There's no need to panic about losing your GNOME 2.x just yet.
Unity mega thread
Archived thread 1610637 from Natty Narwhal Testing and Discussion (CLOSED). Markdown source: Natty_Narwhal_Testing_and_Discussion_(CLOSED)/thread_1610637_Unity_mega_thread.md
it will ship with 11.04.
windicators never got implemented, but unity is already shipped. unity just needs a little tlc before is ready for desktop primetime.
Starks said: There's no need to panic about losing your GNOME 2.x just yet.
You must have it confused with Gnome-Shell. Unity shipped on time.
zekopeko said: You must have it confused with Gnome-Shell. Unity shipped on time.To be fair, Unity for UNE shipped on time.
You know there are differences between Unity for UNE and Unity for the desktop, so it is possible that it will be delayed.
FUD, anyone?
Merk42 said: To be fair, Unity for UNE shipped on time.
You know there are differences between Unity for UNE and Unity for the desktop, so it is possible that it will be delayed.
I installed Unity and my GDM shows Ubuntu Netbook Edition. Where can i find Unity for desktop.
Don't think it is available yet, just the Netbook Edition. I reckon we should see it released in the mid alphas, though I am just speculating.
I for one, am going to wait until compiz is implemented (which should not take horribly long). I have been trying gnome-shell and mutter has been acting up every now and then.
Merk42 said: To be fair, Unity for UNE shipped on time.
You know there are differences between Unity for UNE and Unity for the desktop, so it is possible that it will be delayed.
It still doesn't give credence to any speculation that it won't ship on time.
since when do you need credence to speculate ?
zekopeko said: It still doesn't give credence to any speculation that it won't ship on time.
Wait, so there is no current unity for desktop, yet Canonical wants to make it default for gnome ubuntu? This doesn't sound good, saying they going to make something default when it doesn't publicly exist yet.
andrewabc said: Wait, so there is no current unity for desktop
Do you really think "Unity for Desktop" will be 100% different from the existing "Unity for Netbooks", which is already shipped by default?
andrewabc said: This doesn't sound good
Why? Unity's state six month ago was really bad compared to what was released in 10.10. Six months is a long time and the developers seemed pretty motivated during the last cycle.
The bugger worked fine on my desktop box toward the end of 10.10 testing and the problem before that had to do with my ATI video card. I am sure that it works fine now.
If you install UNE you have, or at least had, the option of using the gnome desktop on the log in screen.
MacUntu said: Unity's state six month ago was really bad compared to what was released in 10.10. Six months is a long time and the developers seemed pretty motivated during the last cycle.
Yep...Neil J Patel blogged this (AWNs creator and Unity lead developer)
http://njpatel.blogspot.com/2010/10/marks-keynote-at-uds-spoke-about-one-of.html
This can just be great...I cannot stand gnome-shell so this can be something.
For the moment I also runs Compiz 0.9.2 (from GIT) and its totally stable...;)
Nobody has commented on the fact that compiz 0.9x no longer requires opengl or compositing to run, so theoretically, unity on the desktop can be coded not to need it as well. Some extra functions and cool transitions just wouldn't be there with them disabled. It would also hook in very nicely with the Visual Effects tab of the current Appearance Preferences dialog.
ronacc said: since when do you need credence to speculate ?
(Rational) speculation needs some reference point that is related to the thing being speculated upon. OP has none.
and now you are attempting to slip in a condition that did not appear in my post ((rational)) . Speculation MAY be rational by there is no requirement for it to be so . I can speculate that the large hadron collider will eventualy attain the energy necessary to provide evidence of the higgs boson , that would rational because the large hadron collider was designed to do that but it would also be speculation because it has not yet done so . I can also speculate that when new horizons gets to pluto it will find little green men , that would be irrational because they would obviously be little blue men due to the temperature .
ronacc said: and now you are attempting to slip in a condition that did not appear in my post ((rational)) . Speculation MAY be rational by there is no requirement for it to be so . I can speculate that the large hadron collider will eventualy attain the energy necessary to provide evidence of the higgs boson , that would rational because the large hadron collider was designed to do that but it would also be speculation because it has not yet done so . I can also speculate that when new horizons gets to pluto it will find little green men , that would be irrational because they would obviously be little blue men due to the temperature .
Its all well and good, but if you read the first post, you don't get the feeling of speculation... you get the feeling that the OP has some inside information and that his statement is solid
it is misleading and damaging to morale :D
the original post about speculation ,post #8 , does not refer to post # 1 , it refers to post #4 and even quotes it . Post #4 states 2 facts and then reasoning from those facts states a speculation .
ronacc said: and now you are attempting to slip in a condition that did not appear in my post ((rational)) . Speculation MAY be rational by there is no requirement for it to be so . I can speculate that the large hadron collider will eventualy attain the energy necessary to provide evidence of the higgs boson , that would rational because the large hadron collider was designed to do that but it would also be speculation because it has not yet done so . I can also speculate that when new horizons gets to pluto it will find little green men , that would be irrational because they would obviously be little blue men due to the temperature .
I was being redundant. Irrational speculation is basically making stuff up. And that is what the OP was doing.
your 1st post mentioning speculation did not refer to the OP it referred to merk42's post and even quotes it . I believe that merk42's speculation that a delay is POSSIBLE is a rational speculation , Delays in a not yet delivered item be it software or hardware are always possible . As to the OP that is not framed as a speculation but as a fact and one which I believe to be incorrect since one can panic about anything whatsoever real or imagined .
ranch hand said: The bugger worked fine on my desktop box toward the end of 10.10 testing and the problem before that had to do with my ATI video card. I am sure that it works fine now.
If you install UNE you have, or at least had, the option of using the gnome desktop on the log in screen.
I need to try that. I installed Unity on my Maverick test installation, yesterday.
It looks very pretty, but right now it is noticeably slower than Gnome. Also, I have trouble finding some things, such as minimized windows - they just disappear. The only way I have found to get back to them, so far, is Alt-Tab.
If I just uninstall Unity, will my desktop default back to regular Gnome, or will I have to fix stuff?
Tim
ratcheer said: I need to try that. I installed Unity on my Maverick test installation, yesterday.
It looks very pretty, but right now it is noticeably slower than Gnome. Also, I have trouble finding some things, such as minimized windows - they just disappear. The only way I have found to get back to them, so far, is Alt-Tab.
If I just uninstall Unity, will my desktop default back to regular Gnome, or will I have to fix stuff?
Tim Unity just sits on top of regular Gnome. It's just a different GUI. You can choose between the two at login. If you decide to ditch Unity, just select Ubuntu Desktop Edition from the login screen and you're good to go.
ronacc said: your 1st post mentioning speculation did not refer to the OP it referred to merk42's post and even quotes it . I believe that merk42's speculation that a delay is POSSIBLE is a rational speculation , Delays in a not yet delivered item be it software or hardware are always possible . As to the OP that is not framed as a speculation but as a fact and one which I believe to be incorrect since one can panic about anything whatsoever real or imagined .
My first comment was this:
You must have it confused with Gnome-Shell. Unity shipped on time.
It's pretty obvious I'm referring to the title and the comment of OP's post and his unfounded statement.
My second comment was to Merk42 directly and OP indirectly:
Quote: Originally Posted by Merk42 View Post To be fair, Unity for UNE shipped on time. You know there are differences between Unity for UNE and Unity for the desktop, so it is possible that it will be delayed. It still doesn't give credence to any speculation that it won't ship on time.
I answered to Merk42 but was actually pointing at the OP. I think that is pretty obvious.
Things are getting a bit off topic here.
Hi guys,
I filed this bug in Launchpad today:
Unity's overlap with Nautilus is extremely confusing to me. Unity seems to want to be a "lite" browser, where you can click folders and open them inside Unity itself, complete with the breadcrumbs. However it lacks most of a browser's most basic features, such as copying, moving or deleting files.
Why is this so? When you click a file on Unity it doesn't open in Unity but in the corresponding app. Why do folders have to be different? Why not just make it so, when you click a folder on Unity, it opens with its corresponding app, that is, Nautilus?
To which I got the following reply:
As I explained on another bug report, we will ensure that in natty to put back nautilus temporary before changing a paradigm. You can see more information from Mark at this videohttp://www.youtube.com/user/UbuntuDevelopers (UDS plenary). http://www.youtube.com/user/UbuntuDevelopers
My question is, do you guys know what the plans are for Unity and Nautilus? What each of them is supposed to do on the long run, and where they'll draw the line between the dash and the file manager?
I personally think Unity will suck, big time.
kjekse said: I personally think Unity will suck, big time.
I personally am enjoying it. It is simple and beautiful. I like its file browser which is very different from Microsoft's file browser. It brings a completely new non-windows non-mac look to Ubuntu. I like the vertical dock. I do not think there will be much development regarding eye-candy unless it is not shipped by default.
We'll just have to wait and see, from what I understood from the keynote speech, that the devs feel we need a new way to manage files, you can already see it in the application menu, where there is a most used section in the menu.
If you click the arrow beside most used, all the applications used most often will show up. I think they want something similar for the file manager. As it is now if you click one of the favorite folders icons, you will see a folder icon on the far right, just click that to bring up nautilus.
To make it easier to get to nautilus for the time being, there will be an icon in the panel.
kjekse said: I personally think Unity will suck, big time.
Well, gnome-shell sucks for 99.9% of all users, except for a few nerds... a total catastrophe for a main stream user...
Unity with Mutter replaced with latest Compiz can be great.... :popcorn:
I have a different point of view about Unity after having some time to think about it. Unity would make the desktop and mobile devices similar, look at how successful Android is. I think Unity could have the same impact on desktops as Android has on the cell phone market.
Unity is not like Windows or the MacOS, it would clearly give Ubuntu it's own identity and it could end up being the system imitated by others. Just think, no more hearing how Linux looks or acts like Windows or MacOS X.
In business the ones that reap the highest rewards are the ones that take the most risk. Using Unity as a default is a risk but in my opinion it stands a very good chance of being very successful.
I am looking forward to seeing the first build with Unity and I will test and report bugs with an open minded point of view. Something has to grab the attention of the oem's and I think Unity might do just that.
I read that Unity is going to be the default for Natty due to Mark not liking Gnome shell. The Gnome desktop will be a manual install for Natty.
alphacrucis2 said: I read that Unity is going to be the default for Natty due to Mark not liking Gnome shell. The Gnome desktop will be a manual install for Natty.
That is just so wrong, I can't comment on Mr. Shuttleworth's feelings about gnome-shell, but a normal gnome-desktop will be a part of the default natty installation.
The plan is that if your system isn't capable of running unity, it will fall back to the gnome-desktop. This means that there will be an option to select gnome-desktop from the session menu on the login screen.
If you have any questions about unity, have a look at Whiprush's stompbox
UDS is over friday so hopefully we will be getting something real to test and talk about soon , I keep checking Sebastian's PPA to see if he has got the 64 bit version of Gnome-3 desktop to build yet , I want to have all 3 Gnome-2 , Unity and gnome-3 up and running on the same box .
it will be hard to sell Unity to small businesses who have already familiarized themselves with gnome visuals... (i know gnome will still be there, but default looks are important)
Unity could be default, but I would like to see an option in the installer to not to install unity
it will be hard to sell Unity to small businesses who have already familiarized themselves with gnome visuals... (i know gnome will still be there, but default looks are important)
Unity could be default, but I would like to see an option in the installer to not to install unity
I had not really thought about the impact on businesses that are currently using Ubuntu. Maybe there could be a check box in ubiquity to choose the default desktop environment. Unity could be selected by default and could be changed by the user if they so desire to, that would make everybody happy. Just an idea. :)
Generally business will stick with LTS release thought, so it won’t affect them till 2012 at the earliest (most people won’t jump to 12.04 straight way, they wait till 12.04.1 is out), and by that point unity should be established and running quite well I don’t know if the next LTS would have this option though, because they might what everyone running unity for support reason but who knows Change is always going get some grumbles but you can either fight or embrace it!
Change is always going get some grumbles but you can either fight or embrace it!
True! At first I did not like the idea but after some thought about the reasoning behind this move I realized that a bold move is what it will take for Linux to gain interest by the oem's. I see advantages in Unity over Gnome Shell, screen use is much better and the Ubuntu Developers would have an easier time molding Unity into their vision of a user friendly environment.
Once refined, Unity could work on the desktop as well as mobile devises and I think it would be a popular and sought after interface. From what has been said, Unity has captured the interest of oem's and that is what we need for Linux use to grow.
Edit: Unity will also create a lot of press and for all the right reasons. I like the fact that the Ubuntu Developers are not going with the crowd and branching out and using their own ideas.
The question that has to be answered is will it work on a "normal" desktop better than what we have now ? I take note of Steve Jobs answer during the introduction of the new Macbook air when he was asked about using the IOS touch screen interface on the MAC , basically his reply was we tried it and it sucked . Moving the paradigm of a mobile device on to the desktop may not be such a great idea , hopefully we will get a chance soon to try the desktop version and see , and the same can be said about Gnome-3 , will it be a change for the better ? or just a transient " gee whizz" .
Before long we will see a build with Unity and we can go from there. I think that the touch screen aspects will only apply when they are activated, so this may not be an issue. Unity is going to be different from what we are accustomed to but usability has always been a strong point with Ubuntu and the developers are open to suggestions on improving Unity. Things are going to get very interesting soon.
I wasn't referring directly to the touch screen aspects of unity , although that certainly applies , but to the whole paradigm .Only real world testing but many people will give us that information . I do think that committing to it as the default interface for the Ubuntu flagship before it has even seen the light of day is really a stretch .
ronacc said: we tried it and it sucked
See, even Apple didn't know it sucks until they actually tried it. :guitar:
yes but they tried it on a test group before the dumped it out as the interface for their upcoming OSX 10.7 Lion .
Unity has been tested using focus groups, apparently Canonical had several different groups of people that had never used Ubuntu before try Unity. They have also have had feedback from OEMs .
I installed unity on my Nawty Newt install and was just over there and it works fine. I prefer the gnome desktop but can certainly use the unity desktop.
Be interesting to see what happens with the change to compiz which has never really worked right on my box.
Unity has been tested using focus groups, apparently Canonical had several different groups of people that had never used Ubuntu before try Unity. They have also have had feedback from OEMs .
Usability studies are a good way of gathering information and it's good to know they went the extra mile with this.
cariboo907 said: Unity has been tested using focus groups, apparently Canonical had several different groups of people that had never used Ubuntu before try Unity. They have also have had feedback from OEMs .
Yes, this was brought up during Mark's keynote (at around 9min), which I think people should watch anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUAzicy_01o
I agree and have watched it myself, it seems people find it much easier to complain, than to look up the facts for themselves. [[IMG]http://imgur.com/esOJk.png[/IMG]](http://imgur.com/esOJk.png) Even if you provide links.
I watched the video and especially liked what Mark had to say about quality and fixing bugs. The fly in the ice cream was a brilliant illustration.
Does anyone know when a compiz-based Unity is going to be available? Will it appear in the Natty repos?
I just tested this for fun but Compiz 0.9.2 works with Unity....
First I start compiz++ then Unity crashes and I start unity again from a terminal....
[[IMG]http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4856/snapshot63.th.png[/IMG]](http://img502.imageshack.us/i/snapshot63.png/)
POC....;)
That's awesome plun! Looking forward to the first 11.04 iso. :)
Cube, sphere... isn't there a pumpkin-plugin? :D
exploder said: That's awesome plun! Looking forward to the first 11.04 iso. :)
Yep... I was really happy when it worked (and surprised) :)
For the moment I am building Compiz 0.9.2 with Soureaus script (it builds a standalone version)
Compiz IS back united with Unity ....:mrgreen:
plun, thanks! Does Unity seem more responsive?
ronacc said: The question that has to be answered is will it work on a "normal" desktop better than what we have now ? I take note of Steve Jobs answer during the introduction of the new Macbook air when he was asked about using the IOS touch screen interface on the MAC , basically his reply was we tried it and it sucked . Moving the paradigm of a mobile device on to the desktop may not be such a great idea
A netbook is only marginally different than a laptop and Unity is only marginally different than the normal desktop, relatively speaking.
iOS was designed for the iPhone and iPods, with the iPad being marginally different, for the most part being a scaled up version of those, as opposed to being a scaled down version of what you would run a normal desktop OS on and since the OS and hardware were designed together to fit a certain use case, it's probably harder to get it to scale.
Later, Seeker
Hmm I installed unity on my test box and it pukes trying to load the desktop , starts ,screen flashes and resets and keeps doing that until I kill it with alt>sysreq>k , tried shutting off screenlets I had running at startup and the screenlets daemon no help . I'm running the repo nvidia current driver (260.19.12) and 1920x1080 res , I'm not seeing anything in .xsession.errors that looks like a problem . any ideas ? the regular gnome desktop loads normaly .
ronacc said: Hmm I installed unity on my test box and it pukes trying to load the desktop , starts ,screen flashes and resets and keeps doing that until I kill it with alt>sysreq>k , tried shutting off screenlets I had running at startup and the screenlets daemon no help . I'm running the repo nvidia current driver (260.19.12) and 1920x1080 res , I'm not seeing anything in .xsession.errors that looks like a problem . any ideas ? the regular gnome desktop loads normaly .
That is exactly what it did for me most of 10.10 testing with my ATI card and the FOSS drivers.
I have no ideas except to wonder if you have effects enabled. If so try it with out. Other wise just be happy you have some breakage and keep update/upgrading and see what happens.
Thanks RH switching effects from normal to none didn't get me going but did produce sone potentialy useful output in .xsession.errors .
(process:5540): mutter-WARNING **: 1
(process:5540): mutter-WARNING **: 3
(process:5540): mutter-WARNING **: 5
(process:5540): mutter-WARNING **: 4
(process:5540): mutter-DEBUG: OpenGL renderer string: GeForce 7600 GS/PCI/SSE2
** (mutter:5540): DEBUG: OpenGL renderer string: GeForce 7600 GS/PCI/SSE2
Window manager warning: Log level 16: Unable to find the file menu stock item
GLib-GIO-ERROR **: Settings schema 'org.ayatana.indicator.datetime' is not installed
aborting...repeating over and over .
NEAT. Looks like something has been tweeked enough.
What in flinderation is;
[FONT=monospace]Settings schema 'org.ayatana.indicator.datetime'
I will have to look at mine if I get over there someday.
Have to leave about 5:30 tomorrow morning back to a fencing job 35 miles north of Alzada, MT. It is a bit remote. We have a camp set up.
I am taking some better stuff to cook and to cook on this time. A cold sandwich before light on a frosty morning is not the way to get a grumpy geezer going. [/FONT]
ranch hand said: NEAT. Looks like something has been tweeked enough.
What in flinderation is;
I will have to look at mine if I get over there someday.
Have to leave about 5:30 tomorrow morning back to a fencing job 35 miles north of Alzada, MT. It is a bit remote. We have a camp set up.
I am taking some better stuff to cook and to cook on this time. A cold sandwich before light on a frosty morning is not the way to get a grumpy geezer going. [/FONT]
I have no Idea what that schema is , I checked the installed files of unity with synaptic and didn't see that , I'll root around in the schemas dir abit and see what turs up.
yeah I imagine its getting a bit nippy up where you are , take a big thermos for coffee .
Have you got a version of gnome-shell installed, as they use different versions of mutter that aren't compatible.
cariboo907 said: Have you got a version of gnome-shell installed, as they use different versions of mutter that aren't compatible.
I do have gnome-shell but it is the local built variety and its mutter is in the gnome-shell dir in my /home , the repo version is not installed . Just to check to make sure that wasn't causing the problem , I went to make a new user and try logging into unity that way and found out I have a bigger problem. I couldn't start admin>users and groups , from term it too bitches about a missing schema ( and this is in the normal gnome DT ) , both that schema and the ayatana one that unity squawks about are there but seem to point at another dir that doesn't exist ? I'm showing no broken packages but this is an updated mangy install from A3 so just about anything is possible , I was going to wait until natty A1 to wipe and start over but I may end up doing that this week end .
kjekse said: I personally think Unity will suck, big time.
I don't have much love for it myself. I'm not bashing it, it's just not my cup of tea.
It could be interesting to have a new interface, I am looking forward to giving it a shot. It should also help quiet the gnome "contribution trolling" since it will be a unique and huge contribution, and still be a gnome shell.
ronacc said: I do have gnome-shell but it is the local built variety and its mutter is in the gnome-shell dir in my /home , the repo version is not installed . Just to check to make sure that wasn't causing the problem , I went to make a new user and try logging into unity that way and found out I have a bigger problem. I couldn't start admin>users and groups , from term it too bitches about a missing schema ( and this is in the normal gnome DT ) , both that schema and the ayatana one that unity squawks about are there but seem to point at another dir that doesn't exist ? I'm showing no broken packages but this is an updated mangy install from A3 so just about anything is possible , I was going to wait until natty A1 to wipe and start over but I may end up doing that this week end .
I'm running gnome-shell from the ricotz ppa, and just installed Unity, when I change sessions to UNE all I get is a white screen, so it seems they are using different versions of mutter.
Unity has potential in many ways. Ubuntu will be prepared when touch screen technology hits the desktop just like on cell phones, it's coming. I am on board with Unity, it has the potential to put Linux in the main stream. Succeed of fail at least Unity is an honest effort and such a bold more could yield big rewards. The more I think about the move to Unity the more I have to agree that it is the right move for future success.
