jelco wrote:Tynach wrote:For one, I don't like to simply 'Upgrade' Ubuntu, because I always do weird things (unsupported repositories, that type of thing), so I always do fresh installs. I've not yet installed 11.10, but I've played around with it in a virtual machine... I hope that counts for you.
With our complicated networked workstation setups it generally saves time to upgrade instead of reinstalling and reconfiguring everything. This has never really presented any problem.
I wasn't implying you should do full installs - I was just preemptively saying why I don't, as an excuse for why I've not yet actually installed it.
jelco wrote:Tynach wrote:Unity has settings. I don't like the defaults either - I prefer to make the sidebar dock thing stay there without 'dodging' windows, though to get to the settings you have to install CompizConfig Settings Manager (and then change settings in the 'Unity' Compiz plugin). As for Gnome support, it's there - you can install Gnome. But, it won't be the Gnome you know... It's that stupid new Gnome shell, which believe me, is MUCH worse than Unity (they have the idea that you should never minimize applications, and a bunch of other retarded things like that). It's quite easy to find programs to install - Go to the software center, and type in 'Gnome'. Gee, hard, isn't it? Though I personally recommend KDE. 4.7 is quite nice now. At login, you know that little 'Gear' button next to your username? You click that, and it gives a menu of the different logins (KDE, Gnome Shell, Unity, Unity 2D...)
I think you didn't really read my post. I made it pretty clear I much prefer Gnome and Gnome3 feels much, much better than Unity. At least it still allows me to customize my panels and access menus wherever I please - customizing the bars and panels in Unity requires diving so deep into Windows registry-like configuration menus that you just can't get away with calling it flexible anymore. I personally use the command-line aptitude since Synaptic is incredibly slow - there you can't get away with installing gnome-shell, you need to install "gnome-fallback" for the login menu to understand it's installed. And of course I know that logon menu for the shell - my issue is with the fact you can't teach it to remember a default other than Unity. Perhaps with local users, but not in our case where we have a networked setup through NSS; it used to be possible to select a system-wide default but if that's still the case they've done a hell of a job of hiding that setting.
I read your post, but I admit I didn't understand it until now. I wasn't aware you had tried Gnome3, and in your post you simply referred to 'Gnome' - and when I think of plain Gnome, I picture Gnome2. I apologize for that. However, now you're acting like you didn't read my post. Configuring Unity does NOT require you to go into (g|d)conf-editor (a.k.a. registry look-a-like nightmare), but rather to install compizconfig. I admit, for some settings you still have to go into the (g|d)conf-editor, though that hardly accounts for even most of the settings (I admit to doing it with the stupid 'no more 'system tray' thing - too many programs use that for getting rid of it to be useful). When I said the software center, I did not mean synaptic - I meant literally, the "Ubuntu Software Center". Yes, this thing is even CLUNKIER and SLOWER than synaptic. I personally hate using it myself. But, it makes it a LOT easy to install other desktop environments - as you simply type the name of the desktop environment into the search bar, and it'll show up as a 'package' to install (it hides the actual packages - it just lists the 'programs'. Not what I want or prefer either, but if I want to easily install Gnome, it works fairly well). I have no experience with networked logins... I admit that I'm sorta new-ish to Linux, and most of what I've done is not symbolic of what may be done in a corporate environment (especially as I only have one laptop and one desktop to try things on). All I can say there, is possibly ask on Ubuntu forums (or Kubuntu forums, as they seem to have more actual techs instead of a ton of newbs).
jelco wrote:Tynach wrote:No, they furthered 11.04's "Ubuntu" font, into a monospaced font. It looks a little stylized, but I rather like it - it's got a nice science fiction-y look and feel to it, and yet it retains readability. Though for the console, I must admit I switch back to 'Monospace' for. Oh, and to change font settings, you have to go into Software Center and installed "Gnome Tweak", which shows up as "Advanced Settings". I do agree there - having to install customization tools is lame... They should be installed by default.
I don't care what the origins of the font are, or that you can change it - the fact that they deemed it readable for long terminal sessions just shows me they don't understand user-friendliness. You try editing something in vim with that font.
