By typing "ubuntu alternative desktop" into Google, the very first hit gives a reasonably comprehensive explanation of what options there are, and how to install them. Nobody uses that Yahoo!-style browsing anymore, anyway. =P
This just changed from what-if-grandma-hates-Unity into another everything-wrong-with-Unity thread. I understand your concerns with Unity and I'm with you 100% of the way. But if non-technical people encounter annoyances with their Ubuntu preinstall, they are going to do the exact same thing they would do if it were a Windows preinstall: Ask their technically-inclined friend/relative/associate/GeekSquad, contact the manufacturer directly, or resort to Google. Or flat-out return the computer if it doesn't serve their needs.
The overwhelming majority use Windows and they seem to get by just fine... Without ever fine-tuning the interface.
Google. There's plenty of information and pre-written apt-get commands ready to be copy/pasted into the terminal. (Which is a default application in Unity's bar, I believe.) And if you're not technologically savvy enough to query the abundant technical communities online, then you probably don't even know or care about what XFCE is anyway.
Those 99% who don't want to use a terminal are probably not very concerned with their UI. If they can do basic tasks - which Unity handles just dandy - then that's good enough for them.
You just described Apple as well. I know I'll take "troll" labeling for this, but it's true. Each new edition of OS X ends up removing or altering functionality in such a way that it cripples people and forces them to stick with older versions of the OS. The upcoming 10.8 should be a good example of that. They're all racing to blur the gap between tablet and desktop operating systems, even if that means that they should dumb down or radically alter the interface. I wouldn't be surprised if there is never a Mac OS XI, instead merging into a universalized iOS.
But on the other hand, change is ongoing. It's just the same to me that they remove out-of-the-box DVD capability. Tablets and many modern computers don't even have optical drives, so the software would be dead weight. Given the cost-imposed storage limitations of SSD's, I'd prefer to trim out all of the superfluous legacy software. It would have been nice if MS could have retained the DVD capability as a downloadable feature, similar to how they removed bloat from Win7 but made it accessible for free (package manager style) to those who still wanted it.
Either way, I guess commercial OS developers need to guarantee their job security somehow. =)
Windows 7 and Vista had DVD playback capability right out of the box. Of course, I never paid for DVD playback software in the XP days since Media Player Classic can do it for free, but knowing that I'll have to start setting it up for clients all over again is inconvenient.
When the software consists of nothing more than worthless single-site browsers that do nothing but show a webpage?
It doesn't, though... There's a vast selection of useful applications. Many of them interface with centralized web services (Evernote, Facebook, Netflix, weather forecast, just to name some examples) however I wouldn't consider them to be worthless. I don't doubt that app stores are riddled with useless webpage loaders, but I never really see them...
Sad thing is, the only thing holding game devs back is shit console hardware.
I won't employ that "FTFY" nonsense but will point out that your statement would have been better worded as "outdated console hardware." I will write off issues such as "red rings of death" and faulty optical drives to the console manufacturers, since they don't have an impact on game development. Barring those, the hardware itself is decent quality far from being "shit." It can't compete with the top of the line, but it doesn't need to.
So now, if we step back and look at the bigger picture, "the only thing holding game devs back is outdated console hardware" is arguable. Lower-end hardware is capable of much more than most developers can tap into, usually due to limitations of their development tools, the need for cross-platform compatibility, tight deadlines, a lack of funding, and a lack of understanding of the hardware on a more fundamental level. It's possible to go a long way with current-gen consoles, including more complicated AI and other gameplay mechanics. You won't have the same flashy effects that state-of-the-art hardware can deliver, but that doesn't matter to people who aren't willing to shell out thousands of dollars.
The PS3 and X360 are producing HDTV quality graphics with flawless sound. There's very little room for improvement. They are at the highest audiovisual-resolution possible.
I can't speak for the X360, but the percentage of PS3 games displaying at the highest possible resolution is fairly limited. (Let's just say the "highest possible resolution" is 1080p in this context, since that is the common maximum resolution in a modern household TV.) Yes, the capability is there and many 1080p games do exist, but I recall that Sony mandated a 720p maximum some years ago [citation needed] in order to ensure that games would run at the best possible frame rate. For most people, myself included, it's no big deal since 720p looks just dandy on my 46" screen. It could be better, but video games just don't summon enough of an emotional response for me to give a shit these days.
Anyway, my point is that 720p and even 1080p are far, far below the highest possible resolution, in comparison to what many computer monitors on the market are sporting nowadays.
Their full menu includes: Apple Pie Candy Apples Apple Fritters Dried Apples Apple Jacks Apple, egg, sausage, and Apple (but that's not got much Apple in it)
I give it a shot with each new release and do appreciate that it is getting better. App searching does prove to be handy, as I find myself reliant on it in Win7 and OS X these days. My laptop (which is my primary Linux workstation) is old and doesn't take too kindly to compositing so it's comfortably sporting Lubuntu, but by the time I replace it I'll see how a week of the latest release running Unity does for me.
In the meantime, my large-screened computing needs are best served by other environments. And that makes the broad variety of options a beautiful thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet the "most powerful organization on Earth" needs to skip borders to run away from the FBI.
By typing "ubuntu alternative desktop" into Google, the very first hit gives a reasonably comprehensive explanation of what options there are, and how to install them. Nobody uses that Yahoo!-style browsing anymore, anyway. =P
This just changed from what-if-grandma-hates-Unity into another everything-wrong-with-Unity thread. I understand your concerns with Unity and I'm with you 100% of the way. But if non-technical people encounter annoyances with their Ubuntu preinstall, they are going to do the exact same thing they would do if it were a Windows preinstall: Ask their technically-inclined friend/relative/associate/GeekSquad, contact the manufacturer directly, or resort to Google. Or flat-out return the computer if it doesn't serve their needs.
