My question is this - Was this second project necessary?
I understand Ubuntu wanted to get away from the old Gnome 2.x desktop, but so did Gnome! Now I could see the need for another GTK desktop still if the two groups had two radically different ideas, but from what I have seen, read, and used they are fairly similar -
They both use GTK (although Unity is using the older GTK2). They both share so many common traits I have to wonder if both parties would have been better served with Ubuntu simply investing itself into Gnome 3 instead of creating something completely new.
I've mentioned my next idea once before and it seems my thoughts are still relevant nearly a year later. How much of the desktop does Ubuntu feel it is necessary to lock down in the name of user friendliness? I came across a HOWTO on Lxer.com the other day describing how to re-enable a full system tray in the Unity desktop. The fact that a HOWTO for this even needs to exist, makes me question the direction Ubuntu is headed in. If they continue down their current path, I have no doubt their days as the top dog of desktop Linux distros will be numbered.
You know what they say in the FOSS world though, if you don't like - FORK. Just this has been done to Ubuntu countless times, however I think with this upcoming Unity release it will be a chance for some of these other derivatives to really shine. Both Linux Mint and PinguyOS have stated they plan to stick with a more classic Gnome desktop for their 11.04 releases - so those facing shell shock over Unity will know where to turn to.
What are your thoughts on these newly created desktops? Needed change or unnecessary evil?
~Jeff Hoogland
0 comments:
Post a Comment