Well to me it gets harder and harder to tell who is imitating who. Did Microsoft still the Windows concept from Apple? Did Apple still the Windows concept from Sun?

To me, I believe the ultimate concern show be ease of use and convenient. I don't care who gets there first. If it's easy and it works I hope there should be a reason for developers to try to figure out a way to implement it. I don't know much about cars. But when I first paid attention to the way they looked, they were so much significantly different that I could tell at a glance when I was looking at a similar manufacturer's car. Each year it becomes harder and harder for me to tell the difference. They are usually either big cars of small cars, but they almost all look the same to me.

I believe there are some basic sound design concepts that just works. The manufacturers are looking for sound design, not different design. Of course there are times when some groups venture out and make a drastically different design. Over the years, I never see them catch on.

I use Linux for it's sound design, this includes the concept of finding configuration files and using a text editor to modify them the way I want them. The way files are so easily shared. You can browse log files and have other program share and output to log files without having to stop the applications that are logging to them. I find this a serious flaw with Windows.

There are many things under the hood that I like about Linux and the ease of using it. The convenience of the GUI and friendliness to a novice doesn't bother me.

I work with many educated people. My clients include doctors, lawyers, police offers, judges, and businessmen of large variety of professions. Most of them are morons when it comes to computers. That's my experience. I sit a computer in a very elegant law office and was about to demonstrate it to my lawyer client. He sat at a black screen and looked around the keyboard and asked me how to turn it on.

Is that what you mean by your reference to idiots? I think idiot is a harsh word to call people who are smart in other categories, but just ignore to computers.

When a new client wants me to work on their computer, I'll tell them to just bring the CPU. It takes me a while to explain that I don't need the mouse, the keyboard, the printer, the monitor, or any of the other things that are plugged into it. Just the CPU... please, don't even bring power cables.

I really can't fault the developers for having a concern to make the computer easy for computer illiterates. A person that aspires to be a jet pilot, really doesn't have time to do all the work you (and I) might like to do when it comes to going under the hood and customizing it. They just want to plug in something that works. There are a very few things that many people will do with a computer, then not look at it any more. They'll log into their bank accounts (or in other word, browse the web), or check their email.

Many people if they are flooded with too many options will get confused and be afraid of the computer. Or they may click on the options and browse and click around and make their computer unfriendly to them and have to call the IT person (me). Many people just don't have time. They are too busy keeping up with the manuals of other important components for their careers.

I don't know specifically of people that are looking for something different. Most of my clients reject difference. They didn't want to change from Window 3.1 to Windows 95 because it was different. They didn't want to change to Windows 98 because it was different. They didn't want to change to any of the later versions, because it was different. I walked them through the change by showing them an easy way to get to what they wanted to do. In my experience, each Microsoft upgrade made it easier for me to give support to my clients. The changes they made where changes on my recommendation. Not one person I know even looked for something different.

One of my lawyer clients' sons when the Mac way when he finished college. Now this client is talking about getting a Mac. It has nothing to do with it being different. He wants a Mac because his son boasts that it never gets viruses. I'm suggesting Linux to his client. But again, he's shopping for an OS because he learned there was OS that doesn't get viruses. He's not looking for something different. He just wants a computer tool that actually works.

As far as why would someone leave an OS where they have spent $200.00 for? For one they are only renting the OS. To retain the support they may have to pay another $200.00 every few years for the upgrade. I'm hoping they will be attracted to an alternative that is free.

I also mention to my clients that Windows may have developers in the hundreds on the team that are doing what they do to get as much money as they can out of the people. Everything about the innards of the OS is secret. Linux has developers in the hundreds of thousands that are doing what they do because they like it and want to share in the development of just making things better. The source is open, less chance of selfish exploits and thief by the developers.

When the Ipad came out I walked into an Apple store for the first time in many, many years. I was surprised at how much the Apple has come to look like a PC. The last time I had paid attention to Apple computers, the monitor and keyboard was one unit. Looking closer, even the desktop could be a Microsoft theme. In other words, at a glance I wouldn't have been sure I was even looking at something different from a PC when looking at the desktop.