I like independent thinking and Canonical's branching out on their own with Unity is a good move. I will be testing Unity with an open mind and I support the decision to go with it as the default.
@cariboo907 The version of mutter that is actually INSTALLED on my box is the one from unity ,the version #'s match and I can see in my synaptic history that it was installed together with unity, the mutter for gnome-shell is in the gnome-shell dir in my home dir , just for grins try to open system>administration>users and groups in a term and see if you get an error about a missing schema .
@exploder I have actually played with touchscreen desktop ( an HP running windows7 at the local Samsclub ) and Jobs is right , its neat for about 5 minutes and then your arm gets tired of reaching straight out to slide things around and you realize that its not such a great idea after all , great for a handheld device like a phone or Ipad ok on short use devices like a kiosk but sucks on a regular desktop .
cariboo907 said: I'm running gnome-shell from the ricotz ppa, and just installed Unity, when I change sessions to UNE all I get is a white screen, so it seems they are using different versions of mutter.
I've got unity up and running now , what caused my problem is that when I uninstalled empathy I didn't "completely remove" and it left behind a gschema.xml file in /usr/share/glib-2.0 that blocked glib-compile-schemas so that the ayatana schema never got compiled which caused unity to barf .
I haven't had the time to chase down the white screen problem, it's on one of my office systems, so I won't get back to it until Monday.
I am very enthusiastic about Unity. It's a great UI and it has a lot of potential. I'd like to be able to test it out, but I do not have any machines that I can afford to "mess with" right now. Due to Virtualbox's limitations, Unity cannot run because it needs OpenGL.
Is there any way around this or any future solution?
you could install ubuntu to a usb stick and boot from that , that way you wouldn't have to mess with anything on your box , 4 gb should be enough 8 gb would be better .
kaldor said: I am very enthusiastic about Unity. It's a great UI and it has a lot of potential. I'd like to be able to test it out, but I do not have any machines that I can afford to "mess with" right now. Due to Virtualbox's limitations, Unity cannot run because it needs OpenGL.
Is there any way around this or any future solution? I thought with Virtualbox Additions you'd be able to run it (once it switched to Compiz). I know I've run Compiz in a VM before
ronacc said: you could install ubuntu to a usb stick and boot from that , that way you wouldn't have to mess with anything on your box , 4 gb should be enough 8 gb would be better .
Unfortunately I don't have anything more than a 2 GB that is not in use :(
Unity did not work on VirtualBox with guest additions last time I tried (mid September on UNE 10.10 beta). I'll give it a go shortly yet again.
Does 11.04 use Unity yet?
Does 11.04 use Unity yet?
No, it's still the netbook versions, I'd suggest you wait a couple of weeks and check back.
If you got 5Gb of spare hard drive space, you could always create a new partition to install Natty on.
Edit: Apparently new Untiy code will start showing up in the repositories around the 25th of November.
I wonder if you could install it to a multi session DVD and use that as a writeable system , I never tried with Ubuntu but I know puppy will do that .
kaldor said: Unity did not work on VirtualBox with guest additions last time I tried (mid September on UNE 10.10 beta). I'll give it a go shortly yet again.
Because that version uses Mutter which doesn't work in a VM. The desktop version will eventually (alpha 1?) use Compiz and should therefor work in a VM.
I'm trying to get Unity to run on my (ancient) laptop, either in Natty or in Maverick. I'm running into a number of problems.
In Maverick, I can start in Netbook mode, after installing all the UNR stuff, but Unity fails to set up correctly, leaving the left and top panel areas shaded and apparently empty. But when I click in the left panel I get a brief flash of the workspaces/apps, and whatever I have clicked opens. This is not good, as there is no Close button...... I have to open a terminal (Ctl-Alt-T) and restart manually.
In Natty I get a flashing desktop background, and no further progress, if I try to start Netbook mode.
In Natty, if I just type "unity -s" in a terminal, after starting in Desktop mode, I get an irrecoverable error about a missing gschema, org.ayatana.datetime.gschema.xml in /usr/share/glib-2.0. Even after adding a copy of that file from Maverick, I get the same error.
Is it my video card, Radeon Express 200M, or some other out-dated component, or am I missing some essential step to get unity to run?
Has anyone got unity running on a legacy ATI card?
Merk42 said: Because that version uses Mutter which doesn't work in a VM.
The desktop version will eventually (alpha 1?) use Compiz and should therefor work in a VM.
That's great news :)
I'll definitely be testing this when the time comes. I am no longer an Ubuntu user, but want to help in whatever way I can.
did you uninstall anything that removed Ubuntu-desktop ? if you did , that schema didn't get built when you installed unity , install ubuntu-desktop and then reinstall unity .
ronacc said: did you uninstall anything that removed Ubuntu-desktop ? if you did , that schema didn't get built when you installed unity , install ubuntu-desktop and then reinstall unity .
Oh rats! That will bring in all the cruft I carefully remove......
But I guess I have to do it if I want to try out Unity.
yeah the same thing got me , I had dumped all the useless fluff I never use and when it came to unity it bit me in the butt (of course you can always remove again after you reinstall unity ).
By default Ubuntu uses the open source drivers for nvidea. Will Unity still work?
exploder said: By default Ubuntu uses the open source drivers for nvidea. Will Unity still work?
Yes, it should work fine.
Yes, it should work fine.
Thanks!
Well, I tried that - installed 73 packages including ubuntu-dektop, re-installed Unity.
Now I get the same behavior when I try to start in Netbook mode in Natty as in Maverick - pale ghosts of the left panel, no text in the black-edged boxes that come up when I click in an active part of it. Occasional flashes of clear workspace/buttons, immediately lost to the ghost of the left panel.
Running "sudo unity -s" in a terminal with Desktop mode, I get strings of gtk errors, no left panel at all. Not looking good, even now I have the gschema......
what video card and driver are you using ? and if you have effects enabled try setting them to none .
No, the nouveau driver currently has no 3D capabilities (at least not in a releasable state). You'd need to install the proprietary nvidia driver before you could enable the full Unity experience.
That said, there does seem to be some kind of a plan to use compiz in 2D mode and/or metacity to implement a Unity-like experience for people who can't run the full setup.
Amaranth said: No, the nouveau driver currently has no 3D capabilities (at least not in a releasable state). You'd need to install the proprietary nvidia driver before you could enable the full Unity experience.
That said, there does seem to be some kind of a plan to use compiz in 2D mode and/or metacity to implement a Unity-like experience for people who can't run the full setup.
I am using nouveau here and I get all the desktop effects I may wish.
ronacc said: what video card and driver are you using ? and if you have effects enabled try setting them to none .
I'm using an ATI Radeon Express 200M 5955 chipset on the motherboard. Open source -ati and -radeon drivers. Compiz is normally on, with the gtk window decorator. I've tried turning it off, using metacity --replace, or even mutter --replace, but no change in the failure to get Unity going. I've tried choosing "None" for Visual Effects, instead of "Normal". No success.
Guessing you're using the xorg-edgers repo then.
Unless you just want to see what the netbook interface is like there is no point in installing Unity right now. Unity+compiz will have a completely different set of supported/unsupported hardware (although basically everything current unity supports plus more).
