4 ms·
you know that everything that unity was doing, can be donde indica KDE if you take 20 minutes to configure it? Try to not call it "amateur"
by Zardoz84 8y ago
you know that everything that unity was doing, can be donde indica KDE if you take 20 minutes to configure it?
Try to not call it "amateur"
- zapzupnz 8y ago> you know that everything that unity was doing can be done in KDE […] Please re-read what I said. I said that I was hopeful that Ubuntu would create something that would make KDE and GNOME seem like amateur hour. I never said Unity was the thing for which I was hoping, merely that it was Ubuntu's attempt (which, to my mind, was a failure), and I never said KDE or GNOME __are__ amateur — although, you forced my hand with the next bit. > […] if you take 20 minutes to configure it This is exactly what I'm talking about as "amateur", though. Try thinking like a regular user, who just wants everything to work properly out of the box, rather than a technical user who might be happy wasting 20 minutes on the fruitless endeavour of getting KDE to work Just Right This Time And I Swear I Won't Spend Another Couple of Hours Reconfiguring It Again Later When I'm Bored™, because that very way of thinking is exactly why the Year of Linux Desktop will never come.
- halbritt 8y agoI totally agree with your point. At some point, my threshold for irritation to run a Linux desktop dropped low enough that I was willing to make the jump. My threshold for irritation for Mac also went up. I was only willing to do so if I could install a stock standard distro and get to work without having deal with a bunch of configuration hassle. That's pretty much true for Ubuntu. However, there are a couple of issues that one may need to address that I didn't mind so much, but I readily admit, I'm not an average user. I switched when Unity was still a thing and was surprised to learn that it was pretty good with only a little refinement needed. I was pretty disappointed when Canonical dropped Unity settled on Gnome and here we are two years later at precisely the same place, with the aforementioned refinements still needed. Like you, I was hopeful that Canonical would produce a generally usable Linux desktop, but that still remains to be seen.
- sho 8y agoYou hit the nail on the head, I agree completely. But: > Try thinking like a regular user, who just wants everything to work properly out of the box, rather than a technical user I'm by any measure a technical user, with over a decade in software dev and a decade before that in network admin and corporate IT, and I absolutely insist on things working properly out of the box. Anything else is Work™ and I'm simply not going to do it for personal devices. Sure, I'll spend hours tweaking a server to get it behaving exactly the way I want. I am almost OCD about reliable, robust, version controlled environments. Just the other day I spent literally hours massaging some stupid nginx config file so it did exactly the right thing, all of the time, in exactly the right way. And all was right with the world. My personal stuff though? I have zero, and I mean zero tolerance for any of that shit. My personal stuff better work perfectly first time, every time, or I will be taking it back for a refund or throwing it in the fucking river (regretfully this is not a metaphor). At work I am all linux and open source. At home I am the biggest Apple whore you ever met. I just want things to work. I am also disappointed in Canonical, who I thought might do as you suggested and create "MacOS for Linux". I think such a thing is sorely needed. They haven't succeeded, though - perhaps MS could. I'd like to see that if they did it, and I'd give it a solid chance.