[olug] The microcosm that says so much

[T. J. Brumfield]

I think the final shipped theme is an improvement. I also think the new
Unity shell looks very sharp. I really like the clear monochromatic systray
icons that both KDE and Gnome have gravitated to (not to mention Windows 7).

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/05/exclusive-hands-on-with-ubuntus-new-unity-netbook-shell.ars

However, I still think the default widgets and icons are pretty hideous.

http://www.debianadmin.com/ubuntu-10-04-lucid-beta-1-screenshots-gallery.html?pid=303


http://www.debianadmin.com/ubuntu-10-04-lucid-beta-1-screenshots-gallery.html?pid=275


Again, compare those icons to what ships with Mac OS X, Windows 7 and KDE 4.

That being said, my original point in this thread isn't that the button
placement is good or bad, but rather I don't understand why Linux users (who
in all other areas praise choice and freedom) gravitate to a DE whose HIG
going out of their way to limit choice. I know some users never change the
defaults they get, but why would you want software that intentionally limits
you?

As we move forward to Gnome 3 and the new Gnome shell, people will debate
the merits/flaws of the new shell. My point will be whether or not you like
the shell, why should you be forced into conventions you may or may not
like?

The major sticking point of the KDE 4 rewrite was to create tools to make it
easy to customize and design new interfaces. Within seconds I can change
between "activities" which change the entire desktop shell. And part of me
wouldn't be shocked to see someone very quickly whip-up a comparible
activity for KDE that mimics the functionality of the new Gnome shell.

-- T. J. Brumfield

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Adam Lassek <adam at doubleprime.net> wrote:

> After spending 10-12 hours using Lucid, the button-placement is a complete
> non-issue. I was used to it after only a couple hours, and the final
> release
> looks very nice & polished.
>
> Also, the boot-time for 10.04 is AMAZING. If you're running an older
> version
> of Ubuntu, you owe it to yourself to upgrade for this reason alone. I have
> not been this impressed with an OS's boot-time since BeOS r5. I don't even
> have an SSD HDD either, standard Dell workstation.
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Adam Lassek <adam at doubleprime.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm withholding judgement until the theme is at least beta-quality. I
> think
> > some of the 'uproar' if you can call it that is over a misunderstanding;
> > Lucid Lynx is under UI-Freeze, which people take to mean the theme is
> done.
> > In fact there's a lot more tweaking in store before this gets released,
> so
> > what we are seeing is unfinished.
> >
> > Most of the arguments against the change that I have seen amount to
> > 'Windows does it that way, and so Ubuntu should do it that way' which I
> > don't think is a valid criticism.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, T. J. Brumfield <enderandrew at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Ubuntu announced their next LTS release will feature a new theme.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/ubuntu-dumps-the-brown-introduces-new-theme.ars
> >>
> >> Personally, I still can't stand the stock icons most Gnome desktops
> >> use. Ick. Look at the Windows 7, Mac OS X, or KDE Oxygen icons for
> >> comparison.
> >>
> >> But what has most people up in arms is the order of buttons on the
> >> window decoration. People are screaming this is just copying OS X.
> >> (For the record, I have no qualms copying good design, which is why I
> >> urged Kwin to adopt the Aero Snap feature, which they eventually did).
> >>
> >> However, all the hate and vitrol isn't necessary. As someone who very
> >> rarely uses Gnome, it never occured to me that you can't simply
> >> configure the window decoration buttons how you want.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://blog.nixternal.com/2010.03.05/let-me-tell-you-where-to-put-the-buttons/
> >>
> >> In KDE, you can configure the window decorations to behave exactly how
> you
> >> want.
> >>
> >> Then again, Gnome doesn't even ship with a Font Installer. I know the
> >> goal is to have sane defaults, but at some point, shouldn't a user be
> >> empowered to customize their desktop how they want? Reading the Gnome
> >> HIG, I see that the Gnome developers feel users are stupid and should
> >> not be afforded choice. Am I crazy to think I shouldn't be patronized
> >> by my desktop?
> >>
> >> If you want to see the difference between Gnome and KDE, I can think
> >> of no better example than this. With Gnome, you get what you get, and
> >> you better like it. If you don't, too bad. In KDE, you can have it
> >> anyway you want.
> >>
> >> I'm sincerely shocked that the Linux community (who seems to value
> >> choice) would prefer a desktop environment determined to limit choice.
> >>
> >> -- T. J. Brumfield
> >> "I'm questioning my education
> >> Rewind and what does it show?
> >> Could be, the truth it becomes you
> >> I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
> >> -- Pearl Jam, Education
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OLUG mailing list
> >> OLUG at olug.org
> >> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>