Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Immersive Explorer: Oh God why?
f0dder:
I don't have anything personally against the look of Metro. Especially since I prefer "flat" icons over the more popular beveled or 3D variety. What I do object to is the way Metro works - or more correctly, being forced to toss out my current workflow just because Microsoft decided to arbitrarily change the entire user "experience" without so much as a "by your leave." And to add insult to injury, for no real reason other than to do something different to create the appearance they're somehow innovating. And don't even get me going about their closed ecosystem plan for the Metro workspace...-40hz (August 01, 2012, 06:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
That, I pretty much agree with. IMHO Win8 is a terrible, schizophrenic experience... fine that MS wants to use the same kernel on both PCs and tablets, makes sense to me... and fine to make the metro framework available on the desktop OS as well, since it can work great for some apps... but the mess that is Win8? Ugh. Also, at least for the last preview I saw, not only was the experience schizophrenic as hell, but the finger gestures were at best awkward, and often almost impossible, to do with a mouse. And then there's the whole marketplace thing - imitating crApple is bad enough, but imitating their worst sides? Ugh.
I completely dumped Ubuntu for showing far less hubris than that. And that was before Canonical sold out over UEFI and (more recently) started officially referring to their distro as "The Ubuntu Operating System" without so much as a nod towards its GNU/Linux roots. :down:-40hz (August 01, 2012, 06:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure exactly what to think of the whole UEFI Secure Boot thing, but that's a topic for another thread - it's not black/white for me, though, but I definitely think it's creepy. As for the GNU/Linux, come on... yes, those two might be the most important things wrt. defining what a Linux distro is, but there's craploads of software in each and every one that aren't "the kernel" and aren't authored by GNU - and it'd be a bit much adding each and every contributor to the name. As long as the project websites clearly acknowledge everybody, stop bitching about such small things. Even the kernel is the least important thing in an OS these days, being such big & complex beasts as they are (that goes for everything from Windows and OS/X to Linux, and even to the less bloated things like *BSD).
Metro sux.-TaoPhoenix (August 01, 2012, 10:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's a bit harsh, IMHO. It works extremely well for tables and phones, and the visual style and simplicity works well for some applications on desktop OSes as well. If your sentence had been "the ungodly mix that is Win8 sux", I would have agreed 100% though.
A shame, since a lot of nice things have been done to the kernel and other core OS components.
40hz:
I completely dumped Ubuntu for showing far less hubris than that. And that was before Canonical sold out over UEFI and (more recently) started officially referring to their distro as "The Ubuntu Operating System" without so much as a nod towards its GNU/Linux roots. :down:-40hz (August 01, 2012, 06:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure exactly what to think of the whole UEFI Secure Boot thing, but that's a topic for another thread - it's not black/white for me, though, but I definitely think it's creepy. As for the GNU/Linux, come on... yes, those two might be the most important things wrt. defining what a Linux distro is, but there's craploads of software in each and every one that aren't "the kernel" and aren't authored by GNU - and it'd be a bit much adding each and every contributor to the name. As long as the project websites clearly acknowledge everybody, stop bitching about such small things. Even the kernel is the least important thing in an OS these days, being such big & complex beasts as they are (that goes for everything from Windows and OS/X to Linux, and even to the less bloated things like *BSD).
-f0dder (August 02, 2012, 03:21 PM)
--- End quote ---
@f0dder- I don't want to derail this discussion either. But I think you might not be up on what's going on with Canonical and Ubuntu's marketing lately. Take a look over at the main page starting here or here. Take a look around to see how long it takes you to spot them even using the word Linux.
The objection I and many others have is that it might not be such a big deal if it were some distro other than Ubuntu doing this. The problem is that with their marketing and presence, the average Win-PC user's first contact with Linux is through Ubuntu. Which puts Canonical in a unique position to smokescreen the fact that Ubuntu is not all there is to Linux - or that the F/OSS community is not under the rubric of Mark Shuttleworth. Canonical has also strongly implied in other places that Linux was fundamentally unworkable for the average user until Ubuntu came along. Something which is patently not true.
Here's some examples of what I'm talking about that were taken directly from Ubu's website. (emphasis added)
Fast, secure and stylishly simple, the Ubuntu operating system is used by 20 million people worldwide every day.
--- End quote ---
Not Linux? Not Linux-based Ubuntu but rather The Ubuntu Operating System?
What is an operating system?
An operating system is what makes your computer work, running[/i] all your programs and managing your hardware. Other examples include Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X.
--- End quote ---
How about and hundreds of other Linux distributions?
How can it be free?
Ubuntu is free and it always will be. That's because it's the work of open-source software experts from all over the world - people who believe software should be free.
--- End quote ---
Just Ubuntu? How about "As part of the larger Linux and F/OSS communities, Ubuntu is free and always will be."
It’s open source.
Our global community is made up of thousands of people who want to help build the best open-source operating system in the world. They share their time and skills to make sure that Ubuntu keeps getting better and better. From IBM to Google, Firefox to Wikipedia – some of today's best software is based on an open-source model. Shared efforts. Shared principles. No cost.
--- End quote ---
Our global community as in Ubuntu?
I don't think it takes a genius or cynic to notice there is a pretty obvious attempt to present Ubuntu as it's own thing and semi co-opt the entire GNU/Linux and F/OSS movement by making it look like it's fundamentally under - and part of - Ubuntu.
Not much different than how AOL did its best to get the average Joe to equate the Internet with AOL's own service.
:-\
Tuxman:
Ubuntu is not free, neither is Linux.
While they contain large free code parts, they are not free as in free speech.
Also, how can a kernel be the least important part of a kernel?
f0dder:
@f0dder- I don't want to derail this discussion either. But I think you might not be up on what's going on with Canonical and Ubuntu's marketing lately. Take a look over at the main page starting here or here. Take a look around to see how long it takes you to spot them even using the word Linux.-40hz (August 02, 2012, 05:13 PM)
--- End quote ---
That (and the rest which I've snipped) I can agree fully with - I'd expect the front page to say something along the lines of "Ubuntu is an operating system based on the Linux kernel and the GNU system utilities", and generally give credits where credits are due - it's the zealot "ZOMG THEY MUST SAY GNU/LINUX EVERYTIME A DISTRIBUTION NAME IS MENTIONED" attitude that gives me the tics :)
Also, how can a kernel be the least important part of a kernel?-Tuxman (August 02, 2012, 05:15 PM)
--- End quote ---
Of the OS not the kernel. The kernel is such a tiny part of what constitutes and OS these days.
Tuxman:
ZOMG THEY MUST SAY GNU/LINUX EVERYTIME A DISTRIBUTION NAME IS MENTIONED-f0dder (August 02, 2012, 06:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
Wrong. Not all Linux distributions are GNU/Linux distributions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version