systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits

Posted Apr 25, 2012 7:58 UTC (Wed) by spaetz (guest, #32870)
In reply to: systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits by apoelstra
Parent article: Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name

> Ubuntu attitude has always been "our way or the highway", and this attitude has gotten worse

Not that I believe Canonical is always making the right decisions, but it is possible to run stock Gnome Shell on an unmodified Ubuntu. Personally, I run Xubuntu and I am very happy with it, even using old and crappy graphics drivers. So, you can't really claim my way or the highway when other DEs are simply making similar decisions.

systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits

Posted Apr 25, 2012 8:34 UTC (Wed) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link] (5 responses)

>So, you can't really claim my way or the highway...
My "our way or the highway" comment was regarding Ubuntu's attitude toward user feedback -- for example, the flak they got when they moved the maximize/minimize/close buttons to the other side of the title bar.

Without rehashing the specific arguments, I recall there being a lot of complaints in the beta release, followed by a grandiose blog post from Mark Shuttleworth, and the new buttons appeared in the final release anyway.

Of course, as the spin-off distros show, it is still possible to do your own thing with Ubuntu, provided you have the know-how.

> when other DEs are simply making similar decisions.

Yes, I should have been clearer that Unity is not alone in their silly changes. Gnome 3, Windows Metro, and any other "touchscreen" desktop environments are just as guilty of making poor UI choices. The difference is that Canonical has put a significant amount of effort into making their -own- poor UI, whereas other distributions focus their efforts on more useful pursuits.

systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits

Posted Apr 26, 2012 17:47 UTC (Thu) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link] (1 responses)

> My "our way or the highway" comment was regarding Ubuntu's
> attitude toward user feedback -- for example, the flak they
> got when they moved the maximize/minimize/close buttons to
> the other side of the title bar.

The majority of Ubuntu users never complained about that, but a loud minority did. (Personally, I find that it's not really all that important which side these buttons are, and most people get used to it.)

systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits

Posted Apr 26, 2012 17:50 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

I see that most Ubuntu users around me just adjusted the settings using regedit^W gsettings.

systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits

Posted Apr 30, 2012 15:52 UTC (Mon) by jbicha (subscriber, #75043) [Link] (2 responses)

For full-screen windows in Unity, the minimize/maximize buttons make the most sense in the top left corner.

Of course Unity didn't exist in 10.04 and the reasoning wasn't explained well then.

systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits

Posted Apr 30, 2012 16:03 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

>For full-screen windows in Unity, the minimize/maximize buttons make the most sense in the top left corner.
Why?

systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits

Posted Apr 30, 2012 19:35 UTC (Mon) by jbicha (subscriber, #75043) [Link]

The entire top right side is taken up with "indicator" status menus, which frees up the top left corner as a hot corner for the minimize/maximize/close buttons.