I can't count how many times I've tried to work the same way I've worked in old software in a competitor's package. It was horrible! Why? Because I was *doing it wrong*. Once I learned how the new software worked and stopped trying to cram my square plug approach through a round hole I realized that the new system was actually a lot faster when you worked with its philosophy.
You weren't necessarily doing it wrong. You were doing it differently. There isn't the one true way[tm] of working with your computer. Whilst some are slower than others, and other are faster, a lot of them are just equal.
And being used to something isn't always a bad thing. You should not have to re-learn to use the user interface every decade.
We still use QWERTY for a reason, no matter how much "better" the Dvorak layout should be in theory.
And this is what's Unity seems to me. A bunch of irrational Dvorak-preachers;)
More to the point, there are so many things I despite at the current way of how Ubuntu is doing things recently.
One example being the Maximize-Minimize-Close-buttons. I abso-frigging-lutly do not care if it's right or left; but I am used to them being on the right side, and if someone is telling me it would be better if they were on the left side, I call bullshit on that.
Yet Ubuntu now forces it to be on the left side even after an upgrade (I do not mind it being the new default) without asking me. It shouts "I know better than you!" right at my face and expects my humble acknowledgment. That's very arrogant behavior. It's something I'd expect from Apple and not from a distro that by its own motto wants to put the human in the center of attention.
So the whole outrage concering Unity also showcasts a huge failure at communication. And there also seems to be quite a huge difference between the user group Ubuntu currently has and the one it targets with Unity.
Unity and Gnome3 seem to me like fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place. And yes, Gnome2 is not the best UI there is, and most likely never will be, but it gets the job done. Also, I have a/personalized/ experience of Gnome2, that's another matter with power users. They tweak their system to the point where other people won't even recognize it as such. Unity and Gnome3 on the other hand made it worse by hiding configuration options.
I for one do not grasp why I cannot maximize the System Settings window, and worse, how to change the font of my system. A thing I found out in Gnome2 just by following the UI.
And if something is really great, like for example the Win7 way of maximizing the window just by moving it to the border of the desktop, you can count on people copying it and include it in their own settings. Just like I did via compiz. Which for some reason does not start automatically anymore in 11.10. Huh.
So yeah, it's a blurry line to tell when something is good evolution/revolution and if sometimes the emperor is just naked. Yet at this moment, I personally go with the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't count how many times I've tried to work the same way I've worked in old software in a competitor's package. It was horrible! Why? Because I was *doing it wrong*. Once I learned how the new software worked and stopped trying to cram my square plug approach through a round hole I realized that the new system was actually a lot faster when you worked with its philosophy.
You weren't necessarily doing it wrong. You were doing it differently. There isn't the one true way[tm] of working with your computer. Whilst some are slower than others, and other are faster, a lot of them are just equal.
And being used to something isn't always a bad thing. You should not have to re-learn to use the user interface every decade.
We still use QWERTY for a reason, no matter how much "better" the Dvorak layout should be in theory.
And this is what's Unity seems to me. A bunch of irrational Dvorak-preachers ;)
More to the point, there are so many things I despite at the current way of how Ubuntu is doing things recently.
One example being the Maximize-Minimize-Close-buttons. I abso-frigging-lutly do not care if it's right or left; but I am used to them being on the right side, and if someone is telling me it would be better if they were on the left side, I call bullshit on that.
Yet Ubuntu now forces it to be on the left side even after an upgrade (I do not mind it being the new default) without asking me. It shouts "I know better than you!" right at my face and expects my humble acknowledgment. That's very arrogant behavior. It's something I'd expect from Apple and not from a distro that by its own motto wants to put the human in the center of attention.
So the whole outrage concering Unity also showcasts a huge failure at communication. And there also seems to be quite a huge difference between the user group Ubuntu currently has and the one it targets with Unity.
Unity and Gnome3 seem to me like fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place. And yes, Gnome2 is not the best UI there is, and most likely never will be, but it gets the job done. Also, I have a /personalized/ experience of Gnome2, that's another matter with power users. They tweak their system to the point where other people won't even recognize it as such. Unity and Gnome3 on the other hand made it worse by hiding configuration options.
I for one do not grasp why I cannot maximize the System Settings window, and worse, how to change the font of my system. A thing I found out in Gnome2 just by following the UI.
And if something is really great, like for example the Win7 way of maximizing the window just by moving it to the border of the desktop, you can count on people copying it and include it in their own settings. Just like I did via compiz. Which for some reason does not start automatically anymore in 11.10. Huh.
So yeah, it's a blurry line to tell when something is good evolution/revolution and if sometimes the emperor is just naked. Yet at this moment, I personally go with the latter.