On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 16:29, 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.
Hello,
I can't compare Unity with Gnome3 because gnome3 is not available in
ubuntu ;) .
But I find that Unity is uncomfortable when switching between many open windows,
and I think that Phong Cao has stated some valid remarks.
I liked Unity on my eeepc (running 10.10) but on the desktop pc I feel that
it is restricting my ability to manage the open applications : it's
a simplistic
interface suitable if the user is using a very limited number of applications
(browser + media player).
The core of the problem is this mixing of "application launch icons"
with "open applications"
in the same area of the screen.
- i find it hard to differentiate the started applications
- in fact i don't need large icons for launching applications ; the
icons for frequently used
apps can be small and could be placed next to the "ubuntu" button on
the menu bar .
In order to make Unity suit better to my usage style/habits I would
need to configure it this way :
- no application launcher
- bottom panel with classical "open applications". With "workspaces"
at the right.
- top panel with :
* "ubuntu" button at left , opening a classical applications
menu like gnome2 / xfce
* empty place in the middle for the menu of the focused application
* at right : notifications, clock, keyboard switcher, logoff button
Are there any chances that the future versions will become customizable,
or the whole idea of this new interface is to enforce a fixed screen layout ?
Best regards,
Adrian M
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