Just because things don't work right with Unity right now on your desktop doesn't mean they won't work in the 11.04 final, or even in a month when we get the new stuff.
Just a little FYI. :)
Thanks Travis!!!
I've installed Unity with a fresh install & am waiting for the new desktop to come in...can you give the forum a heads up when its close to time? Running a SLI nvidia 9800GT setup, so it should be one of the "harder" hardware configs......
That ppa can't come soon enough.
just thought I'd ask , I'm Nvidia here and I had to set effects to none to get it going .
sounds like they are betting pretty heavily that the nouveau driver will be fully capable by release time , its not like Ubuntu to release something with a default desktop that requires proprietary drivers .
i'm currently running ubuntu-netbook 11.04, i hope they make the transition smooth. a lot of people that went from 10.04 to 10.10 totally got boned in the upgrade, i hope it's not a trend. :)
Can someone explain it?
I installed it tonight, rebooted into it (the netbook version, which is actually close for my laptop) and well, hated it.
Honestly, it was slow, seemed to take ages to get to find the applications I wanted (vs the regular Ubuntu menu in gnome) and took up space on the side of the screen.
Is there anywhere good to read the basics of the intent? How this is supposed to make life easier (I totally get it for touch-screens, it would be great, although I like AWN and could see that being good for touch-screens too.
there are supposed to be some changes for the desktop version so we will have to wait and see , but I will say this I refuse to run it even on my netbook, the reasons you cited being part of the cause . I will test it diligently during development because that is what we are here for but I doubt it will make it to my work desktop.
Because there are so many threads about Unity asking the same question and saying the same thing, they may as well be all in the same thread.
I've left Bou's thread, because it's more about design then the general question in this thread.
We've had compiz by default for years now.
Amaranth said: We've had compiz by default for years now.
but gnome can run fine with out it, would unity work with out compiz?
Oh, I thought this was going to be a new thread and this the first or so post. I think there needs to be some FAQ ,otherwise I feel this questions/comments will STILL be brought up over and over.
In the same vein as my GNOME Shell thread...
Ubuntu dropped GNOME?! No, they just didn't like the direction of GNOME Shell. Unity is "a shell for GNOME that isn't GNOME Shell". All of the applications will still be GNOME and Ubuntu is still a GNOME distro.
I'm being forced to use Unity? Welp goodbye Ubuntu! I'm off to {insert distro}! Unity will be the default environment if your computer can handle it. If it cannot, or even if you opt out, you'll still be presented with the classic GNOME 2.X panel UI.
I tried Unity in 10.10, it ran awful The netbook version of Unity is using Mutter, by 11.04 the desktop version will be rewritten to use Compiz.
I tried Unity right now and it STILL ran awful As of this writing Unity has yet to be ported over to Compiz, and no interface changes have been made.
Amaranth said: We've had compiz by default for years now.
installed yes but you have to enable effects to get it , if unity is THE desktop and Nouveau isn't ready yet to provide full features the proprietary drivers would have to be on by default . I'm just asking , I always ran the proprietary drivers even when it wasn't fashionable
Will Unity have some main menu like Gnome 2.x has now? :confused: Asking because I read somewhere it doesn't right now, and I would miss it badly.
Also, like Arla I would prefer some dock like AWN in the left side of the screen instead of the icon column there is now (at least in screenshots).
Dunno if it's been mentioned. But the default *desktop* version of Unity will have the global menu bar:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/10481/does-will-unity-support-disabling-the-global-menu
Personally, I think that sucks.
edujose said: Will Unity have some main menu like Gnome 2.x has now? :confused: Asking because I read somewhere it doesn't right now, and I would miss it badly.
The classic GNOME2 main menu will remain to be shipped. You can either choose to run the classic menu OR Unity. If your preferred card or your preferred GPU driver cannot handle Compiz you are even stuck to using the classic menu.
Thus for all fearing about Unity: You are just given something but nothing is taken away. The classic GNOME panel is going to stay :guitar:
Kazade said: Dunno if it's been mentioned. But the default *desktop* version of Unity will have the global menu bar:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/10481/does-will-unity-support-disabling-the-global-menu
Personally, I think that sucks.I hope you're not surprised though. I mean that's how it's done in OSX so that's how it'll be done in Unity.
I await the 'innovative' feature where they worked with the compiz developer to get all the expose/workspace effects in one single uTouch gesture
kerry_s said: would unity work with out compiz?
No, Unity is a Compiz plugin.
Did Jorge Castro create that Unity Desktop test PPA yet?
Ok, I decided to give up on the current Unity (I know it isn't ready for prime time), so I uninstalled it. Rebooted, hoping to get the regular Gnome 2 desktop back. Fail! I do get GDM started with the standard Maverick background and the login dialog, so X is working. However, when I login, I get a totally blank white screen.
Can someone tell me how to get the Gnome 2 DE back?
Thanks, Tim
Merk42 said: Oh, I thought this was going to be a new thread and this the first or so post. I think there needs to be some FAQ ,otherwise I feel this questions/comments will STILL be brought up over and over.
In the same vein as my GNOME Shell thread...
Ubuntu dropped GNOME?! No, they just didn't like the direction of GNOME Shell. Unity is "a shell for GNOME that isn't GNOME Shell". All of the applications will still be GNOME and Ubuntu is still a GNOME distro.
I'm being forced to use Unity? Welp goodbye Ubuntu! I'm off to {insert distro}! Unity will be the default environment if your computer can handle it. If it cannot, or even if you opt out, you'll still be presented with the classic GNOME 2.X panel UI.
I tried Unity in 10.10, it ran awful The netbook version of Unity is using Mutter, by 11.04 the desktop version will be rewritten to use Compiz.
I tried Unity right now and it STILL ran awful As of this writing Unity has yet to be ported over to Compiz, and no interface changes have been made.
I'm working on a sticky
Merk42 said: I hope you're not surprised though. I mean that's how it's done in OSX so that's how it'll be done in Unity.
Not surprised at all, just more disappointed than ever.
Starks said: Did Jorge Castro create that Unity Desktop test PPA yet?
Dang man I just got back, let me breathe!
(The team is working on this now)
ratcheer said: Ok, I decided to give up on the current Unity (I know it isn't ready for prime time), so I uninstalled it. Rebooted, hoping to get the regular Gnome 2 desktop back. Fail! I do get GDM started with the standard Maverick background and the login dialog, so X is working. However, when I login, I get a totally blank white screen.
Can someone tell me how to get the Gnome 2 DE back?
I apologize for being a klutz. I noticed that *after* I hit Enter in the login dialog, there is a dialog at the bottom of the screen that lets me re-select the normal Gnome DE. It works just fine.
Tim
amano said: The classic GNOME2 main menu will remain to be shipped. You can either choose to run the classic menu OR Unity. If your preferred card or your preferred GPU driver cannot handle Compiz you are even stuck to using the classic menu.
Thus for all fearing about Unity: You are just given something but nothing is taken away. The classic GNOME panel is going to stay :guitar:
Hmm, so Unity has its own menu thing (the icon stack shown in screenshots, I presume) and Gnome 2 has the classic main menu.
I thought there would be some kind of "classic" menu in Unity (maybe by pressing the Ubuntu logo in top panel).
Sorry if I'm confusing things, I've never used Unity before.
There is no classic menu, to get to a list of Installed programs, either click the Ubuntu icon in the top left corner, or the icon with the triangle and scissors in the panel. The icon with the file folder will get you to a menu of the file folders in your home directory. To get to nautilus click one of the folders, then click the file folder icon on the top right.
cariboo907 said: There is no classic menu, to get to a list of Installed programs, either click the Ubuntu icon in the top left corner, or the icon with the triangle and scissors in the panel. The icon with the file folder will get you to a menu of the file folders in your home directory. To get to nautilus click one of the folders, then click the file folder icon on the top right.
do you mean it will take 4 clicks to get to nautilus instead of the 1 or 2 it takes now ? Yep that will sure make things smoother and faster .
No apparently there will be a nautilus icon in the panel.
you can get to nautilus now in 1 click just clicking the trashcan will open nautilus.
whiprush said: Dang man I just got back, let me breathe!
(The team is working on this now) UDS is exhausting. Transit, sometimes-boring panels, and the crazy parties.
whiprush said: Dang man I just got back, let me breathe!
(The team is working on this now)
Been refreshing all day, seeing if there were any news :P
Bou said: Been refreshing all day, seeing if there were any news :P
Neil will likely post a status report or something tomorrow.
Thanks Cariboo for your clarifications. Let's see how Unity develops in the next 6 months. I'll give it a try.
But I would be happier if Ubuntu and Gnome could collaborate more in one thing instead of diverging in their desktop UI, shell or whatever.
I hope for a convergence of both parties in the near future :(
Well--look at what happened with Compiz & Beryl--I'm hoping with time the two will find ways to cross-contribute.....
Status update: https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg04090.html
I guess there is a no contrast theme for the psychics among us? :P
You can see faintly where the panels are, no icons, no text, on mouse over of the items in the panel you get a nice black and white box.
Later, Seeker
whiprush said: Status update: https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg04090.html
Is it possible to subscribe it as RSS feed?
plun said:
This can just be great...I cannot stand gnome-shell so this can be something.
GNOME 2.xx is all I really need because it is very easy to work with on the desktop!
Even on Windows XP / 7 I work with the classic view.
Both interfaces are very similar. Easy to use; easy to manipulate.
I sure would hate to see GNOME 2.xx go! Unlike some other folks.
I do not want nor need fancy stuff, just a very usable desktop.
I'm worried about one thing. Compiz ? The 3d requirement is not such a bad idea, with lots of netbooks not supporting 3d... I don't give a damm about 3d effects.
I'm using unity on my desktop (with 10.10). I don't feel like I miss gnome panel. Unity have a few glitchs, but it's simple and I have everything at hand.
EowynCarter said: I don't give a damn about 3d effects.
Same here.
I subscribed to the unity mailing list so that I could submit an idea , the idea went nowhere and after a couple of weeks I unsubscribed , I am still getting about 50 to 100 bug reports a day yet when I try to unsubscribe from either unity ( again ) or the individual bug reports it shows that I am not subscribed . how do I save what little is left of my sanity without having to kill that email address and get a new one .
Most modern email programs such as thunderbird or web clients like gmail have filter options so you can auto send to trash or hide.
LiquidMeson said: Most modern email programs such as thunderbird or web clients like gmail have filter options so you can auto send to trash or hide.
I don't want to kill everything from launchpad since I have several bugs of my own that I track , just the stuff that I got subscribed to because of unity .
New Unity upload : coming today, tomorrow or on monday. Thanks to Didrocks. :guitar:
Framli said: New Unity upload : coming today, tomorrow or on monday.
Thanks to Didrocks. :guitar:
Need more information! ^_^
Here, in french : http://forum.ubuntu-fr.org/viewtopic.php?id=422379&p=30
Translation of post #739 by Didrocks :
Unity will be default once Unity Compiz is uploaded... today, tomorrow or monday :)
(for making it default, I will wait another week because there are transitions to manage)
Framli said: Here, in french : http://forum.ubuntu-fr.org/viewtopic.php?id=422379&p=30
Translation of post #739 by Didrocks :
Awesome, exciting times ahead! :)
Framli said: New Unity upload : coming today, tomorrow or on monday.
Well, I don't know you guys, but I've been nervous all day thinking about the upload!
BTW, is this new version supposed to be themable? WOOT
[IMG]http://img.xrmb2.net/images/733307.png[/IMG]
Bou said: BTW, is this new version supposed to be themable? WOOT
This is the "old" Unity, I just hacked around to make it Radiance-compatible.
Anyways, making Unity more themable than now is a goal for Natty IIRC.
MacUntu said: This is the "old" Unity, I just hacked around to make it Radiance-compatible.
D'oh. Also, fresh from njpatel's Twitter:
FTBFFS
Not sure if that means "fails to build from source" or "fails to build, for f***'s sake", but it's a double d'oh.
Bou said: Not sure if that means "fails to build from source" or "fails to build, for f***'s sake", but it's a double d'oh.
I bet the latter. :D
Well... tried to build it from source but it fails...:---)
The C compiler identification is GNU
The CXX compiler identification is GNU
Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/gcc
Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/gcc -- works
Detecting C compiler ABI info
Detecting C compiler ABI info - done
Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++
Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++ -- works
Detecting CXX compiler ABI info
Detecting CXX compiler ABI info - done
checking for module 'compiz'
found compiz, version 0.9.2.1
Performing Test HAVE_SCANDIR_POSIX
Performing Test HAVE_SCANDIR_POSIX - Success
Boost version: 1.42.0
Found the following Boost libraries:
serialization
checking for module 'compiz-composite'
found compiz-composite, version 0.9.2.1
checking for module 'compiz-opengl'
found compiz-opengl, version 0.9.2.1
checking for module 'nux-0.9 libbamf dbus-glib-1 dee-1.0 gio-2.0 gio-unix-2.0 dbusmenu-glib'
package 'nux-0.9 libbamf dbus-glib-1 dee-1.0 gio-2.0 gio-unix-2.0 dbusmenu-glib' not found
[WARNING] One or more dependencies for compiz plugin unityshell not found. Skipping plugin.
