Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 95

Thread: Ubuntu Unity Existed Before The GNOME Shell?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liamdawe View Post
    Michael is it so hard to link properly things? I am struggling to find the post where the comment was posted.
    It's not Michael's fault, it's Google+'s - there are no permalinks to comments on G+, so far as I can tell (obviously Michael can't find them either). You can only link to the post against which the comment was made. The quotation from Mark comes from a comment he made on a post by Christopher Halse Rogers - https://plus.google.com/113883146362...ts/PXc93m8nKwk . Mark's comment is in the giant comment thread there, in response to a comment by Ioannis Vranos. If you just go to that link and search for "existed before" you should find it, in context.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    I really wish RedHat would invest a little bit more into the Desktop, to fight Ubuntus dominance on the desktop avoiding a vendor-lock-in of the desktop user-space.
    However, when looking at Fedora-18 this won't probably happen overnight :/
    Red Hat already did as a big company that heavily contribute to FOSS. Be glad stuffs like NetworkManager, PulseAudio, systemd are emerging forces. Fedora is still the source to reckon with the incoming new installer, active participations of contributors even from outside (Debian, Arch, etc.). Remember in Fedora, it is all about meritocraty.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    624

    Default

    I personally am not a fan of Gnome Shell or Unity (I'm use KDE) but I really don't see where he gets off calling them similar. Unity is very blatantly an OS X clone, Which it's clear shuttleworth has been trying to chase after ever since he moved the buttons over to the wrong side. Although given it is an OS X clone..... that might explain it....

    Gnome Shell on the other hand is something else entirely, yeah it's doing the global menu nonsense which saves exactly zero vertical space while making it more difficult to deal with multiple windows at once and convolute using the menus, and yeah they launch applications in a similar fashion but... Metro and Gnome Shell have more in common than Unity and Gnome Shell do.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    526

    Default

    "Have you ever seen Canonical folks calling Red Hatters idiots, tragi-comic, crap or other names? Have you ever seen a Canonical upstream think it's OK to tell a competitor to get fucked with their patches? I doubt it. But that's normal behaviour towards Canonical by some of your more vocal colleagues, now talking loudly about Mir."



    red hat and canonical are like two dogs and linux is the chew toy they are fighting over...

    they are probably going to tear it to pieces.



    oh google make chrome os not just a glorified browser and you will have a client for life

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    No-one has ever made that claim, either contemporaneously or subsequently.
    Well, that's why I used words like "should" and "could".

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    I am aware of no suggestion that they are the same project.
    Than they were probalby entirely different all the time and Unity has absolutely nothing in common with that Remix?

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    I did not, and he clearly was not. The word 'exist' means something entirely different from the word 'release', and the context of Shuttleworth's comment was clearly the early development of each project, not their stable release. It is not sustainable to excuse his comment on the grounds that he was referring to stable release dates: he clearly was not. Go and read it in context, if you like. Edit: if you'd like me to do it for you, here is the context:
    Well, you made the accusation, so it's actually your turn to explain that context (and thanks for doing so).

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    1. Ioannis Vranos posts a 'history' in which he says "Canonical said "GNOME Shell did not fit its purpose", so they decided to make Unity, as a GNOME 3 front-end."

    2. Mark replies saying "nonsense. Unity existed before Gnome Shell."

    I can't see how you could possibly consider Mark to be talking about stable release dates, in that context.
    I don't but this is how I understood you blog post. I don't even think about, when a software project actually begins to exist, because that's nonsense. But I'd like to figure out, who of all Ubuntu's critics actually have a point and who's just hating.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    Sorry, Phoronix has lost the content there, but you were referring to the date. 2012-03-10 is clearly a typo, the correct date is 2013-03-10. He made the comment yesterday. I have corrected it. Thanks for catching that.
    I just read your blog post, not the article. I rarely read the articles if there's a link to better sources (in general that's pretty much every time when there is a link). And NP ;P
    Last edited by alexThunder; 03-11-2013 at 07:20 PM.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    Well, that's why I used words like "should" and "could".



