GNOMEbuntu Set To Arrive In October

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GNOMEbuntu Set To Arrive In October

Posted by timothy on Thursday August 30, 2012 @06:58AM from the would-prefer-mate dept.

First time accepted submitter Rzarector writes "Good News Everyone! Thanks to the Ubuntu Gnome Community and Jeremy Bicha, it seems that the popular distribution will ship a flavor with a relatively pure GNOME experience in the next release cycle, on October 18. At this point the effort is community based, but hopefully GNOMEbuntu will make it as an official Canonical spin, similar to Kubuntu, Xubuntu, et cetera, in the 13.04 release. This is the story: At the Ubuntu Developer Summit in May, some discussions took place on the need for a Gnome spin. On August 13, Jeremy Bicha posted on Gnome mailing lists about looking a name for the new Ubuntu derivative. After that, I had no news till Stinger gave us a thread in Ubuntu Forums. On there, Jeremy talks about working on an Alpha version! So I contacted him and he verified that GNOMEbuntu will be released together with Ubuntu 12.10."

157 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Which Gnome? by AliasMarlowe · 2012-08-30 06:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

If it's Gnome 3, then screw it. It goes into the "ignored trash" category, along with the Unity flavor of Ubuntu.
If it's a Gnome 2 fork (like Mate) or other Gnome 2 flavor, then I might be interested.
We converted all our home PCs from Ubuntu 10.04 LTS to Xubuntu 10.04 LTS more than a year ago,. This was after testing a couple of versions of Ubuntu with Unity in a VM and seeing the train-wreck that it was. Now we're on Xubuntu 12.04 LTS.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1. Re:Which Gnome? by emurphy42 · 2012-08-30 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  From TFA: "Unity won’t be included"
2. Re:Which Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  From TFA: "Unity won’t be included"
  From TFA: "Gnome Display Manager (GDM) and Gnome Shell will be obviously included!"
  Well... looks like Gnome 3.
3. Re:Which Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you base your Gnome 3 experience through your interactions with Unity, please realize that you are practically talking about two different things (even if it is the same libraries)
  I know plenty of people who like Gnome 3 but hate Unity, so there is a difference in user experience.
  If you really want Gnome 2, well there's two libraries which were targeting making that kind of desktop experience better, with less bloat and cruft. So, why do you want the big, bloated, slow, version of that desktop back? Move on to Xfce or LXDE.
4. Re:Which Gnome? by bluefoxlucid · 2012-08-30 07:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Unity is a train wreck but Gnome Shell seems to be dead on.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
5. Re:Which Gnome? by binarylarry · 2012-08-30 07:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm a former hater but I really like Unity now.
  I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
  I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
6. Re:Which Gnome? by McSnickered · 2012-08-30 07:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Looks like Gnome 3.6 Desktop Environment:
  http://news.softpedia.com/news/GNOMEbuntu-Will-Be-Released-on-October-18th-289041.shtml
  
  --
  They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
7. Re:Which Gnome? by Tarlus · 2012-08-30 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the question of which version of GNOME it would be.
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
8. Re:Which Gnome? by trickstyhobbit · 2012-08-30 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  I made the switch to Xubuntu too when Unity came out. It's not that I think Unity is terrible or anything, but it's not what I'm looking for. To be honest, I'll probably just stick with Xubuntu because, in my opinion, Gnome 3 is not very far removed from Unity and suffers from the same set of problems re: multitasking.
9. Re:Which Gnome? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-08-30 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Another alternative to the gnome-shell in Gnome 3 is to use the fallback-shell. It is similar to the old Gnome 2 interface and doesn't require reliance on where Mint wants to take Cinnamon.
10. Re:Which Gnome? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-08-30 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a former hater but I really like Unity now.
  I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
  I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
  Likewise, I like both Unity and Gnome Shell (at least after extensions). I find that I really don't use the Unity-lenses all that much with the exception of the applications one. Same thing with the HUD. It's interesting and all, but I don't find it improves my productivity. Given that, I find Gnome-shell to be more responsive and productive once I add dock and frippery menu extensions.
  But I agree, both are quite usable although different than Gnome 2.
11. Re:Which Gnome? by bored_engineer · 2012-08-30 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  I installed Fedora with Cinnamon on an older machine last night. I've found two features that don't seem to work, but beyond that, it's quite manageable. I tried for about a year to get used to gnome 3, but couldn't do it.
12. Re:Which Gnome? by RabidReindeer · 2012-08-30 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a former hater but I really like Unity now.
  I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
  I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
  Obviously your definition of "serviceable" is more flexible than mine.
  I swapped Gnome 3 out for Cinnamon. Not quite everything I used to routinely do in Gnome 2, but closer than Gnome 3.
13. Re:Which Gnome? by binarylarry · 2012-08-30 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  I used to use the classic mode as well, especially in the beginning.
  I still like classic but I think the newer desktops are usable and have way more potential.
  I hope classic sticks around though, you need a fairly beefy machine to run Unity/Gnome 3 with satisfaction (Unity being a bigger problem than Gnome 3). It would suck to run them on a netbook that doesn't have a lot of power.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
14. Re:Which Gnome? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-08-30 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a former hater but I really like Unity now.
  I think Unity could be amazing with the 12.10 release.
  I previously used Gnome 3, which is a perfectly serviceable desktop, but I prefer Unity.
  Obviously your definition of "serviceable" is more flexible than mine.
  I swapped Gnome 3 out for Cinnamon. Not quite everything I used to routinely do in Gnome 2, but closer than Gnome 3.
  You should also look at the Gnome 3 fall back mode. It looks and acts similar to Gnome 2, but is still Gnome 3. Ubuntu previously also shipped Gnome Classic Mode, but this was built on Gnome 2 and has since been discontinued. Cinnamon is Mint's version of Gnome's Fallback mode.
15. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-08-30 09:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I know plenty of people who like Gnome 3 but hate Unity
  Me! Hi! I'm here!
  No, really guys. OK, I get that things can get rough when major changes are undertaken in your infrastructure. Whether that is Country, State or Desktop. But really all this hating on the gnome desktop has to subside at some point in time. I mean, come on! Ok, the guys made a total mess out of usability testing (not that large scale usability testing is good in any way but still some controlled environment tests are helpful) but in general they pulled it through. Gnome shell, in the past year, has been doing leaps!
  
  --
  -- no sig today
16. Re:Which Gnome? by metalgamer84 · 2012-08-30 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Same here, switched to Xubuntu and am back to a simple, usable and customizable desktop.
  
  Its actually kinda funny, I started out a KDE fan. I ran KDE 3.6 till support/updates were finally done and despising all the glitz and glam of KDE 4.0, switched to Ubuntu and got used to Gnome 2 and loved it eventually. Now that Gnome 2 is done and Gnome 3 and Unity are too much about looks and not about simple functionality, I switched to Xubuntu and now love Xfce.
  
