

Ubuntu introduces new theme and branding - jasonlbaptiste
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/ubuntu-dumps-the-brown-introduces-new-theme.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

======
dasil003
_Not emulate, but blow right past Apple in the user experience we deliver to
our end users_

You gotta admire the guy's ambition.

~~~
jasonlotito
Damn right. And considering everything he's accomplished, I think he has the
right to be. =)

~~~
dasil003
I don't think ambition is something you have to earn, more power to him.

However considering the cat-herding involved in creating great user
experiences from the top down, and considering how much Apple pays its
engineers and designers, if he pulls this off he's 100 times the leader Steve
Jobs is.

~~~
rbanffy
What they have earned is the right to brag.

Apple has a Unix that's very polished and usable, but is not that much Unix-
ish if what you need is a traditional X desktop.

And OSX lacks package management.

~~~
randallsquared
Package management is really useful for servers, or other systems where
there's a bunch of dependencies. Desktop apps hardly need it, and OSX apps in
particular don't need it. The combination of the drag-to-applications-folder
installing and checking for new updates to the app when you launch it solves
the vast majority of this problem for the vast majority of users.

~~~
arohner
You're absolutely right, but as a developer, package management makes a
significantly more pleasant experience.

I also really hate how every OSX app has it's own way of doing updates. Even
if the OSX makes desktop apps not need dependencies, it would be really nice
if I only had one 'update' button to push. As it is, 5 different things want
to update practically every day.

~~~
rbanffy
> it would be really nice if I only had one 'update' button to push.

No. If you are asking for updates and fixes, you are doing it wrong. It should
be automated, because you shouldn't have to bother to remember pressing a
button. I set up my mother with a Linux box and sure as hell I don't count on
her pressing buttons without some prompting.

> As it is, 5 different things want to update practically every day.

If you have a defective library that's bundled in five apps and needs fixing,
you will have five upgrades instead of one. And, possibly, an OS update and a
reboot.

But only if you are lucky and the publishers of the five programs are paying
attention. Most likely, you will end up with five different bugs scattered
throughout your system with many different libraries that really should be
just one.

~~~
randallsquared
"Most likely, you will end up with five different bugs scattered throughout
your system with many different libraries that really should be just one."

Actually, I prefer the five. When you have a shared library, and bugs are
fixed, applications that use the library might well break. Shared libraries
mean that either applications are at risk of completely failing to work, or
that the library developers have to flag the bugfix as a new version to avoid
that. Either way, incompatible bugfixes require application updates anyway, so
you might as well avoid the breakage and use static libraries.

It seems to me that the only good non-mirage reason for shared libraries was
disk space usage, and that's just not a problem any more. Down with shared
libraries and dependency hell, I say! ;)

~~~
duairc
With a proper package manager, applications won't break with the ugprade of a
shared library, because their dependencies will be such that the new shared
library will conflict with the application (or, what usually happens, a new
build of the application against that shared library is uploaded to the
repository at the same time as the library). Sometimes the packaging of a
program has bugs in it though, so the situation you describe sometimes
happens, but I've only ever seen it happen when I'm installing random Ubuntu
packages in my Debian install though.

So, yes, while you're right that shared libraries can sometimes cause the
problems you describe, a good package manager will pretty much fix them. But
what I love the most about Linux though is that if something bad like that
happens (like the ABI of a shared library changing)... it's a minor
inconvenience, but so what?

    
    
        apt-get source $package
        cd $package-$version
        apt-get build-dep $package
        dpkg-buildpackage
        cd ..
        dpkg -i *.deb
    

And bam, you just rebuild the program against the new shared library with the
different ABI, and everything works. Obviously this isn't "user friendly", but
then again I never had to do this before I started mixing packages from
different OSes together. And isn't it so easy to do! You can just do that for
any program in on your whole computer! "Hmmm, I wonder how this program
works", and one command later you have its source code! Another command later
and you've built all of that code, into a nice Debian package too. It's so
wonderful to have such a powerful package manager.

~~~
randallsquared
It used to be really easy to junk a Debian system by installing random apps to
try them and then uninstalling them. Even with more modern Debian-based
systems like Ubuntu, installing and then uninstalling something (say, kubuntu-
desktop, to pick an example that happened to me recently) does not leave your
system in the same state it was before you started. Instead, you get (to a GUI
user) bizarre random configuration changes, and programs that worked may now
not work (or vice versa!).

Basically, as someone who switched back to Linux from Mac recently, Synaptic
and the Software Center (and why there are two tools that show different-but-
overlapping package sets is another WTF) are full of surprises and why-did-
THAT-change?! moments.