Missing dependencies : nux-0.9 libbamf dbus-glib-1 dee-1.0 gio-2.0 gio-unix-2.0 dbusmenu-glib
GSettings schemas will be installed into /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas/
checking for modules 'gobject-2.0;gio-2.0;gtk+-2.0;gthread-2.0;dee-1.0;gee-1.0;dbus-glib-1;clutter-1.0;clutk-0.3;gconf-2.0'
found gobject-2.0, version 2.27.3
found gio-2.0, version 2.27.3
found gtk+-2.0, version 2.23.2
found gthread-2.0, version 2.27.3
found dee-1.0, version 0.4.2
found gee-1.0, version 0.6.0
found dbus-glib-1, version 0.88
found clutter-1.0, version 1.2.12
found clutk-0.3, version 0.3.60
found gconf-2.0, version 2.32.1
Found Vala: /usr/bin/valac
checking for modules 'gobject-2.0;gio-2.0;gtk+-2.0;gthread-2.0;indicator;x11'
found gobject-2.0, version 2.27.3
found gio-2.0, version 2.27.3
found gtk+-2.0, version 2.23.2
found gthread-2.0, version 2.27.3
found indicator, version 0.3.14
found x11, version 1.3.4
checking for modules 'nux-0.9 libbamf dbus-glib-1 dee-1.0 gio-2.0 gio-unix-2.0 dbusmenu-glib;dbus-glib-1;x11'
package 'nux-0.9 libbamf dbus-glib-1 dee-1.0 gio-2.0 gio-unix-2.0 dbusmenu-glib' not found
CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake-2.8/Modules/FindPkgConfig.cmake:266 (message):
A required package was not found
Call Stack (most recent call first):
/usr/share/cmake-2.8/Modules/FindPkgConfig.cmake:320 (_pkg_check_modules_internal)
tests/CMakeLists.txt:5 (pkg_check_modules)
Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!package 'nux-0.9 libbamf dbus-glib-1 dee-1.0 gio-2.0 gio-unix-2.0 dbusmenu-glib' not found
Mission impossible to find those dev-packages...... ( in Debian que ? )
PPA seems to be up! https://launchpad.net/~unity/+archive/ppa/+packages
Go, do it! I'm too scared. :P
-- double post --
I've read several "developer" blog posts falling on both sides of the Unity vs. GNOME Shell discussion, but was hoping someone here could clear the whole thing up for me; what's Canonical's logic in moving away from GNOME Shell and towards Unity? Is it just a "control" thing because Unity is being developed by them?
Don't get me wrong... I think that's a very *valid* desire; just wondering.
moore.bryan said: I've read several "developer" blog posts falling on both sides of the Unity vs. GNOME Shell discussion, but was hoping someone here could clear the whole thing up for me; what's Canonical's logic in moving away from GNOME Shell and towards Unity? Is it just a "control" thing because Unity is being developed by them?
Don't get me wrong... I think that's a very *valid* desire; just wondering.
Well basically one reason is because mutter is very slow, but to be honest from recent screenshots i have seen, gnome-shell is taking alot of ideas from Unity now anyway.
i have also tried the compiz based unity, and it works much better than the mutter based version already!
And we still have 5 months of dev time :D
Thanks for the response DoeRayMe, but you ended-up causing me more questions! ;-)
DoeRayMe said: Well basically one reason is because mutter is very slow,...
Wouldn't that make developers want to work on Mutter? I believe that's where the bulk of GNOME developers' time is going.
... but to be honest from recent screenshots i have seen, gnome-shell is taking alot of ideas from Unity now anyway. As a long-time user of GNOME Shell, I don't see a lot of overlap. Where do you think the sharing is?
i have also tried the compiz based unity, and it works much better than the mutter based version already! I haven't been able to give this a spin, yet, because I borked my Natty install, but am really interested in it.
It's quite possible my affinity for GNOME Shell just won't let me like Unity. :-(
moore.bryan said:
As a long-time user of GNOME Shell, I don't see a lot of overlap. Where do you think the sharing is?
this is the case point:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/gnome-shell-screenshot-review/
tbh I remember trying gnome-shell a long long time ago and thinking it was a massive stepback in terms of usability. Unity and Gnome-Shell now just look like mods of each other. :/
(Edit) I should point out that I haven't used this gnome shell or unity in its current 'desktop' state yet though
@soapytheclown That's the overlay branch of GNOME Shell, not the default user interface. GNOME Shell *may* be moving in that direction, but it hasn't defaulted that way, yet.
What makes you say the usability was less in GNOME Shell?
Unity, as it exists today, has the sole purpose of discrediting Gnome Shell as the future of Gnome-based desktops.
Besides, after all the crap that Canonical gets for not giving back to the community, Unity could be huge if other distros adopt it.
moore.bryan said: I've read several "developer" blog posts falling on both sides of the Unity vs. GNOME Shell discussion, but was hoping someone here could clear the whole thing up for me; what's Canonical's logic in moving away from GNOME Shell and towards Unity? Is it just a "control" thing because Unity is being developed by them?
Don't get me wrong... I think that's a very *valid* desire; just wondering. Take a look at my analysis of the reasons on Ask Ubuntu.
Starks said: Unity, as it exists today, has the sole purpose of discrediting Gnome Shell as the future of Gnome-based desktops.
Why?
fluteflute said: Take a look at my analysis of the reasons on Ask Ubuntu.
Interesting read; thanks, fluteflute.
Could you--maybe--expand on a couple of things for me:
**fluteflute]
What's the "upside" to this? Unity--as it exists now--admits it hasn't completely integrated the global menu said:**
- Ubuntu would like to embrace different ideas to other parts of the GNOME family - specific examples mentioned are Mac OS X style global menus, and heavier 'Zeitgeist' integration.
- There are concerns about hardware support with the Mutter technology GNOME Shell uses. Whilst Unity has up to now also used Mutter, Unity has been ported to Compiz, which, through it's inclusion in default Ubuntu for over three years, has proved itself to have excellent hardware support.
I've heard this for many years, but have never actually *conversed* with anyone who had this issue. In fact, I would argue *more* people have had Compiz issues than Mutter ones.
Choices are being made with "likely" decisions in-mind? Isn't one of GNOME Shell's "advancing" features is a novel method of handling both indicators and OSD's? Isn't that *progression*, not *regression*?
- Recent Ubuntu design work, such as Application Indicators and NotifyOSD are likely to be incompatible with GNOME Shell, and we want to keep these things, not move backwards!
So?
- Other distributions may have different user bases and needs. Ubuntu has a lot of home users, whereas many other distributions have more commercial users in workplaces. Canonical employs a lot of professional design experts and they may feel they can do a better job than, or at least take a different approach to, the existing GNOME Shell.
Part of it could be that Gnome refused to include notify-osd and zeitgeist in Gnome 3.
cariboo907 said: Part of it could be that Gnome refused to include notify-osd and zeitgeist in Gnome 3.
One proposal....!
Can we please have one discussion thread and one technical thread about Unity ??
I just want to test new software :) and then I use what I likes most, really easy.
Starks said: Unity, as it exists today, has the sole purpose of discrediting Gnome Shell as the future of Gnome-based desktops.
Besides, after all the crap that Canonical gets for not giving back to the community, Unity could be huge if other distros adopt it.Unity might get huge, but from here it still looks too much like a netbook "interface." Until they can get something that looks more like a real computer and less like an oversized PDA, I'm going to stick to Kubuntu.
I broken the mega thread up into two threads, one for discussion of Unity, and the other for technical discussions, (problems, etc).
moore.bryan said: I've heard this for many years, but have never actually *conversed* with anyone who had this issue. In fact, I would argue *more* people have had Compiz issues than Mutter ones.
I have no doubt that is true, Mutter by itself doesn't have *that* significant of a requirement above what you might expect for Compiz and if your hardware *does* support it performance probably won't be all that different than with Metacity for basic operation.
Gnome-shell on the other hand brings whole new levels of incompatibilities, some resulting from the requirement that a broader range of OpenGL features be supported by hardware.
Then there is the question of how many people are using Compiz compared to how many people are using Gnome-shell.
And the question of how many people actually have a problem with Compiz itself as opposed to having problems with specific extensions.
There are a lot of comparisons that can't be done between Mutter and Compiz at the moment because it doesn't have any FX extensions. Unity and Gnome-shell were done as extensions, but they are breaking new ground and I would guess that it would be more technically correct to blame performance and compatibility issues on clutter than it would be to blame them on Mutter.
Later, Seeker
teh603 said: Unity might get huge, but from here it still looks too much like a netbook "interface." Until they can get something that looks more like a real computer and less like an oversized PDA, I'm going to stick to Kubuntu.
Exactly my thoughts. As it stands right now, Unity would be great on a wireless phone, not a desktop.
@seeker: You make sense. I've just always been leery when the "there are so many problems" argument comes-up.
@cariboo, @ vmc: I'm with you guys. I don't see Unity, as it is, as being very polished. I installed the overlay branch for GNOME Shell--which, simply, could be described as a marriage of Unity and GNOME Shell--and hated it. I don't really find the left vertical "bar" useful.
On a side-note, I'm trying to build from source using the Unity Installation Guide on my Maverick install, but almost nothing will compile. Any ideas?
Specifically, I can't get past trying to build libcompizconfig:
WARNING:
"FindCompiz.cmake" file not found in cmake module directories.
It should be installed to allow building of external compiz packages.
Call "sudo make findcompiz_install" to install it.
I've already done the "sudo make findcompiz_install"
moore.bryan said: @seeker: You make sense. I've just always been leery when the "there are so many problems" argument comes-up.
@cariboo, @ vmc: I'm with you guys. I don't see Unity, as it is, as being very polished. I installed the overlay branch for GNOME Shell--which, simply, could be described as a marriage of Unity and GNOME Shell--and hated it. I don't really find the left vertical "bar" useful.
Yes, the left vertical bar doesn't seem to make a lot of sense on a standard desktop layout. I prefer gnome-shell's direction, though, to be honest, I am quite happy with good ol' 2-panel gnome :-)
moore.bryan said:
Specifically, I can't get past trying to build libcompizconfig:
WARNING:
"FindCompiz.cmake" file not found in cmake module directories.
It should be installed to allow building of external compiz packages.
Call "sudo make findcompiz_install" to install it.
I've already done the "sudo make findcompiz_install" Same here. Nevertheless, compiling only nux & unity, with compiz from the repos, is working fine enough.
Nothing for me. Anyone have any idea when the Maverick PPA will be up-and-running?
moore.bryan said: Nothing for me. Anyone have any idea when the Maverick PPA will be up-and-running?
There is not going to be any, I am sorry :(
http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/11/18/no-maverick-ppa-for-unity/
maheshasolkar said: There is not going to be any, I am sorry :(
http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/11/18/no-maverick-ppa-for-unity/
That's unfortunate. I was looking forward to that,seeing as how I don't have a spare partition to house Natty-testing. And VirtualBox won't do for Unity...
maheshasolkar said: There is not going to be any, I am sorry :(
http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/11/18/no-maverick-ppa-for-unity/ Inexcusable.
seeker5528 said: I have no doubt that is true, Mutter by itself doesn't have *that* significant of a requirement above what you might expect for Compiz and if your hardware *does* support it performance probably won't be all that different than with Metacity for basic operation.
mutter is simply a layer above in the abstraction hierarchy above compiz. And the ubuntu developers need more control than what mutter offers as unity has different requirements than gnome-shell. simple.
moore.bryan said: Inexcusable.
How so? I find their reasoning quite sound.
moore.bryan said: Inexcusable.
You must be joking!
I'm of the belief *any* and *all* movement forward with Ubuntu should also be backported for those who have not gone bleeding-edge; therefore, not bringing about a Maverick PPA is going to handicap those users who will debate the move from Maverick to Natty and want to see the "latest and greatest" to decide if it's "worth it."
Building packages can be daunting to some users and when building doesn't work, there are often very few suggestions on how to get it to work.
Here's my question now: why is it laughable to criticize the decision not to PPA Unity for Maverick?
The main goal of testing software is to test it, and not to see the latest and greatest. Only the devs can decide whether it's worth putting work into getting more testers or not - and they have decided against doing it.
If you just want to see Unity in action, wait for the Alpha/Beta/RC releases - no need to build packages, no risk of messing up your Maverick system.
moore.bryan said: I'm of the belief *any* and *all* movement forward with Ubuntu should also be backported for those who have not gone bleeding-edge; therefore, not bringing about a Maverick PPA is going to handicap those users who will debate the move from Maverick to Natty and want to see the "latest and greatest" to decide if it's "worth it."
You should read the email. It's impossible to bring you bleeding edge without making your desktop bleed, at that point you'd be so bleeding edge that you might as well run the Alpha release than a half-PPAed monster that has no hope of being upgradeable.
moore.bryan said: I'm of the belief *any* and *all* movement forward with Ubuntu should also be backported for those who have not gone bleeding-edge; therefore, not bringing about a Maverick PPA is going to handicap those users who will debate the move from Maverick to Natty and want to see the "latest and greatest" to decide if it's "worth it."
MacUntu said: The main goal of testing software is to test it, and not to see the latest and greatest. Only the devs can decide whether it's worth putting work into getting more testers or not - and they have decided against doing it.
If you just want to see Unity in action, wait for the Alpha/Beta/RC releases - no need to build packages, no risk of messing up your Maverick system. Very valid points, MacUntu.
whiprush said: You should read the email. It's impossible to bring you bleeding edge without making your desktop bleed, at that point you'd be so bleeding edge that you might as well run the Alpha release than a half-PPAed monster that has no hope of being upgradeable.
I read the email, whiprush, I just don't agree with the underlying philosophy. I do, however, appreciate the difficulty it would be to package the new Unity, particularly in respect to the upgraded/patched Compiz.
Anduu said: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LiveUsbPendrivePersistent
Always an interesting read... you'd think a persistent LiveUSB would be simpler by now, though.
MadMan2k said: mutter is simply a layer above in the abstraction hierarchy above compiz.
One provides window management and compositing, the other provides window management and compositing, so how is one "a layer above in the abstraction hierarchy"?
And the ubuntu developers need more control than what mutter offers as unity has different requirements than gnome-shell. simple.
Control in what way, is this talked about somewhere?
Later, Seeker
Does any of you guys (e.g. whiprush if he sees this) know roughly how far we are from:
- Having a (more or less) working dash?
- Having right-click on the launcher icons?
- Having merged panel / titlebars for maximized windows?
The only really necessary one is the dash, but the other two would be a huge plus two.
Bou said:
- Having a (more or less) working dash?
Places and the Dash are targetted for Alpha2
- Having right-click on the launcher icons?
They're there now, they just aren't finished.
- Having merged panel / titlebars for maximized windows?
No clue on this one.
Alpha 2 is an awful long time to wait :( Oh well, I'll live (I think) :P
whiprush said: Places and the Dash are targetted for Alpha2
Ouch, that's three months to wait for a usable Natty! How do you guys cope with the lack of a menu while you wait?
This is what I do, floating panel FTW.
[IMG]http://imgur.com/8xvx1[/IMG]
Bou said: How do you guys cope with the lack of a menu while you wait?
I've been using GNOME Do as my launcher for years anyway so I don't miss it so much.
whiprush said: I've been using GNOME Do as my launcher for years anyway so I don't miss it so much.
Just started to do that too, thanks for the tip :p