Just like in the automotive industry, the products by the different manufacturers resemble each other more and more. I would never say I hate the PC because it resembles and Apple. I might hate it for some other reason of which I would name. I don't like the fact that the PC doesn't have a standard X Interface. You have to install something like cygwin.

I would never hate the Mac because it resembles an IBM. I have a passion against the Mac because they charge so much money for the hardware and work so hard and building in encryption against it running on other hardware.

I won't have a Linux OS because it resembles another OS. If you have problems with the functionality, I'd be glad to assist with how to use the functionality. If you don't like the look, that's something to deal with also. But if you don't like it because it resembles something else, that's something I can't understand.

While I never used X throughout the years, it's still installed on some of my old computers. When I boot up the X environment, it appears that Windows is copying on a lot of the visual experience that has been with Linux for years. I don't hate Windows for it. I expect for the developers to learn what works and implement the best of what they can find and image.

-- L. James

--
L. D. James
ljames@apollo3.com
www.apollo3.com/~ljames

Hi remember me, the OP? I have been following this interesting thread without butting in because I had nothing to contribute, being so new to Linux. I have been "into microcomputers though since Radioshack brought out the TRS-80 model one in 1976.


It's a little know fact but it was actually Commodore on the Commodore 64 that brought out a shell called the "Desktop" There was an actual image of the a desk the top of which had program icons scattered around it. You ran the app by clicking on the icon. There was even a "trash can" by the desk for deleting files. I had it though I never played with it much.

Have no idea who you are but I guess it is all right if you post here too. (Smart ass grumpy geezer warning)

I never fooled with computers until I was in my 40s so I missed those gems. I was, however, aware that there had been desktop environments and little religious symbols on them before MS came up with them. I even have a promotional video clip for Siemens RTL Tiled Window System which was made for the Sun variety of windows.

Unfortunately the demo looks much more usable than either Unity or Gnome Shell. I don't have a date on the bugger, for sure, but believe it is 1987. I think the folks at Gnome and Canonical maybe ought to take a look.

The 'ubuntu mission' is to get users, and leverage them to make money for canonical.

Canonical insists to this day that ubuntu is a 'gnome distro'.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...buntu-1104.ars

They have also done a very good job of mudding the waters as far as gnome goes. 'Unity is just a shell for gnome', OK, but when gnome 3 is refered to as 'gnome-shell' thats just confusing.

IMO a lot of why canoncial/shuttleworth inists that 'ubuntu is a gnome distro' is because several years ago shuttleworth basicly said 'ubuntu will always be a gnome distro'.

Part of why people have been saying that unbuntu/canonical is becomign more 'windows like' is nothing to do with usability, its more to do with canoncial attitude of 'thats what you are getting, now like it'. The number of outright silly things that canonical have done is just staggering...its not just locking unity because 'our devs know better than you', its making strange dependancies (my favourite is that mountall is dependant on plymouth. Lets making mounting anything dependant on a graphical bootloader..crazy)

Ugh. I'd guess you (OK, kubuntu-dekstop probably) had the KDE menu set to 'kickoff'. Changing to 'classic menu' brings up a far less confusing menu.

Well the Commodore "Desktop" was not very usable at all. In those days, you had to use a joystick to control movement of the cursor. We've come a long way baby and I don't regret a minute of it. In the early 50's we were promised anti-gravity, personal computers, and starships. Well at least we have the PC's!

interestingly mac os X has it's root user disabled by default in a similar fashion to ubuntu but if you look at the below linke you'll see that apple's official support site posts directions how to enable it, albeit with strong cautions as to why you probably shouldn't
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1528
banning someone over discussing it seems a bit extreme, but you don't have to use ubuntu either.

I have since learned a little more about configuring environments. I installed KDE plasma desktop on my main computer, which was an original Ubuntu 11.04 install (with Unity of course). Simply running the command:

...will easily allow me to switch between KDE and the "Gnome/Unity" default environment. KDE looks nice, but currently it's too different from what I've been using for the past few months (Unity 3D), that I have to stay with Unity for now. I have used it so much that I've very comfortable with it. I find it very easy and convenient to use. It was awkward at first. But it’s not now... It’s my preference.

