On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Phong Cao <
phngcv@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>