Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 11.10 ('Oneiric Ocelot') Released
Cue the Ubuntu release parties — Ubuntu 11.10 has arrived. Ars Technica has a very positive summary of the changes in 11.10; Joe Brockmeier's piece of a few weeks back explains the return to Xen to Ubuntu and the introduction of Juju (formerly Ensemble). Asks an anonymous reader: "Any outstanding reasons why I shouldn't upgrade?" YMMV, but as a long-time Ubuntu user, and like many other users, I have mixed feelings about the concerted (and now complete) move away from a conventional WIMP interface to the new Unity. With previous versions, it was possible to choose a "classic" look rather than the default of Unity; now, for good or ill, the left-hand vertical menu is a permanent desktop element. It looks great to me, in the way the Canonical developers intend: as a consistent, replicable, supportable interface to recommend to (for instance) my parents — but I'm used to (and prefer!) more traditional WIMP environments, so at least for now have switched to Linux Mint's Debian Edition.
about 3 releases ago, and I've never looked back.
What distribution are we supposed to use now?
Ubuntu has given up on its users, and is turning into an interface for the elderly, the disabled and netbook people.
I'd rather have my advanced UI that lets me do whatever I want with my workstation, thank you very much.
I don't understand... can't you just remove the unity package and install KDE or Gnome?
The release after this is going to be called Precise Pangolin, which is an ant eater thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin
Summation 2
Wow.... its been a good run but, Unity just doesn't cut it for me.
I like where they are going with it, its cool, It was a fun toy, but, it was also klunky for me. Now, I know I am going to get roasted, but, sorry I used Unity for all of 3 days, so my memory may be fuzzy but....
I use multiple firefox profiles...at the same time. Often I have one that is a proxy into an internal net, and another that is public. Often i am doing things on the public one that I wouldn't want going over the private net. Think of this scenario... I have to proxy into work at night to fix a server, but, just before I was paged I was browsing porn. I don't want to be browsing porn through the proxy, and setting up foxy proxy with rules is just asking for an embarassing mistake. Actually, this is a rare scenario, but theres multiple networks I need to work in, and several of them I wouldn't want associated with my blog postings or slashdot rants.
Unity just failed to manage this at all. Part of this is, indeed, that firefox profile handling is brain damaged (if I specify a profile on the command line, why do I need "-no-remote"? shouldn't it be able to tell that the open window is a different profile and no I don't want to just connect to that?) but it would totally ignore the second profile. No way to get a second firefox dock icon, no way to deal with this, now rogue, application.
That was the real nail in the coffin for Unity, but beyond that....
I am an advanced user. I have things setup in GNOME the way _I_ want. Sure, I can rip out the unity stuff, it wouldn't be the first time that I went to down on an X Session config...but I chose ubuntu because it allowed me to minimize that shit. I like the defaults and found them easy to customize to be what I wanted. I like my setup and that Ubuntu has been fairly good about not stomping on my setup since I started using it around 6 or 7.
I will likely choose a new distribution if there isn't an easy way to not use unity.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yes, it's mostly still WIMP, but just different enough to be annoying, and for no apparent reason. Which is why so many people have been switching to Xubuntu lately (myself included). I see no reason to switch back to Ubuntu, unless someone can explain to me why this new Unity really IS easier to use than the standard WIMP interface.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The standard WIMP has been around, mostly unchanged, for decades. Why change it?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
until I open the command line and my life gets happier
Of course, this is the case for every GUI, excepting platforms that don't come with a decent CLI (windows). You're never going to find a GUI that makes your life happier than the CLI because CLIs are fundamentally superior.
So my advice is to give up. Embrace the CLI for everything, and use the absolute minimum GUI you need. There's a shit ton of tiling window managers out there for people who know what they want from a UI.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yes, it's mostly still WIMP, but just different enough to be annoying, and for no apparent reason.
Reasons:
1. GNOME devs already wish they worked for Apple, and it shows.
2. Ubuntu/Unity devs wish they were Apple.
3. Shuttleworth got an iPad.
4. Shuttleworth apparently not only had his mouse and keyboard stolen, he also had his arms cut off and can now only operate computers with his nose. He thus expects every computer he uses to be an iPad.
5. Combine the above four points and Ubuntu becomes an iPad, whether you ungrateful bastards with ARMS on your torsos like it or not.
6. Stupid people with arms. All a bunch of uncaring assholes. Every one of you.
WIMP stands for "window, icon, menu, pointing device", which you have with 11.04 I think what the author is complaining about is that Unity (or Gnome3) are not what I call "windows 95" clones. We have had this disease in computing ever since Windows 95 that every interface has to look like Windows 95. Think about it, Windows 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, KDE, Gnome 2.x were ALL essentially copies of the Windows 95 user interface. (Gnome 1.x was more of a CDE clone). All of these had some basic things like start bar and a "desktop" with files and program links. So, instead of using the term WIMP, the author should have used something like "Windows 95 based" user interface. No, I am not particularly fond of Unity, not because its different, in fact a choice between Gnome 2.x or Unity, I would choose Unity. I do however MUCH prefer Gnome 3, its much more polished, consistent, customizable (css/javascript), the workflow is well thought out, and Gnome3 does not use a unified Mac menu thats hacked onto applications that were simply not intended for a unified menu bar. I for one am ecstatic that we are finally moving away from Windows 95 being the gold standard for user interfaces.
I have a dual-screen setup with my main monitor on the right, so the left-handed, fixed menu really is a pain: either I make it collapse, and then have to target a very slim pixel-wide bar to un-collapse it, or I have to leave it there and waste screen space. They could at least allow us to switch left and right, and if make it as flexible as (gasp !) Windows, that lets us put the start bar on any border.
Also, grub2 has issues: couldn't handle handle a... blank HD for whole-disk installation ? I got a blinking cursor and hard reset on that one. And on my netbook, grub2 listed more than 1 entry per partition (!?), many of which non-bootable or system restore, with no way to clean, re-order... that monstrosity.
And finally, the way that start works is a pain, especially trying to put several folders on there.
To me, this sounds that developer arrogance: unfriendly stuff nobody wants (except the devs for bragging rights), that doesn't even work right. Ar users consulted at all, or is the Ubuntu dev process a giant nerd wank-fest ? In the end, this is making me lose confidence in Ubuntu in the long term. Long-term being, to them, 3yrs (LTS desktop), which also worries me.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.