~~~
rbanffy
> It used to be really easy to junk a Debian system by installing random apps
> to try them

Oh.. The 90's...

Seriously: I moved to Debian-based distros in 2002 and never experienced
anything like what you describe. And mind you I ran testing with packages from
sid directly for a couple years.

~~~
randallsquared
Before switching to Ubuntu late last year, the last time I'd used Debian on
the desktop was around 2000, so it's true that my experiences with Debian are
mostly 90s-era. However, it's _still_ the case with Ubuntu that it's common to
install something, try it, and then be unable to get things back to the way
they were before (mostly speaking of desktops, WMs, and themes, here). It's
not uncommon to allow Update Manager to update things and then find that
programs that were working fine suddenly don't work. This happened to me just
in the last month with Wine, and happened a while before that with PulseAudio.

I have the patience and time to spend a day changing my config until things
work again, but it's certainly a ways behind both Mac and Windows in this
area. Additionally (while I'm venting), Ubuntu trains you out of reporting
bugs because if you actually reported a bug whenever things went wrong, it
would be a part-time job. I actually had fewer update problems with Gentoo ca
2003, though at the time I had things to get done and just wanted stuff to
work, whereas now that that I don't depend on my home system to make money, I
find fixing the problems fun. :)

------
notaddicted
"Ubuntu dumps the brown" is a particularly bad pun.

~~~
nailer
It's not actually a pun, but an an unfortunate visualization.

But perhaps I'm just being anal.

------
jasonlbaptiste
Why are there no OEMs making strictly ubuntu machines? There's System76, but
they're too complicated (20 different choices). Go look at hardware partners
and there are no north american system builders! That's what Ubuntu is
missing. Guys like us will install it, but if they want to be adopted by
normal people it has to come with the system. You'll never get a strong
commitment from big guys like DELL. They're too worried about pissing off
MSFT.

I'll tell ya, Ubuntu Netbook Edition is the best interface for "simple
computing" out there. It's like an iPhone for your desktop computer. I almost
want to do a live test where I sit people down with windows 7 and Ubuntu
Netbook Edition. I bet you Ubuntu Netbook Edition will win almost every time.

~~~
jonknee
Support cost is the only thing I can think of. And pressure from MS. I looked
just today for an Ubuntu laptop and ran into the exact issue you describe.
Dell has Ubuntu on two netbooks, but that's it. Not that I can't install on my
own, but I don't want to pay for Windows if I'm not going to use it (and
knowing all the hardware is supported is a nice plus).

~~~
bugs
Sadly you get a discount from windows on most machines... same specs but the
windows equivalent is usually cheaper.

~~~
rbanffy
The OEM license is paid in full by the adware/crapware that comes installed
over it.

One more reason to uninstall Windows (besides Windows)

~~~
rsheridan6
I don't see why they can't install crapware on Linux, cut out MS, and cut
prices for customers while keeping a bigger cut for themselves.

~~~
rbanffy
They could, but that could, perhaps, increase the OEM license prices for that
manufacturer.

Microsoft doesn't take being cut out lightly.

------
pluc
Original article: <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Brand>

Not sure why neither sources or HN links to it.

------
nearestneighbor
Am I the only one who thinks that at the GUI level Ubuntu is better than OS X?
(I use Snow Leopard and Ubuntu 8.04 extensively)

~~~
carbon8
Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface:
having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and
wasteful of screen space.

~~~
rbanffy
OSX's biggest downside is having a fixed region of the screen that changes
according to the context of the selected window on the desktop. That makes it
impossible to check what two windows can do or even what program is
responsible for them until they are selected. That's terribly inelegant
solution that separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus
that act on that data (the menu).

Admit it. That's a draw.

~~~
carbon8
_"what program is responsible for them"_

This is handled by title bars in Gnome, OS X and Windows, not window menu
bars.

 _"separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on
that data"_

The menus don't just act on what's in the window. At least some menu items act
on the application itself.

In a multiple document interface with a system that ties menus to windows, the
menu of one window acts on multiple other windows. The other windows are
either sub windows shoved inside the main window or they are windows floating
independently from the window with the menu, which means you need to return
focus to the main window to use the menu.

In a single document interfaces, the same menu, application controls and all,
is repeated on each individual window.

Furthermore, in both of those cases, once you close the window with the menu
bar, you no longer have access to any controls for the application, which is
why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without at least
one window open.

~~~
rbanffy
> which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without
> at least one window open.

As opposed to "application buildup" MacOS users experience since the OS7 days,
when they are on a clean desktop and five applications running for no
particular reason.

------
Dobbs
I just installed Xubuntu on a new laptop. I was blown away at how beautiful it
looks in comparison with Ubuntu. I'm very glad to see Ubuntu get over it's
fetish for its old ugly color scheme.

~~~
revorad
Xubuntu is beautiful and _fast_. I like it much better than Ubuntu.

~~~
cookiecaper
It's the same thing with XFCE as the default window manager.

~~~
flubba
Thank you captain obvious

~~~
cookiecaper
Well, saying "I like Xubuntu better than Ubuntu" kind of makes it seem like he
thinks they're different. Xubuntu is just the name of the spin that comes with
XFCE by default. If you're using Ubuntu or Xubuntu, you're still using Ubuntu.

The right comparison here would be, "I like Ubuntu's XFCE theme much better
than their GNOME theme", or whatever the specific case is. Maybe he likes XFCE
better altogether, and then it's "I like XFCE more than GNOME".

See what I am saying here?

~~~
flubba
Yep, my bad >.<

------
phatbyte
I still think that this new design feels more like a theme than a default GUI
of a OS (or DM in this case).

While I love Linux and I use it everyday, mostly as a server, everytime I
enter in the desktop interface I do not feel the "home sweet home" I do on a
OS X or Windows.

Linux DM are not comfortable, specially when you have KDE apps mixed with
Gnome Apps and there's that mix of different gui + usability styles.

I've said this once, and I will say it again (running the risk of serious
bashing): Linux should concentrate in only one DM and improve it.

------
anr
Window controls (max, min, close) on the right of the window title?? I hope
they switch them back to the left.

EDIT: my mistake, I meant, why switch to the left?

~~~
viraptor
They've found a new way to make your corners and menus more dangerous. It's
not just a classic "turn off" button in the top right. Now you get a "close
window" button just below "programs" and above "file menu" for free!

------
patrickk
I'd like to see Ubuntu taking a really radical approach and giving the user a
choice of more non-traditional desktop options such as these custom desktops,
courtesy of lifehacker:

[http://lifehacker.com/5043712/roll-your-own-lightning-at-
sun...](http://lifehacker.com/5043712/roll-your-own-lightning-at-sunset-
desktop)

[http://lifehacker.com/5087956/customize-your-own-killer-
enig...](http://lifehacker.com/5087956/customize-your-own-killer-enigma-
desktop)

UI looks set to change radically over the next few years, it would be cool if
they looked at the multitouch route:

[http://gizmodo.com/5457472/how-the-apple-tablet-interface-
co...](http://gizmodo.com/5457472/how-the-apple-tablet-interface-could-and-
should-work)

It can't exactly hurt Ubuntu's market share to really look at exploring the
possibilities (sorry couldn't resist). Apple (naturally) and even Microsoft
are really upping their game on the UI front and there's the danger of Ubuntu
being left even further behind.

------
tjic
> After six years it was time to refresh the face of Ubuntu starting with the
> word mark

Yeah, that's a core principal of branding - as soon as the customers are
familiar with your logo, change it.

Someone tell Apple, IBM, and Coca-Cola.

~~~
ktf
The Apple logo has changed at least 2 or 3 times.

And the Ubuntu change isn't drastic enough that people will stop recognizing
it.

------
ThomPete
"Not emulate, but blow right past Apple in the user experience we deliver to
our end users"

I fail to see how that by any metrics are related to the new theme and
branding efforts.

The user experience is not defined by the look and feel but by so many other
factors. It would be interesting if they had actually better ways to deal with
certain metaphors such as file browsing.

But as it stands right now although I love what Ubuntu are doing they are a
long long long way from being anything close to Apple standards.

------
volomike
Purple and /brown/? Really? Did they have to go there? That's uuuuuugly. Blue
and green. Red and black. Purple and black. But Purple and brown? That's a
harsh color transition, if I don't recall. What's next? The Hot Dog theme for
Ubuntu?

BTW, I'm a huge Ubuntu fan. But man, purple and brown? Geesh!

------
niels_olson
To nit-pick . . . let me repeat . . . to N I T P I C K, I reaallly think the
window buttons need to be toned down. That one red button looks sends the
whole thing back to something out of KDE 2 (no disrespect to the KDE, I run a
KDE 4.3 desktop, it's more of a 90s-still-learning-how-to-design-desktops
thing)

------
klozetgeek
Better than the brown.

------
motters
Pink is the new brown.

------
mcantor
Ubuntu: Now with grape flavor!

~~~
cmanfu
more like purple drank