My comments about Ubuntu talking after Windows was in response to what appeared to strongly suggest that the problem with Ubuntu was that the Windows appearance... that it wasn't different and that people wanted something different.

Your argument with references to lots of functionality when it comes to the mountall command appears to be a more sound complaint. I can understand a complaint against functionality. But I can't understand a complaint against something because of the way it looks when a novice like me can customize the appearance so much as with my description above.

I don't know all the details about the commitment to gnome or the lack of. But I can't blame the developers for looking for an alternate if the direction support for gnome became problematic. I might promise to put Ubuntu on all the computers I build and ship. But if somewhere down the line Ubuntu started to take off into a direction that I couldn't deal with, I'd have to look for a different OS solution for my computers. Since there are lots of references to personality conflict between the Ubuntu developers and the Gnome developers, I can understand the idea of looking for a Desktop resolution.

I see the same appears to be happening with OpenOffice.

-- L. James

--
L. D. James
ljames@apollo3.com
www.apollo3.com/~ljames

That command should just let you change between GDM and KDM. KDE should be selectable from either (GDM or KDM) login screen


I'm suprised that you would find KDE 'too different' but you accepted unity. *shrugs*

I really dont think that the appearance of unity is what was making people say that ubuntu was becoming more 'windows like'.

From my experince, unity is very 'locked down' with lots of appearance 'features' that cannot be changed. Last time I used it you couldnt add, delete, or reposition applets and you couldnt resize or move the panel....

From what I've seen I dont think either gnome or canonical have been exactly great with this unity/gnome 3/gnome 2.X discontinued issue. I'd lean slightly toward the gnome crew being slightly more clear about the situation, but I havent been following the whole thing that closely. I might be biased, when I saw shuttleworth saying 'I was told that the gnome foundation was told about change XXXX in 2008' without any backup (in these days of electronic communications) I was _seriously_ unimpressed.

For myself, I used to offer to install the linux distro of the owners choice on systems I built (for 'testing' or for real use). I now will not install ubuntu unless paid to do so.

You're right about options at each login screen. But the dpkg-reconfigure command goes a bit deeper. It actually changes the login screen.

Good observation. Actually I found Unity quiet different and cumbersome at first also. I hung in there for months and the more I used it, because the more I started to understand and like it. The same probably could happen with KDE. It happened with Unity because it was the default of the distro flavor upgrade. If Ubuntu had introduced KDE as the new default desktop I probably would have gotten used to that environment instead.

Currently if I were trying to go the KDE way, I'd install Kubuntu instead of Ubuntu.

The developers can have feedback from their various users. My experience is extremely positive. I see some flaws. But there are enough positives to counter out the flaws. I plan, when I have more time, to become more active in communicating more directly with the developers and giving suggestions. But at present, I use workarounds to compensate for the flaws.

Of course they have feedback for people like you, who strongly oppose a lot of their direction. I'll leave it to them to balance the direction.

I see some "legitimate" complaints that coincide with mine. However, for the most part, most of the complaints I read about don't have to be complained so hard. Most of them are matters where the user can configure his environment different if he wants to.

By the way, one of my immediate problems with KDE was the way the desktop didn't appear as a folder by default. It took me a lot of work to figure out how to make it a folder. I also had problems changing the way the applications looked. The font sizes where hard to read. It might not have taken me a long time to adapt to the changes and probably start liking the changes. But since I'm using the default Ubuntu flavor as it's shipped, I didn't spend the time trying to adapt.

And yes, as I think about it, the option of how KDE treats the desktop isn't a bad thing. Windows has a feature to hide the icons. So the concept is nice for having the desktop as a background for your running applications, rather than a folder by default.

I don't have anything bad to say about KDE. I just haven't taken the time to adapt to it. I particularly took the time to experience what the developers spent their time working on, and tried to understand it, and of course, have come to like it.

I fully understand that it's not for some... including you.

I see problems with Unity. It's at its infancy with Ubuntu. I'm sure the missing flexibility will be built into it. I believe the developers done well to include the Ubuntu classic option while they work out the bugs.

