(I am just trying to explain my thought... no offense). I am sorry if any of you guys feel hurt but i just say the truths...
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Phong Cao <phn...@gmail.com> wrote: > About Unity & Gnome Shell... none of them is better than the other. It > depends on the users. > > I am the kind of user that never open less than 5 windows at a time. > > As I explained above: > 1. Try to open 3 maximized windows of Chrome, 3 maximized windows of > LibreOffice, 2 Terminal windows and 1 Nautilus window. > 2. Now switch between the windows of different applications. You can easily > see that: > - In Gnome Shell: I hover the mouse to the top-left, which takes almost 1 > second. Then all 9 windows are shown on the screen for me to choose from. > This makes things simple and easier. > - In Unity: > + The best way to switch between applications in Unity is using the > keyboard. > + Other than that, I will have to hover the mouse to the left and then > "guess" "Where is my Chrome/Terminal/LibreOffice icon?" to click on. > + This causes lots of confusion and time consuming since everytime I want > to switch between DIFFERENT applications I have to "guess" the icon position > again. > + This should not be a problem if you keep the left panel always visible. > However, Gnome Shell does not sacrifice any horizontal screen space and > still achieve the result I need. > > Lastly, please do not use the age of Unity as an excuse. *I am tired of > people saying that "Because Unity is just ... months old and Gnome Shell has > been.... decades old so Gnome Shell is better".* > *Gnome Shell will always be older than Unity and Unity will always use > this statement as an excuse for its weaknesses.* Unity will hardly improve > if its developers use age to say it is better or worse than Shell. > > *Weaknesses do not come from age. They come from the design philosophy of > the developers. * > *If the philosophy is wrong from the start and left unchanged, Unity will > hardly gets any better regardless of its age.* > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Shane Fagan <shanepatrickfa...@ubuntu.com > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Phong Cao <phn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I am too have been for a long time a Ubuntu's fan. However, I am not >> trying >> > to be negative but... I would say that Unity's design is way far behind >> > GNOME Shell in Fedora 15. I recommend anybody in this email list try out >> > Fedora 15 & GNOME Shell and learn from their simplicity. (Just my >> thought, >> > no offense). After couple days get along with Fedora 15 & GNOME Shell I >> feel >> > that GNOME Shell is more newbie-friendly and productive than Unity. I >> think >> > Ubuntu should reconsider going back to GNOME... >> >> Ok im not being negative or anything but both emails you put in on >> this thread haven't explained why you think shell is better. >> Also it has to be said that Unity (compiz) isn't around very long >> compared to Shell since it was made for 3 years and all and >> Unity compiz anyway is only 6 months of work ish. The reason why im >> mentioning that is there are still many many changes >> and iterations to come for Unity in which it will get better. What you >> can bank on though is Unity is faster and more stable. >> >> The cool things about Shell are the really nice looking animations on >> things there is a lot of nice finishes on everything and >> that stuff comes with time. In terms of Unity and why it is better is >> the simplicity you can do a lot more with the search in the >> dash than you can with Shell and the sky is the limit on lenses and >> all that nice stuff. >> >> --fagan >> > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