  Funny how history keeps repeating itself.
17. Re:Which Gnome? by SteveFoerster · 2012-08-30 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I use fallback mode, and will keep doing so as long as it's available. It's exactly what I like to use.
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
18. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-08-30 10:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What I can't digest about the unity interface is that it can't be effectively used as a mouse oriented UI nor can it be effectively used as a keyboard only UI. And that really makes a big difference for me. In an HTPC mouse only environment it is much easier to just use Gnome3 (even the theming for the living room aka huge fonts and buttons) are better applied by gnome shell. On the workstation again Gnome 3 works better because the keyboard mappings are very very concise and thought out, to the point where you can get to the behavioral patterns of a tiling wm without having done one modification. Unity? its nice if you have one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse. Only that I am 99% less productive like that and it really doesn't make any sense.. And don't start talking about the hud thing because it plainly doesn't deliver.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
19. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-08-30 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  It would suck to run them on a netbook that doesn't have a lot of power.
  Unity does. Gnome 3 I'm using almost exclusively for the last six months. But hey I tinker a lot with my devices.
  Actually gnome 3 works acceptably on an 8 year old Sony VAIO. Unity runs at .2 fps. Seriously!
  
  --
  -- no sig today
20. Re:Which Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  I cannot stand GNOME and welcomed Unity when I made the transition from PCLinuxOS (32-bit) to Ubuntu Linux (64-bit) early this summer. If Unity is removed from Ubuntu Linux going forward I will be searching for another another 64-bit distribution when Ubuntu Linux 12.04 LTS. I remember the usability horror that was GNOME from 2002 and wish never to return to that place.
21. Re:Which Gnome? by RabidReindeer · 2012-08-30 11:03 · Score: 2
  
  You should also look at the Gnome 3 fall back mode. It looks and acts similar to Gnome 2, but is still Gnome 3. Ubuntu previously also shipped Gnome Classic Mode, but this was built on Gnome 2 and has since been discontinued. Cinnamon is Mint's version of Gnome's Fallback mode.
  Similar, but not identical. If you can make the Gnome 2 applets run under Gnome 3, you know more than me, because I haven't discovered how (so much for user-friendly!) And the loss of the applets was one of the biggest things that I hated about Gnome 3. Sure, they've apparently slapped in some sort of "extension" system in the later release, but it seems to require rewriting everything.
  If I've got to rewrite everything, I'd rather do it in Cinnamon. From what I've seen, it's a lot easier to work with than Gnome ever was when it comes to creating applets.
22. Re:Which Gnome? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  What I can't digest about the unity interface is that it can't be effectively used as a mouse oriented UI nor can it be effectively used as a keyboard only UI.
  How so? I see no problem in using Unity as mouse-only or keyboard-only.
23. Re:Which Gnome? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually gnome 3 works acceptably on an 8 year old Sony VAIO. Unity runs at .2 fps. Seriously!
  Maybe you are running Unity3D with mesa software 3D emulation?
  Either install Unity2D or use LLVMPipe (with Ubuntu 12.10).
24. Re:Which Gnome? by rasmusbr · 2012-08-30 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  I recently did a fresh installation of Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit which I'm planning to install Gnome Shell on and remove Unity. Or rather I was planning to. Unity works well enough that I can't really be bothered to. I'm gonna install Gnome Shell 3.6 some day when I'm bored and have time to spare, but I have to say that I'm pretty happy with Unity for now.
  But seriously Canonical, fix the workspace switcher. The thing literally goes to hide in a stack of icons. It's near-impossible to hit with a single mouse stroke. (Can the person who designed that hit it more than 50% of the time? I doubt it.) I've created a hotcorner in Compiz config settings manager that triggers the switcher and I'm happy with that solution for now, but if you're serious about putting Ubuntu on 100+ million laptops you're going to need stuff that doesn't play hide and seek with the user.
  You should probably enable zoom desktop by default too. I keep it set to Alt+Mouse Wheel. Fullscreen zoom is one of the features that I really mis whenever I'm in front of a Windows 7 or Windows XP desktop. It sounds stupid when you first hear about it, but it's a lot faster and smoother than physically leaning forward and squinting whenever some web designer throws something tiny at you.
25. Re:Which Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 16:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, Gnome Shell isn't the problem with Gnome 3. Yes it's a big divisive change that some people hate, but it works pretty well.
  The real problem with Gnome 3 is the continued march of "I, the developer don't know why you would want this feature, so clearly no one needs it, so I will remove it. Anyone that disagrees in Wrong. Even if that means that everyone other than me is Wrong".
26. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-08-30 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  Good for you.
  I, on the other hand, like my expose on the top left active corner and super key window positioning. Unity only with a mouse is like a phone UI on a desktop, pretty but too much effort and very cumbersome... Like win8
  
  --
  -- no sig today
27. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-08-30 20:15 · Score: 2
  
  Nope, the correct nvidia drivers are installed. It's just too much work for the CPU.
  Unity2D only will help if you can't handle the graphics load. the problem with this PC though lies also with the CPUs power.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
28. Re:Which Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:29 · Score: 0
  
  In which case, who cares? Trees, forests, noise of falling.
29. Re:Which Gnome? by Patch86 · 2012-08-30 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer Unity to Gnome 3 by a long way. Unity in it's later guises has grown on me a bit; I still prefer XFCE (via Xubuntu) in a straight choice, but Unity isn't awful.
  Gnome 3 I just can't get on board with.
30. Re:Which Gnome? by Stuarticus · 2012-08-30 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Have they fixed the font size issue? When I tried it last on my HTPC both Gnome 3 and Unity handled font size terribly which drove me to MATE...
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
31. Re:Which Gnome? by bluefoxlucid · 2012-08-31 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  In Gnome Shell you just tap the top left corner with the mouse pointer to switch workspaces and get an Expos'e view of your windows....
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
32. Re:Which Gnome? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-08-31 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  I just don't understand the unity hate. at all.
  I never used the earlier versions of unity. Maybe they were horrible. But unity in 12.04? Honestly I like it a lot. It feels modern, like something the look-and-feel design guys at Apple or MS might be proud of, without feeling flashy and bells-and-whistles "because we could" (cinnamon, I'm looking in your direction).
  If somebody hated unity because it replaced your beloved gnome2, well, use debian then in all its gnome2 glory. I do occasionally (TAILS usb stick) and it's a fine user experience, if a bit sterile and old fashioned. for a modern every-day user experience, be it browsing, email, pdf reading, eclipse development, whatever, I really do dig unity (at least the 12.04 flavor).
33. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-08-31 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK the font size issue is a Unity only "Feature". On gnome I've never had it, but I think the earliest Gnome3 install I did for an HTPC was Gnome3.2 so maybe it existed in earlier versions. The only issues I have from an HTPC perspective was that I can't set the cursor size efficiently on any DE I've tried without starting to hack around. Also if you are going to go the large text way (which you are if you are doing an HTPC) I'd recommend using Adwaita in stead of whatever emerald theme your distro ships. Other themes might work well too but for example the Ubuntu Ambiance theme doesn't resize the close button if you set the bars to lrage,x-large or xx-large (my fave, feels more balanced with text-scale=1.9) which sucks. also you can do some easy seds on the emerald themes to regain the correct curvature on your windows.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
34. Re:Which Gnome? by rasmusbr · 2012-08-31 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I know. I think that part of Gnome Shell is great, but the thing is that Unity works well enough for me now that I can't be bothered to install Gnome Shell.
35. Re:Which Gnome? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-31 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I, on the other hand, like my expose on the top left
  What "expose"?
36. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-08-31 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Control_(OS_X)
  originally it's an OSX feature widely employed by other compositing WMs. in Gnome 3 it can be activated when you point at the left top corner in addition to the usual super key. It is very helpful when working only with a mouse and useful when you have both hands on the keyboard and are fishing for one elusive document across your workspaces.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
37. Re:Which Gnome? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-31 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I recommend you try to adapt Unity to your needs.
  One very quick Google search found this: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/07/unity-launchers-compiz-plugins
38. Re:Which Gnome? by justforgetme · 2012-09-01 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that if I do that I will end up with a buggy Unity installation that will work 99% like an out of the box Gnome3. So why waste the time hacking on making Unity work when I can waste that time hacking on something that will actually produce something.
  Unity does not have one thing I want from my DE that Gnome doesn't provide.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
2012 by hammeraxe · 2012-08-30 07:01 · Score: 5, Funny

This will make 2012 the year of the linux desktop for sure!
1. Re:2012 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  That's what they'll say in January 2013 lol
2. Re:2012 by kthreadd · 2012-08-30 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  This will make 2013 the year of the linux desktop for sure!
3. Re:2012 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  This is totally not funny. Someone could _possibly_ find this funny the first two times it was said, but after 5000 repetitions, please put this "joke" to rest.
  If I had mod points, I would mod you "Overrated".
  (Posting anon to avoid the "Off-topic" down-mods)
4. Re:2012 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  > after 5000 repetitions, please put this "joke" to rest.
  You must be new here.
Sorry, but... by dotancohen · 2012-08-30 07:02 · Score: 2

Kubuntu is no longer an official Canonical distribution.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
1. Re:Sorry, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Go to the back of the class. Kunbuntu is still part of the official family, it is simply no longer directly developed by Canonical.
  http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/derivatives
2. Re:Sorry, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know if it's "official" or not, but it's still by far the best ubuntu-based desktop for advanced use.
3. Re:Sorry, but... by Tarlus · 2012-08-30 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  it is simply no longer directly developed by Canonical
  So in other words, it is no longer an official Canonical distribution.
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
4. Re:Sorry, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  I'm thinking it is still an official "derivative", but dotancohen is correct in that it is not a "Canonical" distribution. Canonical stopped sponsorship of Kubuntu sometime around Feb. or March of 2012. Blue Systems is now the official sponsor of Kubuntu. http://blue-systems.com/ We're splitting hairs though imo. The important thing is Canonical is no longer the sponsor; Blue Systems is.
5. Re:Sorry, but... by theshowmecanuck · 2012-08-30 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For Kubuntu/Ubuntu, this "part of the official family" is pure cynical corporate marketing to Kubuntu's disadvantage. It is only good for Canonical and this thinking can and will hurt Kubuntu in the long run. They have been cast adrift and must admit it, and not just intellectually. In the corporate world you will really ONLY see what "officially part of the family" means when it comes to money.
  Mandriva started from Redhat 5.1, is it part of the "official" Redhat family? No? Why? The money thing. Suse adopted the Redhat file structure and RPM package management system. Does that make it part of the Redhat family? Obviously no. If not, why not, for both Mandriva and Suse? Is it because it writes it's own installer and package manager even though for the most part they both can install pretty much the same RPMs? No, that's not it. Having similar and/or compatible package managers doesn't make systems part of the family except manybe for marketing. Taking ownership or spending time and money on it does. You are really only part of the official family if you are part of the corporate family. Otherwise you are part of the "we'll milk this as long as it gives us good marketing benefit" family. And again, that still comes back to money. Marketing is to make money.
  And that's the crux. Right now the Kubuntu community is still in the, "we can still be friends stage." Later when it is understood that Canonical doesn't give a flying fuck about Kubuntu financially (and that means no free help or declining free help over time until reality sets in). And BTW, I don't blame Canonical, it is business. The now all volunteer Kubuntu needs to get that through their heads too. They should start with a name change to make it readily apparent in heads and in hearts.
  I thiink right now there is still some warmth between kunbuntu and canonical. But as time goes by and less or no support comes from Canonical the rose will come off the bloom.
  FWIW, when I use Linux (on my VM guest on Windows 7) I use Kubuntu.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
6. Re:Sorry, but... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-30 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't understand why the Kubuntu people even bother. If they're not getting any more help from Canonical, why even bother keeping the distro going at all? They should just throw in the towel, and join the Linux Mint KDE team. Linux Mint is little more than Ubuntu with some modifications, and LM even has their own KDE version which is featured prominently, unlike Kubuntu which has always been treated like a red-haired stepchild. They should join forces, move to the Linux Mint camp, and make all their contributions there. I'm sure the LM team would be happy to have the extra help. Why bother maintaining two separate distros which are almost identical?
7. Re:Sorry, but... by cpu6502 · 2012-08-30 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah.
  So why was Kubuntu dropped? Looking at the Ubuntu website I can't even tell there are other variants.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
8. Re:Sorry, but... by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-08-30 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't understand why the Kubuntu people even bother. If they're not getting any more help from Canonical, why even bother keeping the distro going at all? They should just throw in the towel, and join the Linux Mint KDE team. Linux Mint is little more than Ubuntu with some modifications, and LM even has their own KDE version which is featured prominently, unlike Kubuntu which has always been treated like a red-haired stepchild. They should join forces, move to the Linux Mint camp, and make all their contributions there. I'm sure the LM team would be happy to have the extra help. Why bother maintaining two separate distros which are almost identical?
  Using that reasoning, then why did Linux Mint even release a KDE version instead of just working with Kubuntu? Mint KDE is not just Kubuntu fixed up. They have different goals. The real questions are how and why is Blue Systems supporting Mint KDE, Kubuntu and Netrunner? I'm glad they are, but you would think that putting all of those resources into one KDE distro sponsorship would be more efficient.
9. Re:Sorry, but... by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-08-30 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  The real irony is that you can make Kubuntu (or any KDE distro) look and act pretty darn close to Unity, sans lenses (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHqRRP9fVHQ). Maybe Ubuntu didn't want to keep Kubuntu around to remind them that you really could have different interfaces tailored to different platforms but one core underlying system.
10. Re:Sorry, but... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-30 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Using that reasoning, then why did Linux Mint even release a KDE version instead of just working with Kubuntu?
  Probably for the same reason they made Linux Mint in the first place, instead of just working with Canonical. Or, because they already had LM in place, and adding KDE under the LM umbrella made more sense than contributing to a red-headed stepchild that Canonical hated.
  They have different goals.
  Which are what? I'm running both, on two different computers, and there's little difference between the two except the theming.
  I can see how Netrunner is different, they have a different menu and appear to be aiming for a particular kind of user, rather than making a vanilla KDE distro. However, LMDKE and Kubuntu are both very vanilla KDE distros. And Netrunner even says it's based on Kubuntu.
11. Re:Sorry, but... by Teun · 2012-08-30 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Kubuntu is just as official as Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Mythbuntu or Edubuntu.
  What you need to set it up and keep it running is distributed via the same repositories and servers where you get the Unity encumbered Ubuntu.
  So Canonical is still spending money on it and I am grateful for it.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
12. Re:Sorry, but... by TemporalBeing · 2012-08-31 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't understand why the Kubuntu people even bother. If they're not getting any more help from Canonical, why even bother keeping the distro going at all? They should just throw in the towel, and join the Linux Mint KDE team. Linux Mint is little more than Ubuntu with some modifications, and LM even has their own KDE version which is featured prominently, unlike Kubuntu which has always been treated like a red-haired stepchild. They should join forces, move to the Linux Mint camp, and make all their contributions there. I'm sure the LM team would be happy to have the extra help. Why bother maintaining two separate distros which are almost identical?
  Using that reasoning, then why did Linux Mint even release a KDE version instead of just working with Kubuntu? Mint KDE is not just Kubuntu fixed up. They have different goals. The real questions are how and why is Blue Systems supporting Mint KDE, Kubuntu and Netrunner? I'm glad they are, but you would think that putting all of those resources into one KDE distro sponsorship would be more efficient.
  I won't use Linux Mint. For one reason, their distro management. I use Kubuntu relgularly, keep it up-to-date, and upgrade from one version to another. From what I understand about Linux Mint (from several that I know run it) you have to reinstall to go from one version to another, and that's simply a no-go. Of course, I'd likely be more at home with ArchLinux as I do tend to like the rolling distros better (I use Gentoo at home, but Kubuntu for work).
  
  I'm sure there are others that feel similarly about Linux Mint vs. Kubuntu.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
because? by Jodka · 2012-08-30 07:05 · Score: 1

Seriously, why should I care at all about this? What will make this any better than regular Ubuntu?

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
1. Re:because? by VortexCortex · 2012-08-30 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it'll come with gnome installed, which some people want. So, that'll keep some people from ditching Canonical instead of going with Gnome's own independent Debian based distribution.
  Oh, better for users? Fuck users, who gives a damn about them?!
Which version by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-08-30 07:08 · Score: 2

If it's Gnome 2, I would consider it. Actually, no; I've already moved on from Canonical's increasing ego drama and switched to LMDE.
1. Re:Which version by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  If it's Gnome 2, I would consider it. Actually, no; I've already moved on from Canonical's increasing ego drama and switched to LMDE.
  Yeah because Canonical are the only ones not offering GNOME2 anymore, OH WAIT.
2. Re:Which version by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  I've switched to LMDE (linut mint debian edition) and I'm liking it. Fundutu was pretty good too if you like fedora.
I'm holding out for CinnaBuntu... by steveha · 2012-08-30 07:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

...but I would also go for MateBuntu.
http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/
http://mate-desktop.org/

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
1. Re:I'm holding out for CinnaBuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  So why not go for Mint, which has either option and is compatible with Ubuntu, or if you choose, Debian.
Whis is this not a meta-package? by Zombie+Ryushu · 2012-08-30 07:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why is is this not a meta-package? Why is it necessary to have a completely different Ubuntu for Gnome?
1. Re:Whis is this not a meta-package? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, it is, but since Ubuntu is targetting people who are not expert on computer usage, this is much easier for them to have a different version, even if under the hood, that's just the same with different set of package.
2. Re:Whis is this not a meta-package? by stevenh2 · 2012-08-30 07:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If the people are not an expert, then they have no need to know what GNOME is. In reality, it's really easy to install the GNOME package, go to the software center and install it, then change your desktop at login.
3. Re:Whis is this not a meta-package? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-08-30 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Why is is this not a meta-package? Why is it necessary to have a completely different Ubuntu for Gnome?
  Because Ubuntu changes some of the gnome things, like the control center, etc., to include Ubuntu things, or to integrate better with Unity, like the notification system, etc. The goal of GNOMEbuntu is to be a pure Gnome 3 implementation, or at least as close as possible. That can't be done by simply installing packages. As to whether or not the differences between the Gnome versions and Ubuntu versions are significant enough to warrant the extra effort, that's to be seen.
4. Re:Whis is this not a meta-package? by kasperd · 2012-08-30 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you even need a different set of packages installed? It is supposed to be possible to have a different UI per user. Why can't they just make the choice at login time work well enough, that they don't feel the need to make different distributions?
  
  A few things break if you use a different desktop environment than the one the display manager came from. For example switch user and log out and shut down options tend to break. I don't know why, because both KDE and Gnome support it, so how come it doesn't work when you mix the two?
  
  --
  
  Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
5. Re:Whis is this not a meta-package? by Rich0 · 2012-09-02 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that in the not-so-distant future Gnome won't run without systemd. If that happens, they'll need a much more divergent distro unless Canonical abandons Upstart.
Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

This was after testing a couple of versions of Ubuntu with Unity in a VM and seeing the train-wreck that it was
Why all the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? Among my friends, they generally like or at least tolerate Unity. In the Ubuntu Software Center, the most recent (later than March 2012) reviews average 4 star.
I, personally, like it very much. It saves screen real-state and:
1) Provides direct buttons for all the programs I commonly use
2) For other programs, I just hit Super and type the first letters of the program name
It is perfectly convenient.
So why the hate?
1. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Charliemopps · 2012-08-30 07:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Because it makes my $2k powerhouse computer running a super geeky OS look like something made by Vtech.
  
  http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81hhVZULnhL._AA1500_.jpg
2. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Tarlus · 2012-08-30 07:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's a lingering hatred from Unity's early days when it was still buggy and lacking in customization options. It's less buggy now but still doesn't offer the level of customization that some geeks like to have. As Unity matures, though, I find myself agreeing that it is in fact quite usable.
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
3. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Mike · 2012-08-30 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  2) For other programs, I just hit Super and type the first letters of the program name
  My keyboard doesn't have a "Super" key. And if it did, if I'm running an application I don't commonly use, I often don't know the name of it, so I would like a categorized menu of software to choose from.
4. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Because it makes my $2k powerhouse computer running a super geeky OS look like something made by Vtech.
  Is its visual, or its functionality that you dislike? "Look like" is a bit ambiguous.
5. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's a lingering hatred from Unity's early days when it was still buggy and lacking in customization options. It's less buggy now but still doesn't offer the level of customization that some geeks like to have. As Unity matures, though, I find myself agreeing that it is in fact quite usable.
  This lingering hatred is a pity. Maybe Ubuntu will have to make marketing fireworks with a campaign called "Try the new Unity" or something.
6. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by zrbyte · 2012-08-30 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
7. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  My keyboard doesn't have a "Super" key.
  You can click on the Ubuntu icon.
  