    Than they were probalby entirely different all the time and Unity has absolutely nothing in common with that Remix?
    No, they're just not the same project. Unity obviously has some roots in the UNR interface, but they're substantially different technically, organizationally and even in terms of goals. Here's Mark's first post (I think) about Unity:

    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/383

    Note how he keeps talking about it as a new thing. "The fruit of that R&D is both a new desktop experience codebase, called Unity", "The dual-boot, web-focused use case is sufficiently different from general-purpose desktop usage to warrant a fresh look at the way the desktop is configured", "Those constraints and values lead us to a new shape for the desktop, which we will adopt in Ubuntu’s Netbook Edition for 10.10 and beyond.", "Unity exists today, and is great for the minimalist, stateless configurations that suit a dual-boot environment. But in order embrace it for our Netbook UI, we’ll need to design some new capabilities, and implement them during this cycle.", etc etc etc. Mark clearly saw Unity as a new thing, not a continuation of UNR. (And boy, that blog post reads interestingly in a current context ;>)



    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    Well, you made the accusation, so it's actually your turn to explain that context (and thanks for doing so).
    Fair point.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    I don't but this is how I understood you blog post. I don't even think about, when a software project actually begins to exist, because that's nonsense. But I'd like to figure out, who of all Ubuntu's critics actually have a point and who's just hating.
    OK, I thought I'd made it clear, but I've updated the post to make it clearer. I agree the concept of 'existence' can be a bit slippy for software, but in this context I think it's pretty damn clear that Shell 'existed' in the sense Mark and Ioannis meant: there were designs, mockups, working code, public discussions and arguments involving Canonical...



    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    I just read your blog post, not the article. I rarely read the articles if there's a link to better sources (in general that's pretty much every time when there is a link). And NP ;P
    I just meant that when I quote you quoting me, Phoronix drops the 'me' bits, so the actual text of the bad date was missing
    Last edited by AdamW; 03-11-2013 at 07:29 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    everyone should watch the last Linux Action Show.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfYGj...ature=youtu.be

    I agree 100% with these guys, seems there is still some common sense in the linux community after all.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    Sadly just GTK/GNOME, no Qt.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    315

    Default

    I'll call it as I see it. Mark Shuttleworth is right on this one.

    I was using Unity in January 2008! It was released as the default desktop on Ubuntu Netbook Remix *beta* for the EeePC and other small form factor laptops.

    Unity had a stable released in April 2008 and shipped in Ubuntu 8.04 under the title of "Ubuntu Netbook Remix".

    Later on, the GUI in Ubuntu Netbook Remix got renamed to "Unity" but it was still the same software.

    Ubuntu Shell clearly came *AFTER* unity. There is no doubt about it.

    People looking at the Unity repos / commits need to go back and see where that "Unity" codebase came from.. It came from Ubuntu Netbook Remix. Which will take them to late 2007/very early 2008. Which certainly was before Gnome shell. Then later, when Gnome shell was being made, Gnome Shell actively refused to accept application indicator patches from Canonical's previous work on the topic, which really pissed Mark Shuttleworth off (remember the libappindicators quarrel?).

    As people are claiming that Unity and UNR are different... They *ARE* the same project. I was at DebConf in 2010/New York City and Mark Shuttleworth himself was there and talked a long time about how Unity was created from all their work (designs, concepts, user testing, etc. ) in Ubuntu Netbook Remix, and everything they've learned and how it was going to become a standard desktop interface for all form factors. Unity is just a continuation of UNR out of netbooks and onto the desktop.
    Last edited by Sidicas; 03-11-2013 at 08:06 PM.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaodan View Post
    Sadly just GTK/GNOME, no Qt.
    I think we have one or two people on staff who work on upstream KDE at least part of the time. Indeed I don't see any redhat.com commits to Qt itself, though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •