
Seven Minutes in Ubuntu: A Mac user's first impressions - parkov
http://thomaspark.me/2011/10/seven-minutes-in-ubuntu/
======
chimeracoder
First: This is really a review of Unity, not Ubuntu. The main ways that
Ubuntu/Linux differ from OS X have nothing to do with the UI, but rather the
underlying system.

That said, I'm glad to see that somebody likes Unity. Ubuntu's switch to Unity
is one of the reasons that I left Ubuntu for another distro.

It seems like Canonical is targeting its product more towards people like the
author of this post, in which case it seems that their strategy may be
working.

~~~
fl3tch
Those of us who have been using Gnome 2 for years have already streamlined and
optimized our work flow in that environment. Whenever the UI changes, it
breaks existing patterns of behavior that we usually don't even think about
anymore. That's why people don't like change: it makes them less productive,
at least temporarily as they streamline a new work flow. People didn't like
the MS Office ribbon interface, the KDE 4 interface, etc., either. Even when
Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side, I found myself
automatically and subconsciously moving the pointer to the right and clicking
on an empty space, which was wasted effort and time, until I relearned that
behavior.

People who haven't used Linux / Gnome before don't have those expectations and
optimizations, so it's not surprising that they will have a more positive view
of Unity. Also, Canonical _is_ trying to make Unity emulate OS X to some
extent, so the interface meets some expectations of Mac users. They will
probably respond more positively.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side...

One of the first things I did when I upgraded to 10.04 was to move the window
controls back to the right side.

[http://quandyfactory.com/blog/59/ubuntu_1004_first_thoughts#...](http://quandyfactory.com/blog/59/ubuntu_1004_first_thoughts#toc_4)

------
bdhe
The point about angle of escape was really interesting. However, my google fu
failed me. The only relevant link mentioning angle of escape leads back to
this post. Is there someone who can give me more information about this? (Or a
more technical term, if the author uses the term colloquially).

Once again, UI design never fails to fascinate me. The first concrete reason I
ever came across that explained the superiority of the Mac user interface was
the application of Fitt's law to the menu items. This looks like another solid
point in favor of the Mac.

~~~
epistasis
I don't think a proper term has ever been used before now. There was a lot of
thought put into the angle of escape when accessing sub-menus in the pull down
menus. See the answer to "Question 6" in the link below. If anybody know the
proper term, Tog would, and he doesn't appear to know of one.

<http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html>

~~~
stewbrew
I guess all those experts citing Fitts' Law have to find a new toy when
touchscreens get the predominant means to interact with the UI.

~~~
ugh
I’m curious why you seem to think that Fitt’s law doesn’t apply to touch
interfaces. Sure, certain concepts can’t be translated 1:1 (like infinite
sized targets at screen edges) but even those have somewhat similar
counterparts in touch interfaces (screen edges are also special places with
larger targets in touch interfaces).

~~~
decklin
How are screen edges no longer infinite? If I ask you to tap something and
drag it off an edge of the screen, you don't have to aim.

~~~
ugh
Your finger won’t be stopped by the screen edge.

------
notatoad
the good news:

\- in oneiric, the global menu bar is contiguously either clickable or not-
clickable: when you hover over it, only clickable items are displayed.

\- immediately after install, the new software centre displays a button to
launch that application, you don't have to browse the list anymore. also, the
list of installed applications is now sorted into relevant categories rather
than filled up with system packages.

\- the 'updates are available' message in oneiric's system menu makes it much
more clear how to get updates, but i don't think it's really possible to teach
ubuntu's package-management update paradigm through UI. it's not something new
windows or mac converts will ever get immediately.

~~~
technomancy
Indeed, it's a shame that he chose to review 11.04 nearly a week before 11.10
will be released.

~~~
andrewl-hn
He needed a version of Linux to get the job done so he chose a distro and
downloaded the latest stable version. I can't see anything wrong with that. I
wouldn't expect a casual user (even a programmer) to be aware of Ubuntu
release schedule.

------
vacri
"Bad: Firefox 4 instead of the up-to-date Firefox 7!"

Official releases:

\- Ubuntu 11.04: 28 April 2011

\- Firefox 5: 21 June 2011

\- Firefox 7: 27 September 2011 (5 days ago)

Yes, that's a valid criticism: I used a 6-month-old official installer and
didn't get last month's software without doing any form of update whatsoever!
Clearly a failing of ubuntu!

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I think the author has a point: it would be nice if Firefox advised the user
that a newer version is available (or, alternately, simply upgraded silently a
la Chrome).

I've been a Ubuntu user for a few years now, and it generally ranges from
cumbersome to downright difficult to upgrade to the newest Firefox version.
There's a reason hacks like Ubuntuzilla exist.

~~~
vacri
If you give it longer than 7 minutes, Ubuntu will prompt you to update - not
just firefox, but a whole range of things. Firefox is just another part of the
system, and doesn't really have any reason to update RIGHT NOW! as opposed to
once a day when the usual updates come through.

In any case, if you're the kind of person that knows what _actual features_
you will gain from FF7 over FF4 (other than just "sweet, a higher numbah"),
you're a power user and should know better than to make the complaint he did -
you should be able to do the extremely mild googling required on your _new,
unfamiliar OS_ to make it happen.

On another tangent, this kind of comment in the article is one of the big
problems with FF deciding to do away with minor numbers and make every release
a major number. "But FF 4.0 is so old, we're up to _7.0_ now!! Bad!!" when it
was the current release a mere 103 days ago.

------
ch0wn
I got the Firefox 7.0 update through the regular update channels a few days
after it was on the Mozilla FTP servers. So actually, the update was even
before the official release. I have no idea why there was no update available
for OP.