  And if it did, if I'm running an application I don't commonly use, I often don't know the name of it, so I would like a categorized menu of software to choose from.
  If you want a categorized menu, you just need to click on "Filter results".
  Besides, when you run the application, its icon appears in the bar. You can right-click it and choose "Lock to launcher".
8. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by kryliss · 2012-08-30 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Then hit Alt-F2, it gets the same menu.
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
9. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by BoogeyOfTheMan · 2012-08-30 08:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I used to hate Unity with a passion. But after giving it a shot, I find that its not as terrible as I originally thought.
  The main reason I hated it was that you pretty much HAVE to use the keyboard to use it. Not so bad for most people, but my monitor is a 42" tv sitting across the room with my pc. I have a wireless mouse and keyboard, but I usually left the keyboard turned off and sitting on a table out of the way. Until Unity, I could access all of my applications with no more than 3 mouse clicks, and I only had to use the keyboard to enter passwords or for the occasional terminal session. Now, I leave the keyboard turned on and always accessible because I have to use it much more often to actually accomplish anything. Though I have learned that as long as I use the keyboard a lot, Unity is actually pretty decent. I still have some major gripes though.
  1- Yes I can just type a few letters and the program will show up, but if I cant remember the name of the program because I only use it once in a blue moon, I need to spend 5+ minutes searching for it. I also cant get programs installed through wine to show up with a few keypresses. (Probably a PEBKAC error, but still annoying)
  2- I have to jump through a few hoops to get all my app notifications to show up correctly.
  3- I have 5 third party apps installed to tweak various settings in Unity that should be built in
  4- I think the universal menu system is retarded. I have it turned off, but it really should be a simple checkbox in the system settings.
  5- It needs a better workspace indicator. The one that is stuck on the launch bar should at least tell me what workspace I have active since I cant remove it. (I have an extra mouse button set to open workspace switching, and I have the cube set up where if I scroll on the left or right of the screen, it changes workspaces)
  6- I would like the option to only show open application on the active workspace instead of always seeing all open apps on all workspaces. If its already pinned to the launchbar, the little arrows are cool, but I dont really need to see a transmission icon taking up space on my main workspace when I only have it open on workspace 4
  Wow, that was more than I thought there would be. After all of that, I still use it because I feel that it has promise, it just needs more polish. I believe that by 13.10 it should be fully featured enough to be a worthy successor to Gnome 2.
10. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Tarlus · 2012-08-30 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  I think they're doing pretty well for themselves. You'll always have the die-hards clinging to older DE's with an icy grip but as of 12.04, I have started to notice a changing attitude toward Unity around here.
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
11. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by PvtVoid · 2012-08-30 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  My keyboard doesn't have a "Super" key. And if it did, if I'm running an application I don't commonly use, I often don't know the name of it, so I would like a categorized menu of software to choose from.
  OK. Hit alt-F2 or click on the Ubuntu icon, then the little applications icon at the bottom. It will provide you with a categorized list of everything installed on your system. In my experience, I very infrequently need to do this, so it is absolutely no problem to use one whole extra click relative to the Gnome 2 application menu.
12. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Mike · 2012-08-30 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so if I know I want, say, for example, some program that will rip music from a CD but I don't have any clue what it might be called, what do I do, precisely?
13. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  The main reason I hated it was that you pretty much HAVE to use the keyboard to use it. Not so bad for most people, but my monitor is a 42" tv sitting across the room with my pc. I have a wireless mouse and keyboard, but I usually left the keyboard turned off and sitting on a table out of the way. Until Unity, I could access all of my applications with no more than 3 mouse clicks, and I only had to use the keyboard to enter passwords or for the occasional terminal session.
  Can't you right-click the Ubuntu icon, choose "Applications", and click on "Filter results"? In fact, the next time you do it "Filter results" will be pre-activated.
  
  1- Yes I can just type a few letters and the program will show up, but if I cant remember the name of the program because I only use it once in a blue moon, I need to spend 5+ minutes searching for it.
  See above.
  
  2- I have to jump through a few hoops to get all my app notifications to show up correctly.
  I have never had problems with that. What specific problems do you have?
  
  3- I have 5 third party apps installed to tweak various settings in Unity that should be built in
  Maybe you are a tweak-freak. I let Unity the way it came.
  
  4- I think the universal menu system is retarded. I have it turned off, but it really should be a simple checkbox in the system settings.
  I find it OK.
  
  5- It needs a better workspace indicator. The one that is stuck on the launch bar should at least tell me what workspace I have active since I cant remove it. (I have an extra mouse button set to open workspace switching, and I have the cube set up where if I scroll on the left or right of the screen, it changes workspaces)
  The workspace indicator could improve, but I find Super-S (equivalent to clicking the button) to be convenient enough. So that issue is minor.
  
  6- I would like the option to only show open application on the active workspace instead of always seeing all open apps on all workspaces. If its already pinned to the launchbar, the little arrows are cool, but I dont really need to see a transmission icon taking up space on my main workspace when I only have it open on workspace 4
  I have never had a problem with that.
14. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-08-30 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  2) For other programs, I just hit Super and type the first letters of the program name
  My keyboard doesn't have a "Super" key. And if it did, if I'm running an application I don't commonly use, I often don't know the name of it, so I would like a categorized menu of software to choose from.
  You could run Gnome 3 and press alt+f1 instead of the Super key and if you install the frippery menu extension from extensions.gnome.org, you will have a traditional applications menu (you can also add a places menu with an additional extension).
  Here are other keystroke/shortcuts besides the alt+f1: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fedora-16-gnome-3-review,3155-10.html
15. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by DeTech · 2012-08-30 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  You spent 2K$ on a computer in 2012? you sir are doing something very wrong....
16. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by mortonda · 2012-08-30 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Or doing something very right and making tons of money at it. Some people have expensive computers for a reason.
17. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so if I know I want, say, for example, some program that will rip music from a CD but I don't have any clue what it might be called, what do I do, precisely?
  There are at least two options:
  1) Open the Dash Home* or the Dash App Lens** and type (the first letters of) "music" or "rhythmbox" (if you know the name)
  2) Open the Dash App Lens**. Click "Filter results". Click "Media". On the "Installed" row, you will see "Rhythmbox music player".
  Now, I'll grant it is slightly confusing for newbies because Rhythmbox is called "music player", not "cd ripper". It just happens that Rhythmbox has ripping functionality. Gnome 2 would be just as (slightly) confusing (AFAIK).
  * You can open the Dash Home by clicking the Ubuntu icon or tapping Super
  ** You can open the Dash App Lens by right-click on the Ubuntu Icon and choosing "Applications" or by typing Super + A.
  Holding Super will show a screen that informs you about the keyboard shortcuts.
18. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by BoogeyOfTheMan · 2012-08-30 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  I did not know you could do that with the filter applications, thanks for the tip :) Still more way more clicks than it should be, but now at least it wont take as long to find the app.
  As for app indicators, I like to have the Empathy and Xchat indicators showing because the built in notification system isnt very noticeable if you arent looking at the screen when the message comes in. I like having the icon flash at me to let me know I missed something. In order to allow icons to show in the notification tray, you have to edit gconf.
  Yes, I am a tweak freak. Most of the tweak apps I have can do a lot of the same things, but certain things are only available in one or are easier and simpler to use in another. Still, the ability to change the color of the launchbar and notification windows would be something that should be included in a default install.
  When I am editing multiple text files, I find the universal menu to require twice as much mouse travel, granted its really not that big of an issue, but every once in a while it annoys the crap out of me.
  Yes, the workspace indicator is minor, but still mildly annoying. Though I am getting used to it. Its more of an issue when I dont have anything open on a workspace, then I forget which workspace it is. (I use a main, audio, video, and file browser workspace set up)
  Yes, I've seen the arguments for leaving all open apps viewable on all workspaces, I still dont like it and would like the option to change it.
  Sorry, about the lack of quotes, I dont post very often and never bothered to figure out how to do anything but a full post quote.
19. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by justforgetme · 2012-08-30 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not.
  In a mouse only environment you have to fish for the "expose desktops" button whereas in gnome 3 it is one concise move. In keyboard only mode you have to do a combination, not very difficult but much less effective than a single keypress. The UI does not deform properly upon parametrization, the hotbar shortcuts are irrelevant once you have actually started the programs (and you are in flow) which is the biggest part of your productive time, otherwise why are they there, lenses mess up the experience and unnecessarily populate your activities,I could go on but I thing my general position is made clear.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
20. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by justforgetme · 2012-08-30 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  (I hate to be the Gnome lover but in this thread I turned out to be just that guy.)
  You know that all your problems could be solved with gnome 3 right? specially the living room pc thing (aka mouse only environment).
  