I suppose this is a matter of opinion. I personally like it and find it readable, but it doesn't "look right" to me on a terminal - so I switched back to Monospace for now. But I didn't think it looked ugly or hard to read. Oh and yes, I am a Vim user But I've not used Vim with that font yet, as I've only messed around with 11.10 in a VM - So, I must admit I've not had any long-term exposure to it.
jelco wrote:Tynach wrote:You think Unity should be clubbed to death? Try Gnome Shell. Your brain will be melted to vaporized butter by the time you're done LOOKING at it. And given the choice of either Gnome Shell, or Unity? I choose Unity hands down. Between Unity and KDE? Honestly, KDE, except that Unity is more stable... So I kinda am forced to use Unity. Particularly Unity 2D.
Well, like I said a couple of lines back, I though I made it pretty clear I rather like Gnome. It may be a little different from the old Gnome, but is still fully customizable and flexible. It doesn't stick to a let's-make-a-tablet-friendly-interface philosophy where everything needs to look shiny, be big buttons and be grouped. Alt-tabbing between multiple windows of the same application has been made extremely complicated, for example - why does it need to be? Alt-tabbing between windows on different workspaces is also a weird thing to support but something I can at least understand - why you need to wait 5 seconds for Terminal to expand to the 15 windows I have running at any time is beyond me though.
As far as shells in general go I prefer xfce by the way, but since Gnome works fine on Ubuntu I never tried to install it, fearing I might break stuff.
All of the Gnome3 configuration tools work in Unity, as far as I know. I've not messed with it enough to be able to say that with 100% certainty, but from what I've read and seen myself, that much is true. I honestly felt that Gnome Shell was more "Tablety" than Unity, but to each their own. I've not played around with alt-tabbing in either new desktop environment, so I don't know. I have no idea why a terminal would need to take 5 seconds to expand - and by your usage of 'expand' to '15 windows' doesn't make sense to me, so I will say I don't have experience with what you're trying to do, and/or I'm reading your post wrong again. I'm sorry
jelco wrote:Tynach wrote:Also, Ubuntu split from Debian a Looooooong time ago. The only thing they share in common, is that Ubuntu periodically takes packages from the Debian Unstable (sid) branch, and checks to see if they work with Ubuntu's own packages. But, Ubuntu is no longer Debian Sid semi-stabilized, with a custom theme. I'm afraid those days are long over.
Regardless of the different design branches, Ubuntu is still basically a Debian-derivative for desktop use (which is why Ubuntu Server is still a strange idea). I work with so many OSes on a daily basis that I start to group them up - all BSDs put together, Redhat + CentOs, Debian + Ubuntu. The packages and repos may be different, but you can still very easily swap out configs between the two different distributions. Considering we work with so much Debian at this particular association we ran Debian desktop for a long time - the only reason we switched to Ubuntu is because that's somewhat better suited for desktop use. Hence my comment: as far as I'm concerned that's not the case anymore and I'm seriously considering switching back.
By the way, my frustration is with both Unity and the rest of Ubuntu. Why has the Settings menu made way for a strange and incomplete settings Window for example? It's those strange design choices that show to me flexibility etc. have made way for weird philosophies.
I think Ubuntu Server uses a server-optimized kernel, and a few other weird differences from Debian. But I agree, I find it weird, and whenever I make an actual server (as a VM, or helping a friend set up a Linux server) I always (tell them to) use Debian. The reason I use Ubuntu over Debian for my desktop/laptop, is because I want to have the latest software - the latest Firefox, the latest Pidgin, etc. That's much tougher to do in Debian than it is in Ubuntu... Otherwise, yeah, I'd probably be using Debian right now. Debian was my first distro, and I've found it has significantly better performance than Ubuntu in almost all cases. Though, the issues you bring up are not significant enough (to me) to switch back to Debian and drop Ubuntu altogether - especially since they can be (hopefully) changed through configuration.
I was under the impression that lame settings window came from Gnome3 - Unity still uses the Gnome application stack, so the actual applications you get with Unity are the same as with Gnome3. That was my understanding, at least. Honestly I wish they'd come up with something like what SuSE and Mandriva have - a nice, unified settings manager that can manage settings for the entire system. I'd switch to those distros, except that I've always had problems with RPM based distributions... So I stick with Debian based ones.