They are probably holding off as much as they can, hoping for a workable solution before having to do what they are apparently doing after (as you mention) 3 years. I'm sure if they had to do it in 2008 they could have. Personally I don't see a flaw when considering they have provided a desktop interface over the three years and still are.

-- L. James

--
L. D. James
ljames@apollo3.com
www.apollo3.com/~ljames

@Larry James
The problem Ubuntu has with Gnome is not Gnome and their direction. It is Ubuntu that is the problem.

Ubuntu has all kinds of conditions attached to any contributions they make to any other Linux project. Gnome has been at the forefront of this "help". They, like many other Linux project communities, are starting to not except anything from Ubuntu. This has hurt little Markys feelings. This is the reason for Unity.

You obviously are happy with Unity, that is fine with me. Do not imply that those of us who don't have not tried it. Were you using it as far back as May of last year. I was.

While the functionality of the design has improved tremendously since then, the FACT remains that it takes more keystrokes or mouse clicks or a combination of both to do things than it took in the gnome panel desktop or takes now on Xfce and/or Lxde (and most probably KDE - I just have never been KDE compatible).

You have things you do on your box, they work with Unity. I would not suggest that you open 12 images in Gimp that you are going to edit individually and combine components of several into an existing or new image under Unity unless you are really entertainment challenged and need the extra movements to simply find the images, let alone work with them. The same is true, and more so, with several instances of spreed sheets that all look pretty much a like in the little dinky versions you get to see if they all show up on the screen.

A simple windows list, as is available as an extension of Gnome Shell, takes care of a number of the problems that you run into in those operations but definitely not all.

One of the reasons, I am sure, that aptitude was removed as a default install is that the command "aptitude keep-all" will break most meta-packages and label every package as "manually installed". This means that you can add and remove things without removing, say, your desktop environment.

The command "aptitude why <package>" is popular with some folks as it tells you why a package is installed or going to be installed. I generally use apt-get instead of aptitude but it is handy. The "why" command is not really one I use. I prefer "aptitude why-not <package>".
\
Running those three commands on an Ubuntu installation is very informative and entertaining. Informative all the time, Entertaining only if you get amusement out of seeing that the "depends" of a package (say mountall) are;
A>hard coded
B>completely, roll on the floor laughingly silly

The most of the other "depends" on Plymouth are equally stupid. Plymouth is available in the Debian repos. Check the Popularity contest for its popularity. I could install that silly thing on here and remove it tomorrow.

You can remove it from any Ubuntu family member with a little more trouble. All you need to do is leave that family behind and use something else.

Do not get the idea, supported by Ubuntu, that those of us who left are unwilling to learn something new and Unity is the problem. Ubuntu and its direction, attitude toward its users and attitude toward the users of its official forum is the problem.

You and I, as members of the Linux community can disagree on Unity. We can still be on speaking terms. If we met we may even get a long very well.

Do not go over to the UFs and say anything negative about Unity or the direction Ubuntu is taking. The thought police will catch up to you and you will end up on "that" list. If you do, though, you may find the welcome on a number of other forums quite warm as there are now, since about 10.04-testing cycle, an awful lot of us on that list.

This is the reason that, including me, Ubuntu has lost about 100 of its experienced testers and have about a dozen left. That is just testers. Forum usage is down a bunch. Old users are going to other distros because they can see Ubuntu not only does not want them but has no respect for them.

To get back to Linux, you will find that you can do more to configure your login screen by directly editing /usr/share/gdm/greeter-config/10_desktop-base and /20-debian (Ubuntu may change the name of that last one now, don't know or care). The /user/share/images/desktop-base has its uses too but more in Debian than in Ubuntu.

All dpkg-reconfigure can do is what is in the install script for any package, it is extremely handy but it is limited to a set of default options. You can actually change the defaults more by direct editing. The little message on the log in box above the user name, for instance, is not part of the reconfigure options, nor is the color of the background behind the user name.

Your use of that command though, does bring up a problem. You refer to your self as a novice. On the UFs, and in the thinking of Canonical, you are a "guru". No, I am not kidding.

Because I do not like Unity I am not only a guru but and "elitist guru" (that quote from an "Ubuntu Member" on the UFs this testing cycle).

You are absolutely right, see sig.

I read Boys Life too. And Popular Mechanics. We were supposed to to have flying cars by the 90s. I am bummed out.

A vacation on the Moon would be nice too.

All I can say is that you must be on the way to being old.

I dont know why you would want to change login screens from GDM to KDM and back. I generally find one then stick with it.

That is a major part of why 'unity' is a problem. The devs are not interested in hearing negative feedback about unity.

Depends on what you mean by 'flexability'. At least as far as some things go, no, its not going to get any more flexable. See here-

https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/668415

"We're sorry, our 'design goals' are far more important than what you, the users, want".

BTW, check how many duplicates there are.

The _only_ reason why 'ubuntu classic' was included is because canonical knows that if they made it harder to get gnome 2.X for 11.04, there would be even more people leaving ubuntu than there already is.

It would be pretty hard to get people to d/l, buy or otherwise get a 'desktop' OS with no desktop.

Funny you should say that...unity does go back to 2008. It wasnt called unity then, it was UNR (Ubuntu Netbook Remix). You can see a screenshot here-

http://www.ubuntumini.com/2008/10/in...ook-remix.html

Canonical has had the 'unity' option for a while now. IMO what pushed them 'over the edge' toward unity isnt some minor spat over 'direction', or even the larger fight over 'contributions'. What pushed them toward unity was...wait for it....chromeOS. That is why the 'canonical contributor agreement' was created. It allows canonical to 'change the licence' (aka 'sell a closed, proprietary version').

Not content with making contributor agreements for just themselves, canonical created 'Project Harmony' (#%&#%& name, canoncial, there was already a 'Project Harmony'). As one critic of canonical has said-

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/07/07...y-harmful.html

BTW, while ChromeOS is on my mind, this is worth seeing as well-

http://blog.canonical.com/2009/11/19...and-canonical/

If a FOSS company doesnt know the difference between open (eg chromium) and closed (chrome) should anyone who thinks that FOSS is a good idea be supporting that company? I say no, they shouldnt.

Actually I have started to notice a lot of quickness and ease of bringing up applications. They have added keystroke to what was previously done by the mouse. I resisted the use of the mouse for a long time (back in the 90's). But of course over the years I have become very dependent on it, because that's the common direction that everyone went.

Of course with the popularity being gained by touchscreens and tablets, the mouse might lose some of its usefulness.

It has always been very awkward for me to move my hands from the comfortable position of the keyboard, to the mouse and back. I have always used lots of keyboard short cuts.

With Unity (I'll probably soon start using a keyboard shortcut to bring it up), but a click to bring up the menu (which at first I was so annoyed because it blocks the screen. Almost always, one keystroke (never more than two) the applicative I want to use is visible. That's quickness and ease that I miss when I test the gnome-panel alternate. When I bring up the Unity menu, the application I want to run is almost always there without a touch of the keyboard, but two keys isn't bad.

There are lots of things I can mention that I have gotten use to which makes my increases my productivity at the console.

With the touchscreen and tablet I'm sure it'll beat trying to follow the gnome-panel hands down.

I do that all the time. I almost always have 10 terminal windows, 25 or 30 Firefox Windows, 5 VirtualBox windows, 5 emacs windows, 5 LibreOffice Windows, 5 Eclipse windows and more running. You're right, you can't navigate them with Unity. I hope it'll soon get that functionality. I use Docky to navigate between running applications.

You might be right. At this point, that isn't something I have experienced. I'm sure if its as bad as you indicate, it'll soon happen to me. I'm very outspoken. I present it's not something I have seen on the forums. I don't read all the messages... plus I understand that you guys are saying the probably remove the messages they consider offensive.

If one of my messages were removed I'm sure I'd have a big attitude. However, out of respect, I'd place emphasis on posting messages that complies with the forum owners.

I'll keep an eye open for the censorship you describe. If it's bad enough, they can't remove everything before one reaches my eyes. So far this hasn't happened (my noticing the over-censorship).

That's absolute.

If it were the only way I would spend time editing the gdm/greeter files (and possibly the kdm greeter or whatever they call theirs). However, since the single command, dpkg-reconfigure switch, appears to do it all, I find it more convenient to do it that way rather than trying to recall which what I changed in the configuration files and remembering to put them back between sessions.

To me, I experience a difference when being greeted with the gnome login manager and being greeted with the kde login manager. I have already made changes to my /etc/default/gdm that I don't get when I have the system dpkg-reconfigure'd for KDE. At present, I don't have to be concerned with those gnome desktop manager configurations interfering with my KDE experience.

I understand that if I switched between them enough and tested the difference environments and startup/startup programs options enough I might find it easy to know what to change and see to bring up the pure native environments without using dpkg-reconfigure, but again, I see more changes that I know what to manually do when I use dpkg-reconfigure. I have lots of projects I'm currently working on, and trying to figure out the difference at this point has to be on the side burner.

Again, when the gnome desktop manager login screen first come up, my custom configuration starts; even before logging in. My gnome custom changes don't happen if I dpkg-reconfigure for kdm. There'll be a time when I'll look at the kdm manager and see how to customize it like I have done for the gdm manager.

I'm curious what problems are brought up by running "dpkg-reconfigure". I have seen that as a resolution to fix many problems. I have used it often to fix problems with various packages.

Thanks for the compliment.

-- L. James

--
L. D. James
ljames@apollo3.com
www.apollo3.com/~ljames

That was not really meant as a compliment. It is a warning. Ubuntu really does not like or want people messing with their set up. Minor things (wallpaper) are OK. Much else refutes their pet theory that what YOU want is a "configuration free environment".

There is little patience with those who insist on configuring things and telling others how to do it.

There are also a number of hard core fanboys that appear to be immune to the COC over there that really like to attack people personally on threads that even hint at criticism. One of those threads is where I got branded as an elitist guru, which I found amusing but many folks just leave and you never hear from them again.

The treatment katie-xx got during the 10.04-testing cycle is a very good example that we should have taken more heed of at the time.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...light=katie-xx
Is the thread and if you look at it you will see an interested, polite, knowledgeble person, for no apparent reason, bullied off the forum. No interference from the mods at all.

You will also see that the testing forum used to be a little harder to find. There was good reason for this. It keeps noobs from ruining their system.

The thread used as the testing forum now has been around for some time. It was in the giggles, gossip and flame wars subforum (Community Discussions). They have moved it into the main menu as a subforum of its own so that it can be easily found by noobs who have, this cycle, been ruining their systems.

I believe it was in the 10.04-testing cycle that someone started a thread (around the release of A3 or B1) stating that there should be some sort of "test" for folks wanting to download the install media or upgrade to the "testing" version just to make testing more coherent. I was very vocal in opposing this idea as it is impractical in the first place and it is just not in the spirit of Linux at all (you want to screw your system it is your business - I have been known to do it myself and I know who is to blame).

Ubuntu will probably, after a couple more cycles, try to do something like that. Maybe testing by invitation or application and a "private" forum to appeal to human snobbery. Seeing how, at release time, folks doing a search for a problem on the new release now are going to get threads from the testing forum this would not be a good thing but at least all the testers would toe the line or be thrown out. It will not work and maybe they are smart enough to see that. I hope so but doubt it.

Testers are the only folks that can give real help to the folks with problems with a new release for at least the first week and more like three weeks. They know what is wrong and any problem was probably dealt with in testing. They know the work arounds.

Ubuntu has run us off because of our silly belief that we may have opinions. Give me a set of testers that do not have that attitude and I will show you some really worthless testers.

The testing forum has always had such folks (25 to 33%). Go look at the testing forum now and you will find it is 50 to 66%. These are not helpful folks. They are no good at coming up with work arounds. They are surely not going to file a bug including a coded solution. Heck, right now they are just trying to get them to actually install on real hardware instead of VB.

Ubuntu has a lot of rethinking to do, real quick, or they are going to loose most of their old, experienced users. Who, then, is going to be helping all these new users? The fanboys? Not likely.

I really hope something changes pretty fast or Ubuntu is not going to improve much at all. They will be too busy tryingnew themes on the forums to attract new forum members.

Their whole attitude is rather delusional.