I don't get it...
Ok, ok, so most of us have tried and pretty much hated Unity ... and this is where I just don't get the whole concept...
So, Unity is obviously going to be *improved* over time, great, it definitely needs it, but...
Why release it as a default desktop in a state guaranteed to cause massive frustration and rejection?
From this pretty decent review, quote: "and more like something that might be useful one day."
See, that's it in a nutshell!
The default Ubuntu desktop *prior* to Unity was already useful! It worked!
Gnome 2x was a mature, stable and downright *usable* desktop solution.
So, what are we users to Ubuntu? Alpha testers?
This massive paradigm shift, which changes the workflow methodology of the standard desktop a great deal, is to all intents and purposes, an experiment.
It's an all or nothing approach - there's no slow change, it's just a sudden leap - and now the process of trying to make it more usable begins.
That's so arse-about-face, it's staggering. Where's the slow change process? You know, introduce a realistic, long-term shift? You simply *have* to take this approach with users, you cannot just throw everything out and start again. Microsoft get it, Apple get it, evidentally, Canonical don't have a bloody clue. Then again, with a user base so small it pales into insignificance, perhaps they figured it didn't matter. Well, it does. The small user base of the default Ubuntu distribution have now fragmented - to distributions with default desktops that actually *work* in a familiar way!
But hey, perhaps one day, Unity will actually *unify* Linux desktop users across the board, but I'll be damned if I'm going along for the ride, I've got work to do, I don't want to be mucking about with half realised, incomplete solutions!