  --
  -- no sig today
21. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  Install the J programming language. Run the REPL. Then cover the REPL window with another window. The J REPL is then lost for good. I have never seen a window manager lose a window before. I stopped using Unity at that point and started using Gnome3.
22. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by BoogeyOfTheMan · 2012-08-30 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Probably. I just took one look at Gnome 3 and thought it was so different that I may as well stick with Unity, and Unity has started to grow on me. I guess I should give it another try :)
23. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Install the J programming language. Run the REPL. Then cover the REPL window with another window. The J REPL is then lost for good. I have never seen a window manager lose a window before. I stopped using Unity at that point and started using Gnome3.
  AFAIK Unity is a compiz plugin. Does that defect happen in other compiz environments too?
  I have never heard of it. Is there a bug report?
24. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  In a mouse only environment you have to fish for the "expose desktops" button whereas in gnome 3 it is one concise move. In keyboard only mode you have to do a combination, not very difficult but much less effective than a single keypress.
  I'm sorry, what button are you referring to? Please rephrase.
  
  The UI does not deform properly upon parametrization
  What?
  
  The hotbar shortcuts are irrelevant once you have actually started the programs
  Why?
  
  , lenses mess up the experience and unnecessarily populate your activities
  How?
25. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2012-08-30 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  "Or doing something very right and making tons of money at it. Some people have expensive computers for a reason."
  Most people doing something very right with a single $2K computer are probably using a Mac or running Windows. Expensive Linux computers tend to be servers or a supercomputing cluster better run without graphical cruft or at best a barebones X server plus widow manager set-up and not a full-blown desktop.
26. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2012-08-30 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  "The UI does not deform properly upon parametrization"
  The GP is probably a Gnome 3 developer who has done a lot of usability testing and has the statistics and jargon to prove why Gnome 3 sucks less than Unity.
  Users who say Gnome 3 is a better desktop than Unity probably belong to the Linux geek squad where multisyllabic terms like "parametrization" just roll off the keyboard. Sure Unity has its share of jargon, but they tend to belong to the overwrought desktop metaphor category. The concept of "lenses" isn't really that far off from the idea of applying a magnifiying lens on a particular search.
27. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by loufoque · 2012-08-30 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  You realize most software developers run Linux, and that software developers can easily be paid in the 100k range?
28. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Charliemopps · 2012-08-30 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Or it's my media PC, has 3 terabytes of storage, 16 gig of memory, 6 core CPU, fancy GPU, water cooled, and I don't have to pay for cable anymore because of it.
29. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Charliemopps · 2012-08-30 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Does it matter? an Ugly GUI is kind of defeating it's own purpose isn't it?
30. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  You realize that most software developers don't actually run Linux on the desktop? Silicon Valley (Google, Facebook, practically every startup worth mentioning) is full of OS X users, and outside of that area Microsoft has tons and tons of developers. You'd have to be pretty delusional to think that most software developers use Linux on the desktop. Even here at Google desktop Linux has actually been on the decline for the last couple of years.
31. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by DeTech · 2012-08-30 20:10 · Score: 0
  
  Or it's my media PC, has 3 terabytes of storage, 16 gig of memory, 6 core CPU, fancy GPU, water cooled, and I don't have to pay for cable anymore because of it.
  What did you do with the other 1.5k? or did you get ripped off?
32. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I think that the main problem with Gnome3/Unity is not that it would not be "generally likeable" or "torelable", but that Gnome2 experience is so much better.
  I was using Ubuntu 10.04LTS happily, then upgraded to 12.04 and found that Desktop started to stay in my way. Tried all alternatives (classic, Gnome3, xubuntu, lubuntu, even cinnamon), in the end switched to Mint Mate 13 (which is basically polished Gnome2 fork). I have to say that after all those horrible experiences with Ubuntu Desktops wanabees, Mint Mate is really great experience, everything working out of box exactly as I expect it to work. Kudos to developers!
33. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  I think the link you wanted is this: http://customize.org/xpthemes/55208
34. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Using corner edges to trigger expose has been available on Compiz for many years, so Unity users have access to this.
35. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  have your tried editing quicklist to group similar applications together on Unity?
36. Re:Why the Slashdot anti-Unity hate? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-31 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Is its visual, or its functionality that you dislike? "Look like" is a bit ambiguous.
  Does it matter? an Ugly GUI is kind of defeating it's own purpose isn't it?
  I just wanted to know what is your specific problem with Unity.
  I find it both beautiful and convenient.
Is GNOMEbuntu really the best name? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:34 · Score: 0

Why not Gubuntu or GNUbuntu?
1. Re:Is GNOMEbuntu really the best name? by tolan-b · 2012-08-30 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Because there's already /Goobuntu/ and GNUbuntu.
2. Re:Is GNOMEbuntu really the best name? by Tarlus · 2012-08-30 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  GNUbuntu
  Ubuntu running with HURD?
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
3. Re:Is GNOMEbuntu really the best name? by marcello_dl · 2012-08-31 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  Rename Ubuntu to NoBuntu, GnomeBuntu to Ubuntu, case closed.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
4. Re:Is GNOMEbuntu really the best name? by unixisc · 2012-09-02 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, HURD ought to be the baseline OS of Gnome, since the only people who care about it any more are the FSF activists. Or they could have based it on GNewSense
*Buntu = Suck by ilikenwf · 2012-08-30 07:38 · Score: 1

Not trolling, but never have I seen such a horrible distro, short of CentOS (by far the worst ever). Between the dependency hell every dist-upgrade, and the drama every time anything changes, I am surprised more people don't jump ship for vanilla Debian at the least, or move up in terms of distros and go for Archlinux or Gentoo...

