|
Mark, I'm not sure how Gnome Shell enters into this, I certainly
have no desire to use Gnome Shell. "Gnome Shell is worse" is not a
great defense of Unity, nor a sufficient distraction from the lack
of configurability in a premature serving of ~Unity~ as a Gnome 2.x
replacement. Unity's anti-pattern directly inspired this new minimize button, and as I said, naturally reminds me of the anti-pattern. So separating Unity from a detail of Unity is illogical and would amount to a matter of convenience for those with a vested interest. The issue is Unity breaks things people are used to for no / whatever reason, but more importantly, does not give you a way to undo that and preserve ~your own decisions~. Middle of the screen? My Radiance minimize button continues the horizontal / minus (substraction) concept and I can minimize to the top panel just fine (screenshot). Furthermore, the global menu I use gives me a list of windows in all workspaces, and the MintMenu keeps me from needing any dock. It may be lacking in eye candy, but it ~functions~ the way I want it to, is intuitive to ~me~, and it is all doable using the existing desktop manager that is already ~working~ (except in Natty Classic). Those three PPA applets will be useless to me in Natty, in both the Unity and Classic sessions. This amounts to someone coming along and saying "stop that, use ~our~ preferences, because we wear turtlenecks, and you are wrong." Presumptuous? If Canonical made cars, sold them with doors for seven years, then told people "now you have to climb in through the window because we say so" or brought them to market before the brakes were installed, it would be recognized even by Canonical as a bad ~business~ model. Moreover, until someone forks it, the classic Gnome experience is going away presumably for all distros eventually. So Canonical lost an opportunity to be a hero by picking up the ball Gnome dropped and preserving it for the entire Linux ecosystem; all the while Canonical could have still conducted its own secondary track for an optional "alternative" UI ~and~ not have to had wasted resources on Unity 2D. On a related note, if Canonical lacks the genuine ability to maintain separate tracks for different form factors, perhaps Canonical is in the wrong business. If you have to differentiate yourself via new UI paradigms, you're doing it wrong. The desktop was a solved problem. I may very well appreciate Unity on my tablet, but I don't do anything of consequence on a tablet. If Canonical wants a diverse user demographic, the name of the game is options, even if options are hard, and even if the options are not Canonical's personal tastes. Canonical can either accept the challenge or not accept it. On 04/04/2011 04:34 PM, Mark Curtis wrote: Right, because the default style of _ means you can never move the Window List to anywhere but the bottom, or well Ambiance has - so I guess that means windows mimize to the middle of the screen? |
