7l (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699807)

Duplication (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699863)

> A majority of open source projects are suffering from duplication.
Sometimes software is so bad that doing your own thing is the only alternative. Yes, I’m looking at you, Unity.

Why? How? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40699881)

Doesn't the Geneva Convention prevent development and use of torture devices on non-combatants?

For God's Sake... (1)

briancox2 (2417470) | about 2 years ago | (#40700205)

Why?

the horror.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700371)

Porting crap is useless. Deleting Unity is a better option.

My thoughts (2)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 2 years ago | (#40700405)

I don't mind using Unity on Ubuntu and it has gotten better since it was first introduced but I fail to understand why anyone would want to port this to other distros. I seem to recall many users giving negative feedback about Unity when it was first introduced and migrating to Mint as a result.

My Response to This: (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#40700409)

"NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!"

Is Fedora doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40700629)

I couldn't tell from the article, but is Fedora actually doing this or is it a Fedora user? If you wonder why it makes a difference, well, a Fedora sponsored port implies support, while as a user port does not.

Re:Is Fedora doing this? (1)

eric_herm (1231134) | about 2 years ago | (#40701203)

Fedora user.

And ported is a little misleading, just someone did quick package, but since they need non upstream patch to gnome, they will likely not be accepted by Fedora under this form.

Porting Unity to other distros... (2)

opus_magnum (1688810) | about 2 years ago | (#40700829)

...sounds like spreading the pox to another town and calling it a success!

Re:Porting Unity to other distros... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701187)

Well, if _I_ have to put up with it, I applaud the effort to force it on others :-)

UI Curmudgeons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40701545)

A lot of people who "HATE" Unity gave it a single chance when it was first released, and have never tried it again. The 12.04 release is as good or better than any other window manager out there. If you have the hardware it has some "pretty" 3D effects if not you can go 2D and it still works and is snappy even on a low end system.
People resist change. Change is hard. When Apple changed the UI people ranted now the same people will defend it to the end. KDE 3 vs 4 it took how many releases before people accepted it. It still makes me laugh/cry when I sit down on a windows machine and someone has changed the start memu to "classic" AKA make my desktop look like Windows 2000.

UI Curmudgeons give Unity a chance. Especially if you are running 12.04. YES it is different, YES some things don't work the way you want. But in some cases if you learn the new way you will find out it does work better, cleaner, smarter.

PS: if you real quiet you can hear the gnashing of teeth with the newest change Ubuntu is putting out. bye bye X Hello Wayland. +1 to Ubuntu for looking forward rather than backwards.

Re:UI Curmudgeons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702259)

How many trolls would a troll troll troll if a troll troll could troll trolls?

Re:UI Curmudgeons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40702405)

Hmm I would argue that all the people simple bashing Unity without saying "why" other than it is different are the trolls.

Citation needed... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#40701635)

A majority of open source projects are suffering from duplication.

Is there any evidence at all that any open source project is suffering from duplication? What are the supposed harms? Does software that does the same thing as another piece of software somehow split the psychic essence of the concept so that each is only half as effective?

I really wish we'd just kill this myth. There's little reason to suppose it's true, and not a single shred of evidence for it.

The reason often cited is that if the developers weren't re-inventing the wheel, they would be producing something better. But what reason do we have to suppose this? In an open source project, people work on what they want to. They're doing it for the fun of it. There's no more reason to assert that them working on this code is hurting progress on other code than there is to assert that it's hurting their progress to max level in Diablo III. Somewhat less, I would say.

This complaint, often heard, is every bit as stupid as complaining than a man is spending days in his garage with his woodworking tools making a chair when he could just buy one at the store in a matter of minutes. Sure, it's not the most efficient use of his time, but that's not the point. He's doing it because he likes woodworking as much as because he wants a chair, perhaps moreso.

tl;dr: No open source project suffers from duplication. Stop repeating this idiotic myth.

English... (1)

Schlaegel (28073) | about 2 years ago | (#40702503)

  • "The general tendency within the open source community is to a whole new wheel to push your own cart."
  • "(the distro which leads the development of Gnome shell and its also the breeding ground of many latest technologies which are used by the rest of the GNU/Linux world)."
  • "Interestingly developers users openSUSE's build service to create this port."

Would someone translate that to English please?

Re:English... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#40702919)

"The general tendency within the open source community is to a whole new wheel to push your own cart."

I think they a verb.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>