3 ms·

1) I don't think Ubuntu's UI is any better than Apples UI. If anything it's the same bad copy of the Windows 98/2000/XP/7 lineage of program management tools in

by andymoe 16y ago

1) I don't think Ubuntu's UI is any better than Apples UI. If anything it's the same bad copy of the Windows 98/2000/XP/7 lineage of program management tools in control panel that linux has beed copying all the way back to RedHat's RPM package management GUI in the early 2000's. 2) The title of the article is "Ubuntu’s app management better than Apple’s" not "Like Apple AppStore, but with less Suck."

Swizec 16y ago
at 2) I couldn't decide on a good title, hence some disparity. The URL itself contains a third version. at 1) Actually GNOME has since forever been an Apple copy, the newest Unity thing even moreso, but I really really like the Launcher. I feel like it's just innovative enough while being sufficiently familiar not to throw me off completely.
- andymoe 16y ago
  I was not bashing your article. I simply thought it was a case of submitters editorializing the titles. I still wish linux would stop copying others (bad) UI and go their own way. If anything, they should be copying Apple's pixel perfect mockup/design process and sharing of design people across projects.
- arth2910 16y ago
  GNOME an Apple copy? Unity's not developed by the GNOME devs but by Canonical. Since Lucid, the behavior of Ubuntu has shifted somewhat to match that of Mac OS X. Traditionally, buttons defaulted to the right hand corner of the window rather than the left and multi-touch tapping has been remapped to match OS X's style (two finger right click, three finger middle). Compiz has the window picker plugin similar to Exposé along with a cover flow-like window switcher. Now you've got he Unity Launcher with Spotlight/Quicksilver/Gnome-Do functionality. The Add/Remove Applications tool has been around since Breezy in 2005, predating even the iPhone App Store, and provided the same functions as the Software Center and the Mac App Store. GNOME can be tweaked to look like OS X or Windows or whatever you want, but it's because you can mix and match things like themes and window managers. If you just used vanilla GNOME 2.x with Metacity, I don't think you'd find much of a similarity. You could say that Ubuntu or GNOME3 borrows functions or aesthetics from other contemporary desktop environments, but GNOME "forever been an Apple Copy?"
  - tvon 16y ago
    Calling GNOME an Apple copy is a bit much, but 2.0 was strongly influenced by Apple/NeXT design principals, or at least it seemed that way when it was happening.

by andymoe 16y ago

Swizec 16y ago

at 2) I couldn't decide on a good title, hence some disparity. The URL itself contains a third version. at 1) Actually GNOME has since forever been an Apple copy, the newest Unity thing even moreso, but I really really like the Launcher. I feel like it's just innovative enough while being sufficiently familiar not to throw me off completely.

andymoe 16y ago
I was not bashing your article. I simply thought it was a case of submitters editorializing the titles. I still wish linux would stop copying others (bad) UI and go their own way. If anything, they should be copying Apple's pixel perfect mockup/design process and sharing of design people across projects.
arth2910 16y ago
GNOME an Apple copy? Unity's not developed by the GNOME devs but by Canonical. Since Lucid, the behavior of Ubuntu has shifted somewhat to match that of Mac OS X. Traditionally, buttons defaulted to the right hand corner of the window rather than the left and multi-touch tapping has been remapped to match OS X's style (two finger right click, three finger middle). Compiz has the window picker plugin similar to Exposé along with a cover flow-like window switcher. Now you've got he Unity Launcher with Spotlight/Quicksilver/Gnome-Do functionality. The Add/Remove Applications tool has been around since Breezy in 2005, predating even the iPhone App Store, and provided the same functions as the Software Center and the Mac App Store. GNOME can be tweaked to look like OS X or Windows or whatever you want, but it's because you can mix and match things like themes and window managers. If you just used vanilla GNOME 2.x with Metacity, I don't think you'd find much of a similarity. You could say that Ubuntu or GNOME3 borrows functions or aesthetics from other contemporary desktop environments, but GNOME "forever been an Apple Copy?"
- tvon 16y ago
  Calling GNOME an Apple copy is a bit much, but 2.0 was strongly influenced by Apple/NeXT design principals, or at least it seemed that way when it was happening.