> I would not call all comments on this topic ignorant.

I don't. You are apparently using Unity and come up with some valid points. I was referring to the people who brought up issues that have already been addressed.

My point was and is: Unity is far from perfect, but it is usable and has some very nice window and workspace management features. I certainly doesn't deserve being bashed as unusable and overly simplistic.

Maybe I am living in another world. I consider myself a power user. I have usually around 15 apps open, many of them multiple instances and I used to have the Cairo Dock installed to manage my desktop and windows.

My first reaction to Unity (on 11.04) was rejection. I switched to Gnome2 less than 5 minutes after first trying.

But last week I was working on a remastered Ubuntu 11.10 to promote our new products, and I decided to leave Unity as the GUI for the time being. And guess what? I actually liked it. I decided to install it on my main system too. And it is still there.

All comments here about having to search apps in the dash prompt just indicate ignorance. You only have to do that once, then you can add the apps icon to the launcher.
You can now launch multiple instances of already open apps like you do with, say, the Cairo Dock.
Alt-Tab works as expected, with the nice added feature of a nested view of windows belonging to the same app.

There are still some rough edges and the fact that the dock cannot be moved from the first monitors left screen edge is extremely annoying. But it has a lot of potential and deserves a little more appreciation than the bashing by people here who obviously haven't tried Unity, but nevertheless have string opinions about it.

Absolutely true! I am maintaining a C++ project done by a guy who loved MI and operator overloading and his code is incredibly difficult to understand and debug. I program both in C++ and Java and use delegates in both.

A browser is only as secure as the most insecure plug-in it allows to be installed.

If I copy it into my sig, am I allowed to correct the grammar first?

He would only be lying if he either said he isn't a terrorist and you can prove that he is, or if he said he is a terrorist and you prove that he isn't. So, assuming he said that he isn't a terrorist you would still have to prove that he is in order to prove that he is lying. So you have no point here.