Burton Leathers, This is not a mailing list and I doubt anybody would read such a long message.
ccsm is there 'sudo apt-get install ccsm' would do it, and there is a OOTB utility to change the launcher hide behavior, look in control center. On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Burton Leathers <[email protected]> wrote: > To the Unity developers ... > > I applaud your attempt to create a zero configuration desktop UI. I am > sorry to say that my past experience tells me that you have undertaken > to do something which is both impractical and impossible. I will try to > explain as best I can why I hold this view. > > About ten years ago I worked for a major business software developer and > amongst the other things I did was to define the architecture which > allowed a set of independently developed applications to be slammed > together into a suite. This involved creating an application deployment > manager, an installation manager and a unified configuration manager. As > this work was in progress, another team was busy creating a successor > product which was intentionally integrated and which they anticipated > delivering with a zero configuration requirement (although not a zero > installation configuration requirement). I attempted in vain to point > out to them that they were mistaken in their optimism and that I could > offer them appropriate configuration tools. > > At the end of the day, experienced proved me to be correct. Why? I will > explain in terms of the configuration issues which Unity will ultimately > have to address. > > All users have a relationship with the system on which they work which > is intensely personal. This is because they use the system for the > achievement of personal goals and this entails the use of individual > varieties of data and in turn an individual set of computational > capabilities. Moreover, for idiosyncratic reasons, where a computational > goals may be achieved using any one of a set of similarly capable pieces > of software (e.g. browsers), individual experience and personal taste > will lead to specific preferences. Finally, there is the inescapable > fact that few users will come to Unity without a past. They will > encounter Unity, as I did, as a result of upgrading a system which they > had tailored to respect their personal mental models and individual > aesthetics. > > I am sorry to say Unity's lack of configurability violates almost every > consideration which makes a system a personally effective tool. > > As regards data, this is the place in which it is least bad. The > "Favourites" part of the menu launched by the F&F button at least > honours my bookmarks selections (as best I can tell) but the drop down > list appears to be unrelated and idiosyncratic. As near as I can tell, > it is based on a history of recently accessed folders. > > The "Applications" button launches a window which is sadly defective. > > The notion of "Most Frequently Used" is based on the assumption that > what I have done in the past is what I will do in the future. Wrong! The > past does not define the future. If it did, VM paging systems would > never encounter a page fault. I am the best judge of those things which > I have done often in the past and which I expect to do equally often in > the future. That is why I want to be able to pin apps to the launch bar. > Let me be the judge but just make it dead easy to decide that I should > pin an app to the launch bar. > > The "Installed" area is even more problematic. On my system it is full > of garbage. This garbage is mostly the result of the fact that I have > installed -- or attempted to install -- Windows apps using Wine. Windows > apps generate launch items at a frightening pace. When I have done > installs under Wine, I have turned off the vast majority of the launch > items. Unfortunately, Unity picks up all the potential launch items. > This means that when I invoke "See ? more results", I am hosed with > items I disabled during the Wine based install. There are a few other > problems which I have encountered related to Windows based S/W which > does not follow the Windows rules. I have been able to work around them > in Gnome but Unity hits me with them without an identifiable workaround. > > Then there is the dubious "Apps available ..." field. Forget it. This > appears just to be a ransom selection from the Synaptic database. This > is truly bad. At least synaptic lets me learn more about the items it > displays. > > Another defect of this dialog is that it has only two sizes. It would be > more useful if it could be more smoothly resized. > > Finally, there is the drop down list of all applications. Where did this > set of categories come from and on what basis does an app get assigned > to one of the categories? It does not match (or import) the old Gnome > menu categories not does it match the synaptic categories. Certainly it > does not match my personal categories and the only way I can see many > apps which matter to me is to ask to see all apps (see comments on "Apps > available ..."). > > My last concern regarding Unity is that it does not respect the > configuration decisions I have made in past. I have established apps in > the system bar. I have customized the menus. I have indicated preferred > apps. Unity mostly ignores this. However much I might want the space > saving and aesthetic features of Unity, this slap in the face guarantees > that I will seek an alternative. One of my product managers told me more > years ago than I will admit that the last thing you want your product to > do is to consider changing suppliers. By ignoring the configuration > decisions users have made is past, Unity will make them reconsider the > wisdom of using Ubuntu. That is not a wise thing to so. > > That said, I consider Unity to be an admirable effort to move the UI to > a more effective model. Please consider my remarks as feedback intended > to help you achieve your goal. > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to unity > in Ubuntu. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/748739 > > Title: > no config tool currently provided for Ubuntu Unity Plugin > > Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu: > Opinion > > Bug description: > Binary package hint: unity > > At the moment there is no gui config tool provided for the unity plugin and > possibly a few other compiz plugins > I can't see ccsm being default installed, users can't be expected to use > gsettings, dconf-editor or gconf-editor > One should be in place fairly soon > > ProblemType: Bug > DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.04 > Package: unity 3.8.2-0ubuntu1 > ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.38-7.39-generic 2.6.38 > Uname: Linux 2.6.38-7-generic i686 > NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia > Architecture: i386 > CompizPlugins: > [core,bailer,detection,composite,opengl,decor,vpswitch,move,compiztoolbox,regex,imgpng,place,mousepoll,unitymtgrabhandles,gnomecompat,animation,resize,session,expo,wall,ezoom,staticswitcher,fade,scale,unityshell] > Date: Sat Apr 2 20:31:23 2011 > InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Beta i386 (20110330) > ProcEnviron: > LANGUAGE=en_US:en > LANG=en_US.UTF-8 > SHELL=/bin/bash > SourcePackage: unity > UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install) > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/748739/+subscriptions > -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/748739 Title: no config tool currently provided for Ubuntu Unity Plugin To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/748739/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
