|
I know it shouldn't be done for now, I said so in the original post "While I understand for this cycle effort should be put into getting Unity functioning, I think for the future a better fallback should be created." > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:45:30 -0600 > Subject: Re: [Ayatana] Graceful degradation of Unity > From: spikeb@xxxxxxxxx > To: ryanprior@xxxxxxxxx > CC: merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx; ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > I don't think it is something that needs to be done now either. I > think the ideal time to revisit the idea is probably during the next > LTS cycle. That gives Unity time time to mature and become part of the > brand identity. If it takes hold, then we should definitely revisit > the issue for such an important cycle as LTS. > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Ryan Prior <ryanprior@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Mark Curtis <merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Unity requires 3d compositing. For those without adequate hardware, it > >> falls back to the GNOME Panels. While I understand for this cycle effort > >> should be put into getting Unity functioning, I think for the future a > >> better fallback should be created. For one the GNOME Panels won't be > >> supported forever so it's not a viable alternative in the long run. Two, > >> the UI change from Unity/Panels is drastic. Look at Windows 7, if the user > >> can't enable the compositing, the UI is still similar, it doesn't reset to > >> an XP style of UI. > > > > I don't agree, at least for the moment. In the future where the Unity > > look is an ingrained part of the Ubuntu brand, I'd agree that there > > should be a better fall-back for machines which still don't support > > Unity's technical requirements. However, for the moment the > > gnome-panels are part of the Ubuntu brand and Unity is the new-fangled > > outlier, which some users and vocal critics consider to be inferior to > > the gnome-panels. Maintaining an excellent legacy Gnome interface will > > help ensure continuity from previous releases or users who cannot use > > Unity, and I haven't seen any argument that creating a Unity-like > > fallback which would have to pursue a moving target would be worth the > > time it would take to develop. > > > > Ryan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > > Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > |