Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

I'm trying out Debian now on a test computer. Not happy with the direction Ubuntu is going, but Debian is a bit rough around the edges.

I am with you on the latest stuff on ubuntu. Unity is not my thing either... I need to try a few other flavors of linux as well.

Ubuntu does serve well as a first OS other than Windows, mostly because it has enough bells and whistles to sufficiently woo those used to Windows.

If you have a running Ubuntu system, it's easy to switch it over to Xubuntu; you might find it meets your needs. That's what I'm doing in my office now.

sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

Then, log out, change to the Xubuntu session, and log back in.

If you like it, removing the regular Ubuntu stuff isn't too hard. Remove Unity and Nautilus and you'll get rid of most of it. You'll also want to remove gnome-screensaver (since Xubuntu uses xscreensaver instead).

Gads. I've been away from Ubuntu for a couple of years now. In a nutshell, what's changed that you guys don't like?

Also, for me, being into Linux is one reason I got into indie games. I liked the open source vibe here from the start.

(Can we use 'vibe' anymore? I'm afraid I've lost my list of approved cultural references. Er, perhaps used it for something else would be more accurate. I think it has oil all over it now.)

One word: Unity. The Unity user interface replaced GNOME 2, while GNOME was updated to version 3. I don't like either. The new "GNOME Classic" login is a pale shadow of GNOME 2.

I'm thinking strongly that Linux Mint Debian Edition may be the way to go. In fact, with the Debian test computer I installed, I added the Linux Mint repository just to get "real" Firefox and Thunderbird (which are not available from the standard Debian repos under their own names).

My problem with Debian was always politics... they're just too strict about their beliefs. Ubuntu struck me as the "saner" option (more pragmatic) back around Jaunty, but Maverick is the last version I really like. I'm running Xubuntu Oneiric on my office computer, and while XFCE is cool, it's not quite GNOME 2 yet.

Linux Mint, right now, seems to represent that "pragmatic" option. Time will tell.

I like linux because it is free and works well for most of what I need OS to do... but I just wish they would stop with all the interface tweaking.

Add features, cool.
Tweak interface slightly (meaning in location, reorder menus, etc.) OK
Make radical changes to look/feel/function... not good, especially when there is not an easy switch back to older interface... and I don't really want to go all the way back to other versions, I want the various little incremental updates to various programs, just not the interface re-writes.

What, like replacing an industry standard menu system with an icon-laden "oops, you scrolled it!" ribbon?

Yeah, show me the usability testing, and I'll believe the tweaks were made to help the users.

Well, funny how the thread completely devolved into what we all like best/worst about Ubuntu...

I'm finding it hard to resist though... So here are my two cents...

Ubuntu has since it's inception focussed on making Linux as easy as possible for non technical-users. Surprisingly there has been some confusion around this, since lots of people think it was built for current Linux users (which is the technical crowd).

Unity is just another big step toward this goal. The new huge icon dock (which merges the quicklaunch and taskbar functionality) is a huge boon for non-technical users, since they don't need really to know if a program is running or not. Just click on the icon, and you'll get the app (already running or not).

Unity is also extremely economical with regard to screen real-estate. It's awesome on netbooks. The vertical dock is also quite nice on pretty much all modern hardware, due to almost always having too much horizontal resolution and too little vertical resolution. Even though it may take some getting used too.

There are some obvious caveats. I really loved GNOME 2 too. But as much as people whine about both GNOME 3 and Unity, almost nobody seems to really step up to properly maintain GNOME 2. As just maintenance won't cut the mustered for long, as all new work will be done with GTK3, so they'll either have to port GNOME 2 to GTK3, or they'll need to maintain GTK2 too... Which would probably be a herculean task...

The stuff Linux Mint is doing seems nice at first glance, but I'm not sure how technically sound their work is at the moment. In the past it often seemed a bag of quickfixes cobbled together.

Realisticly xubuntu will probably be the most dependable refuge for GNOME 2 die-hards.

But then again, most of the time, adapting is often a more productive use of time as opposed to resisting.

If Unity appeared as an option, but was just one option of many, I'd agree with you. Open Source is about people choosing what works for them, and if Unity is really easier for non-techy users, it would catch on by itself.

But Canonical is forcing us to accept Unity. For that matter, the GNOME team is forcing us to accept GNOME 3. They are in some ways diametrical opposites, yet they look painfully similar on the surface. The "Start Menu" metaphor is well understood... even Microsoft, in their infinite lack of wisdom, have not changed substantially from the Start Menu since Windows 95. Sure, it looks different and has cutesy additional features, but in the end it's still a menu. A menu in a well-understood location, with well-known semantics.

Honestly, when I've tried Unity, I've struggled to find all my tools. A handful of things I might or might not want somehow end up in the dock by default, but it's not at all obvious how to work with it.

It seems likely the XFCE team will continue to add GNOME 2 functionality to their environment, and so I may end up staying with Xubuntu in the long run. I just don't agree with the philosophy.