The overwhelming majority use Windows and they seem to get by just fine... Without ever fine-tuning the interface.
Actually...
I know. But again, no Ubuntu user is forced to use Unity if its limitations don't suit them.
Google. There's plenty of information and pre-written apt-get commands ready to be copy/pasted into the terminal. (Which is a default application in Unity's bar, I believe.) And if you're not technologically savvy enough to query the abundant technical communities online, then you probably don't even know or care about what XFCE is anyway.
Are we really that concerned about whether those types of people are stuck using Unity or any other environment?
Those 99% who don't want to use a terminal are probably not very concerned with their UI. If they can do basic tasks - which Unity handles just dandy - then that's good enough for them.
Yes, it is a shame that Ubuntu users are locked into Unity with absolutely no way around it.
Oh, wait...
Actually, it goes all the way up to 11.
Way better than the sadomasochistic paraphernalia that the IRS keeps within reach...
I beg to differ; I have found CCCP to be indispensable.
Slashdot has always been anti-Microsoft. Here's a fantastic example of how desperately they have reached to slander them.
You just described Apple as well. I know I'll take "troll" labeling for this, but it's true. Each new edition of OS X ends up removing or altering functionality in such a way that it cripples people and forces them to stick with older versions of the OS. The upcoming 10.8 should be a good example of that. They're all racing to blur the gap between tablet and desktop operating systems, even if that means that they should dumb down or radically alter the interface. I wouldn't be surprised if there is never a Mac OS XI, instead merging into a universalized iOS.
But on the other hand, change is ongoing. It's just the same to me that they remove out-of-the-box DVD capability. Tablets and many modern computers don't even have optical drives, so the software would be dead weight. Given the cost-imposed storage limitations of SSD's, I'd prefer to trim out all of the superfluous legacy software. It would have been nice if MS could have retained the DVD capability as a downloadable feature, similar to how they removed bloat from Win7 but made it accessible for free (package manager style) to those who still wanted it.
Either way, I guess commercial OS developers need to guarantee their job security somehow. =)
Windows 7 and Vista had DVD playback capability right out of the box. Of course, I never paid for DVD playback software in the XP days since Media Player Classic can do it for free, but knowing that I'll have to start setting it up for clients all over again is inconvenient.
Does "more Firefoxy" mean "less Chromey"?
Really? Go to the Gimp home page. I downloaded 2.8rc1 from there over the weekend
Maybe you downloaded the source, but not a Windows installer. Gimp's homepage states that the Windows build is not yet available.
C Number
I gave a fuck. I have to be able to support these damn things on a BES when they are released.
But it wasn't a happy fuck. Indeed, it was a rather troubled fuck.
When the software consists of nothing more than worthless single-site browsers that do nothing but show a webpage?
It doesn't, though... There's a vast selection of useful applications. Many of them interface with centralized web services (Evernote, Facebook, Netflix, weather forecast, just to name some examples) however I wouldn't consider them to be worthless. I don't doubt that app stores are riddled with useless webpage loaders, but I never really see them...
Sad thing is, the only thing holding game devs back is shit console hardware.
I won't employ that "FTFY" nonsense but will point out that your statement would have been better worded as " outdated console hardware." I will write off issues such as "red rings of death" and faulty optical drives to the console manufacturers, since they don't have an impact on game development. Barring those, the hardware itself is decent quality far from being "shit." It can't compete with the top of the line, but it doesn't need to.
So now, if we step back and look at the bigger picture, "the only thing holding game devs back is outdated console hardware" is arguable. Lower-end hardware is capable of much more than most developers can tap into, usually due to limitations of their development tools, the need for cross-platform compatibility, tight deadlines, a lack of funding, and a lack of understanding of the hardware on a more fundamental level. It's possible to go a long way with current-gen consoles, including more complicated AI and other gameplay mechanics. You won't have the same flashy effects that state-of-the-art hardware can deliver, but that doesn't matter to people who aren't willing to shell out thousands of dollars.
The PS3 and X360 are producing HDTV quality graphics with flawless sound. There's very little room for improvement. They are at the highest audiovisual-resolution possible.
I can't speak for the X360, but the percentage of PS3 games displaying at the highest possible resolution is fairly limited. (Let's just say the "highest possible resolution" is 1080p in this context, since that is the common maximum resolution in a modern household TV.) Yes, the capability is there and many 1080p games do exist, but I recall that Sony mandated a 720p maximum some years ago [citation needed] in order to ensure that games would run at the best possible frame rate. For most people, myself included, it's no big deal since 720p looks just dandy on my 46" screen. It could be better, but video games just don't summon enough of an emotional response for me to give a shit these days.
Anyway, my point is that 720p and even 1080p are far, far below the highest possible resolution, in comparison to what many computer monitors on the market are sporting nowadays.
Their full menu includes:
Apple Pie
Candy Apples
Apple Fritters
Dried Apples
Apple Jacks
Apple, egg, sausage, and Apple (but that's not got much Apple in it)
And a pony. Everybody loves ponies.
Slashdot gave me the option to remove ads, even though I've never paid them a penny.
I give it a shot with each new release and do appreciate that it is getting better. App searching does prove to be handy, as I find myself reliant on it in Win7 and OS X these days. My laptop (which is my primary Linux workstation) is old and doesn't take too kindly to compositing so it's comfortably sporting Lubuntu, but by the time I replace it I'll see how a week of the latest release running Unity does for me.
In the meantime, my large-screened computing needs are best served by other environments. And that makes the broad variety of options a beautiful thing.