Not only do Arch and Gentoo provide much more vanilla experiences, but they are more "rolling release" than set milestones, so upgrading is a lot less of a pain the majority of the time. Debian, of course, is rock solid though, and I don't see why anyone would take Ubuntu server over Debian Stable..it makes no sense.
1. Re:*Buntu = Suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Some of us prefer not to be bleeding edge, and would let other users like you vet out bugs before taking it up. This is why I stick to Ubuntu LTS releases.
2. Re:*Buntu = Suck by raddan · 2012-08-30 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  I ditched Gentoo when the "rolling release" schedule you so highly praise decided to upgrade libc. Practically the entire system stopped working. I haven't touched Gentoo since 2005, so maybe things are better now, but it left a bad impression.
3. Re:*Buntu = Suck by ilikenwf · 2012-08-30 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Debian LTS is better - Ubuntu is all cruft.
4. Re:*Buntu = Suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  I don't personally use Gentoo but it's not terrible. You mixed your own drink when you chose something you had to build everything for, so you had to suffer the consequences...Not bashing - at least with Arch you don't have to build it all yourself unless you want to.
5. Re:*Buntu = Suck by PvtVoid · 2012-08-30 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  I ditched Gentoo when the "rolling release" schedule you so highly praise decided to upgrade libc. Practically the entire system stopped working. I haven't touched Gentoo since 2005, so maybe things are better now, but it left a bad impression.
  I stuck around a little longer, but finally threw in the towel on Gentoo after the expat-2.0.x upgrade debacle in 2009. Never again.
6. Re:*Buntu = Suck by Urza9814 · 2012-08-30 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  God yes. I used to be a huge fan of Mandriva after trying a dozen or two different distros throughout highschool. I was reinstalling the entire system at least once a year to get the latest version, and getting stuck in dependency hell CONSTANTLY, which I _thought_ was one of the things a package manager was supposed to help avoid. Switched to Arch around 3 years ago, the only time I've reinstalled was when I got a new laptop. And my system is never more than a month out of date. And it's easier to use/configure (no more 'do I set this through KDE or MCC?'), more stable than anything I've ever used, and just generally exactly what I want with near zero effort.
  It's not for everyone I suppose, but aside from the occasional KDE bug (which are getting rarer every month since it's always updated,) Arch with KDE is the PERFECT OS for me. Well, I wish I could shave a couple seconds off the boot time too, but I haven't yet found any distro that will do any better. Most are worse because they run a bunch of services you don't want. And once my computer starts getting old and slow, I'll just drop KDE for something like RazorQT.
7. Re:*Buntu = Suck by cpu6502 · 2012-08-30 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  >>> they are more "rolling release" than set milestones, so upgrading is a lot less of a pain
  I'd like an OS that doesn't upgrade at all (except security fixes), so I know my software will still work today in 2012, or in the future in 2020. I am sick-and-tired of these bullshit "upgrades" that make things break on my PC. I call it a DOWNgrade when programmers break your favorite tools. Can you image if carmakers did that? "We upgraded the firmware in your 2010 Civic and, sadly, the radio and air conditioner don't work anymore. You'll have to visit the nearest mechanic and buy new ones."
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
8. Re:*Buntu = Suck by Ash-Fox · 2012-08-30 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like an OS that doesn't upgrade at all (except security fixes), so I know my software will still work today in 2012, or in the future in 2020.
  
  You can buy Redhat support and keep running the same distribution version for thirteen years without upgrading - You will receive security updates for the time you remain subscribed to Redhat's support.
  There, I solved your requirements, now you can't complain anymore.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
9. Re:*Buntu = Suck by WuphonsReach · 2012-08-31 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  We gave up on Gentoo sometime around then as well. The package maintainers just didn't give a rat's arse about package quality, so every week something else would break when you went to update.
  
  Desktops? Linux Mint.
  
  Servers are now all RHEL / CentOS / SciLinux.
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Gubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:39 · Score: 0

Based on the naming scheme of the other spins, I would have guessed the name would be Gubuntu. GnomeBuntu, well, i dunno, it's too long and doesn't have ubuntu in the name. Not my project so whatever.
Would much rather prefer a Mubuntu with Mate+Ubuntu.
1. Re:Gubuntu by X10 · 2012-08-30 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Gnubuntu.
  
  --
  no, I don't have a sig
GNUbuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:40 · Score: 0

Doy, why don't they just call it GNUbuntu?
Aha! That's where it went by Skewray · 2012-08-30 07:43 · Score: 1

Debian gives Gnome the boot, and it has to go somewhere...
This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:44 · Score: 0

The reason why I ditched Ubuntu AND GNOME was that they had both jumped the shark and were now both ridiculous projects. GNOME Shell and Unity both suck, in my not-humble-at-all opinion.

Debian + MATE desktop for me now. Sorry Ubuntu.
I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 07:45 · Score: 0

isn't this just Ubuntu + apt-get install gnome?
Nice development by Pecisk · 2012-08-30 07:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like Debian and Ubuntu, because of systematical structure, good packaging system and overall atitude to open system development. However, I strongy dislike Unity (nothing objective, just subjective feeling), and I love GNOME Shell. So this is good news, because I would like to work on Ubuntu and Debian, while still using GNOME stack.
It's nice to see that while with lack of resources (this and KDE version of Ubuntu are realeased without support from Canonical), Ubuntu has all popular enviroments to install. While someone like GNOME founder/now troll Miguel like to blame fragmentation why Linux isn't bringing him millions, I think having it is not bad - altough I vote for lot of integration which already have took place.
So thanks goes to devs who undertook this rather daring quest.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
1. Re:Nice development by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you want Ubuntu without Unity, try using the minimal ISOs at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD/. It will install a base system that boots to a terminal. From there, just "sudo apt-get install gnome-shell, lightdm, xorg, firefox, gnome-terminal" and whatever else you want. You'll get a lightweight gnome-shell DE without kitchen sink.
what happened to GnomeOS? by FudRucker · 2012-08-30 07:57 · Score: 1

i thought i read on slashdot a few weeks ago that the Gnome developers were going to build their own in-house linux distro? did that fall by the wayside?

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
1. Re:what happened to GnomeOS? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, you misunderstood something. The plan behind GNOME OS has never been to provide a distro, just to do more work on fixing up non-desktop parts of the system so it's possible to fix some long standing issues on the Linux desktop, e.g. with respect to printing or the graphics stack, or permissions.
  Think of it as the GNOME devs coming out of their cave and saying, hey, other Linux devs, we're tired of all our half-broken work-arounds for your semi-coherent shit, please take this patch to fix it up, goddamnit!
Meh by PvtVoid · 2012-08-30 08:01 · Score: 1

The bastard stepchildren of Ubuntu are never going to be as well looked afer as the main tree. Better to go with another distro if you want something optimized for a different environment.

