
Unity and Gnome 3: What is good and what is evil? 1 - darkduck
http://www.go2linux.org/linux/2011/06/unity-and-gnome-3-what-good-and-what-evil-1090.html#.TgZpyRBd5v4.hackernews
======
lucian1900
There's one aspect of Unity that isn't noticed nearly as much as it should be:
ridiculously large vertical screen space. Especially on a netbook, this is
very valuable, but it's still useful even on a 15" widescreen display.

------
programminggeek
I think the whole user choice problem is a bit overblown when it comes to
Ubuntu. The whole idea of Ubuntu was and is "linux for humans", not "linux for
everybody".

Ubuntu's default was Gnome 2 for a good long time, but I think the switch to
Unity is the right direction. If you don't like it there are tons of distros
out there that still support Gnome 2, Gnome 3, KDE, and so on.

In fact, Ubuntu has had a separate KDE, XFCE, and even MythTV version for a
while. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Gnome Ubuntu coming from the
community when the official UI is Unity only.

In the end, the people who care are nerds who know enough to run a different
distro or install Gnome 2 or 3 in Ubuntu themselves. The real change here is
for the average user who _doesn't_ care.

~~~
drivebyacct2
???

Even the even-keel replies act as if you can't use GNOME 2, 3 or KDE in
Ubuntu. It's completely absurd! I currently have one gnome-panel, with
Cardapio and the wonderful, welcome app-indicators. With Docky/Plank depending
on my mood. This has worked in all versions and will continue to work in
basically any version of Ubuntu.

11.10 will support GNOME 3, fallback mode and a classic session in addition to
Unity. Gnome-shell is a tiny apt-get away.

So can we stop acting like No Unity = No Ubuntu?

------
Kwpolska
Both of them suck. Use XFCE.

