> Ubuntu used Unity, alienated a lot of people who only knew how to use Windows-like desktops.
Nonsense. It was alienating because it was slow and clunky, and for the people that choose Linux over OSX because they don't like OSX interfaces it was just being forced to use an inferior version of something they already didn't like.
The usual OSS intransigence where they couldn't actually figure out what UI they were trying to implement, like the blue-yellow-red buttons on the upper right, but also a close box / menu on the upper left and then also the right click for optional behavior of the window was also just straight _bad_.
That, and it was really slow and clunky. FWIW, I actually used fluxbox a lot for VNC installations and found it to be more pleasant and snappier (especially remotely) than Gnome.
I recall the switchover and don't remember hearing _anything_ from _anyone_ about liking it, but the reason was never that it wasn't enough like Windows.
It wasn't just slow and clunky, it changed how to do basic things, split configuration between about three different places, and changed defaults (which they still frequently do, to the point that it is still on-going and my "go-back-to-sane-defaults" script is now pages long)
The best UI is one the users already know. Changing to get more users only to lose your existing ones is a massive failure.
GNOME 3 did the same thing. That seems to be overlooked a lot.
On the other hand:
If you're a keyboard user, like me, then all the Windows keystrokes that worked in GNOME 2 still work in Unity, so it's much less jarring than KDE or something.
As an example: the Windows Quick Launch toolbar, that came in with Win98 in 1998, lets you start the first 10 apps by pressing Win+0 to 9.
Unity honours that.
Most people didn't know it was there, but if you did, it still worked. That is what I consider good attention to detail. UI that you didn't even know was there was carefully preserved to make Unity less of a shock to the system.
Yet all the mob bitch about is that it's Mac-like, which was because Ubuntu was under threat of prosecution for being too Windows-like.
Be fair. Learn about this and consider it. Because currently it looks like you're not.
> If you're a keyboard user, like me, then all the Windows keystrokes that worked in GNOME 2 still work in Unity, so it's much less jarring than KDE or something.
Actually since you mention it. GNOME 3 and Unity block basic readline keystrokes from working. Alt+Space has been a keystroke in bash since the 1980s, and they fucking override it. Fuck them.
> Learn about this and consider it.
NO. Fuck you. I have my UI and it will work how I want it to. The UI comes to me, I don't change to fit the operating system. That's bullshit. This is ergonomics 101.
They keep changing shit for the sake of change, then fuck them. They don't get to keep their install base, and nobody will bother to learn their bullshit.
You took the time to reply to me after a week, so OK, I'll do you the same courtesy.
> Actually since you mention it. GNOME 3 and Unity block basic readline keystrokes from working.
I'd never even heard of "readline keystrokes" before.
> Alt+Space has been a keystroke in bash since the 1980s, and they fucking override it.
I am not sure what that does, but hey, I'm sorry you feel that way.
But I have 2 counter-arguments. Neither will satisfy you, I realise, but hey, I feel it's important to say.
#1: Bash has used this since the 1980s.
According to Wikipedia, Bash was first released on June 8, 1989.
Windows has used alt-Space for the window control menu since at least Windows 2.0 -- I used Windows 2. I didn't like it much but I used it.
Windows 2.0 was released December 9, 1987.
So, that's 18 months earlier. If that was a new bash feature in 1989 then Brian Fox used a keystroke that was already in use by a widely-used GUI. Bad plan.
#2: Bash is on millions of Linux boxes, and Mac OS X from 10.3 to 10.15, and probably FreeBSD and maybe other BSDs.
OTOH, we are talking about a basic Windows keystroke that's probably on billions of machines. At least 100 Windows boxes for every Linux box, I would guess.
I am not arguing that this is right or proper or good. But on sheer numbers, the piece of software that used it first and which is used by 2 orders of magnitude more people gets to keep it, IMHO.
Sorry, but either on numbers or on chronology, it's fairly clear, IMHO.
Nonsense. It was alienating because it was slow and clunky, and for the people that choose Linux over OSX because they don't like OSX interfaces it was just being forced to use an inferior version of something they already didn't like.
The usual OSS intransigence where they couldn't actually figure out what UI they were trying to implement, like the blue-yellow-red buttons on the upper right, but also a close box / menu on the upper left and then also the right click for optional behavior of the window was also just straight _bad_.
That, and it was really slow and clunky. FWIW, I actually used fluxbox a lot for VNC installations and found it to be more pleasant and snappier (especially remotely) than Gnome.
I recall the switchover and don't remember hearing _anything_ from _anyone_ about liking it, but the reason was never that it wasn't enough like Windows.