I may be the only person on Slashdot who thinks so, but I have been using Unity for several months now, and I really like it. I don't like absolutely everything about it, but the package as a whole is very usable, attractive, and reliable. (And yes, I frequently use the command line, have many windows upen at once ... bark bark woof woof.)

Grousing about how much better Gnome 2 was is just reactionary noise. Kudos to Ubuntu for valuing simplicity and elegance!
Re:Oh boy... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-30 08:11 · Score: 2

I don't think that's fair. Ubuntu isn't a trainwreck, only the Unity component is. The rest of Ubuntu has long been a very good distro (largely because of Debian, which it's based on). It's Unity that's crap. Gnome3, of course, is also crap, but with this GNOMEbuntu, you're just trading one POS for another POS, so it's still only one trainwreck in the package, not two.
However, from what I'm reading, it seems that Gnome3 is a bigger POS than Unity, so this is still a downgrade it appears.
Gubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 08:17 · Score: 0

they should have called it
Ubuntu with GNOME 2 exists by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 08:38 · Score: 0

Some people are wondering why there isn't a GNOME 2 or MATE version of Ubuntu. There is one already, two really. Mint has a MATE desktop option and Decent has a MATE desktop on top of Ubuntu's base.
gnome-session patch breaks Gnome by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 08:44 · Score: 0

Hopefully this will have the bug fixed where without compiz installed it's not possible to run Gnome. gnome-session in Ubuntu (not in Debian) includes an extra patch which forces compiz to be the default window manager. If one chooses to use Gnome without Unity and Compiz installed under Ubuntu, s/he must recompile the package without said patch.
When have you tried Unity? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-30 10:17 · Score: 1

I strongy dislike Unity (nothing objective, just subjective feeling)
When have you tried it last? It is progressing nicely.
1. Re:When have you tried Unity? by Pecisk · 2012-08-30 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  In 12.04. I just dislike it, some core details doesn't feel "native" to me. However I know it's just subjective. That's why I never understood 'fragmentation is killing free desktop' claim. Aim to have one universal framework for bus messages is much better, for example - that's why KDE migrated to D-BUS, which is completely desktop-neitral now.
  What's nice that core usability is very similar between Unity and GNOME Shell, so user don't have to retrain for each.
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
deprecated == you suck, removed = you REALLY suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 10:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Totally with you on this one.
Every time I see "deprecated" or "removed", I curse the programmers to hell.
I installed a new webserver a few weeks ago, basically a job of moving working, production setup to new hardware and so of course a new OS level (though still linux.) moved some very vanilla Perl scripts to it, and bingo, they wouldn't run.
Fucking Perl changed how one of its special variables worked so that you have to use regular expressions to get the same effect, not to mention the scripts spew all manner of warnings about using references for hashes is deprecated. I then spent days digging through the code to change things so they'd work again. That wasn't all, either. Fucking Perl DBI module wouldn't talk to our postgreSQL server any longer, either, was bitching about "protocol", had to actually call python from perl so we could get to our data -- python still works (python 2 series... python 3... not even the same language, not interested, but thank you SO much for not breaking Python 2!!!.) Ended up writing a replacement for DBI that essentially is a wrapper around Python. Fucking fuck.
Fucking Apple broke the living shit out of cron in one "upgrade." And even once it was "working" it was spewing errors to the system console, which they promised to fix, but never did. They thought nothing of moving the ground by fucking with the PPC emulator, too... I fucking PAID for my PPC software, I'm not particularly inclined to just give it up because some Appletard thinks its "old."
Windows XP broke all the windows metrics that let devs know how to deal with titlebars.
When this shit happens, I just fume. Here we are, trying to do things the way we're supposed to, and fuck-all does it matter when the underlying OS or language or library takes a left turn because they're too fucking lazy or stupid to deal with how they told people it used to work. I swear, it reminds me of that scene in some movie where these two guys walk up to a door, open a listing, and ask "were you online in such and such a chatroom on such and such a date?" and then proceed to beat the living shit out of the guy. That's just how I feel about the assholes who break compatibility with prior use.
Fucking fucktarded fuckheads.
Programmers: If it isn't fucking broken, don't fucking fix it. You want new functionality? Fine. PUT IT IN A NEW MECHANISM. DON'T FUCKING BREAK THE EXISTING ONE. YOU FUCKING TARDFUCKERY ASSMUNCHING CARELESS DOUCHENOZZLE SUCKING ASS-BRAINED CHUCKLEFUCKS !!!ONE!LEVENTY!ONE!!!
I should feel better, but I really don't. Because I know it's going to keep happening. Because those new kids really kinda suck at this whole programming thing.
Good News Everyone! by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-08-30 10:42 · Score: 1

Since Professor Farnsworth's pronouncements of "Good News Everyone!" are inevitably followed by alien invasion, robot revolts, radiation poisoning of the masses, and diseased mutant rats chewing on your testicles, I think I will sit this one out.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
professor by BluPhenix316 · 2012-08-30 12:07 · Score: 1

anyone else read the summary in prof farnsworth's voice and think it was a joke?
Re:deprecated == you suck, removed = you REALLY su by cpu6502 · 2012-08-30 12:47 · Score: 1

+ 1 to the Anonymous Coward

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:deprecated == you suck, removed = you REALLY su by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 17:22 · Score: 0

"+ 1 to the Anonymous Coward" -- cpu6502
Just + 1?
At least the Anonymous Coward has said it cleaner and far quieter than I have on several occasions.
Re:deprecated == you suck, removed = you REALLY su by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 17:35 · Score: 0

Oh and the movie was "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back".
Re:deprecated == you suck, removed = you REALLY su by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 19:44 · Score: 0

+1000 insightful more like.
I can only assume gnome3 by adharma · 2012-08-30 20:38 · Score: 1

That's still a no-go for me. Nothing has hit me as better than Gnome2 with DivergenceIV Empire Strikes Back. I'm real hopeful for Mate/Cinnamon again with DivergenceIV.... I'll probably install Mint on my next Laptop next year and just go through the grind of learning how to customize it. Though, I may decide to become an adult and simply use Arch.

--
What word rhymes with buried alive?
Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 22:06 · Score: 0

Using both on different boxes, Gnome is bad but Unity is worse. Also, mutter seems to be more stable then compiz. Although both will inevitably crash.
I'd stay with Gnome to see how they're improving (especially notifications are horrible in Gnome) but they're moving the lock screen into the shell. Sure it'll look nice, but replacing xscreensaver with gnome-screensaver was already quite a compromise. I'd rather have the lock screen integrated with the display manager, as both implement authentication. It would still suck, of course.
Sad to see the year of the Linux desktop being pushed back another decade, we've come a long way!
Going back to Debian by lems1 · 2012-09-01 12:19 · Score: 1

Well, perhaps that will put a stop at the number of folks who simply went back to Debian. I'm considering that myself, but I'll wait and see...

--
This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
Fallback mode? by unixisc · 2012-09-02 02:00 · Score: 1

Gnome3. What I am interested is - will they be operating in Fallback mode, or have unliberated GPU accelarated drivers, or liberated GPU accelarated drivers?