~~~
drivebyacct2
No kidding. It made me sad to see my favorite Linux/package management feature
(misused?) slighted especially when it did in fact work quite smoothly.

------
dhughes
I recently (about two weeks ago) bought my first Apple ever, a Macbook Pro.

It took forever to find out function+backspace=real backspace not delete

Everything seems to be arranged around single clicks any right-clicking seems
alien on a Mac.

It's very glossy and cartoons but you can tell the hardware and OS were made
hand-in-hand or at least work very well with each other.

It's pretty but annoying at times it's has a hint of like Linux, I opened
Terminal to feel at home, but it's like Linux out at its grandmothers on it's
best behaviour.

I wouldn't say either is better than the other but different for sure although
like I said very similar way more so than Windows and Linux or Mac and
Windows.

Now if only I could stop that creepy "killer clowns on acid in a dark alley"
start-up sound.

~~~
pnathan
Welcome to the hivemind. :-)

I have grown very accustomed to the control-click motion for 'right' clicking.
I don't think right-clicking is very alien, at least in the programs I use.

Best of happiness in your new Mac!

~~~
tomcreighton
Are you using a one-button mouse, or no mouse whatsoever? OS X is pretty
right-click friendly out of the box.

~~~
pnathan
No mouse. Laptop.

Occasionally I plug in a two-button mouse, but that's limited to fairly
specific occasions when I'm actually mousing around. Most of the time I am
either scrolling or keyboarding.

~~~
ericd
Two fingers on the mousepad+click make right clicking pretty easy.
Alternately, you can make clicking on the bottom right of the trackpad into a
right click. The trackpad prefpane gives you a pretty good array of options to
customize its behavior.

~~~
dhughes
Yes I've discovered two fingers=right-click so now it's not so bad although I
really miss middle clicking links to open them in a new tab instead of
command+T or right-click (Apple Magic Mouse) then select open in a new tab.

It's like I tell people new to Linux that it's not Windows don't expect it to
be like that so I should be telling myself Apple isn't like Linux even though
they appear similar.

The applications seem to be made with single clicking in mind which would make
sense considering Apple's fondness for single button mouses/mice and
trackpads.

Overall the experience so far has been enjoyable, it's nice to learn new
things.

~~~
edd
"I really miss middle clicking links to open them in a new tab"

Hold down CMD while clicking (or the Apple Key as its popularly known).

~~~
dhughes
Sweet!

------
cpeterso
Why does the Unity menu bar's _File_ menu truncate the application name to
_"Firefox V"_? Mac OS X shifts the menu bar to the right for applications with
long names.

I'm assuming "Firefox V" was something like "Firefox Version 4", which isn't
an unusually long name (especially for such a popular application and one that
is a default application for Ubuntu). They shouldn't even include the version
number in the application name. Joe User doesn't care.

~~~
windsurfer
_Why does the Unity menu bar's File menu truncate the application name to
"Firefox V"? Mac OS X shifts the menu bar to the right for applications with
long names._

The author's screenshot hides the fact that the menu bar is hidden when the
mouse is not over the top bar. When your mouse is elsewhere, the entire
window's name (In my case "Hacker news | Add Comment - Mozilla Firefox") takes
up the top bar.

------
DanBC
About the un-clickable program name in the menu bar. I agree that it'd be
nice, like OS X, to have that as a menu. OS X, or probably Apple, forces
control over what items go into different menus. Linux is a lot more free. So,
a "preferences" menu item could go in 'file' or 'edit' or 'view' or 'tools';
or maybe only some of the preferences are there and the rest are in a config
file. It took me some getting used to.

~~~
masklinn
> OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different
> menus.

No, not in the least.

It's technically possible (indeed, trivial using Interface Builder) to remove
all these menus (the application menu is probably the only one whose removal
may lead to your application crashing), and move or remove just about all of
their content. Neither OSX nor Apple forces anything (at least outside the
AppStore, I do not know if there are imposed standards _there_ ).

On the other hand:

1\. Apple provides extensive application templates in IB, they're generally
used unless there's a good reason not to

2\. Apple publishes extensive Human Interface Guidelines, the latest revision
of the "OSX Human Interface Guidelines" document (2011-07-26) is 276 pages (a
low actually, in 2009 it was more than 350 pages), as a PDF it weighs 26MB.
And much like the IB templates, it is followed unless there's a reason not to

3\. _users_ care about consistency, when guidelines are broken for no good
reason _users_ will generally make their displeasure known. And because OSX
has a thriving "indie" development scene (paid, low-cost software by very
small teams) this generates an environment where interface care and
consistency is taken pretty seriously.

~~~
DanBC
Yes, I agree. My post was worded very poorly. Thank you for the corrections! I
didn't realise that Apple didn't force the HIG. I do enjoy the care and
thoughtful interface decisions.

~~~
rahoulb
It's not that Apple don't force the HIG. But if you break them you need to
have a good reason as your users expect you to follow the HIG.

------
jvc26
I found it interesting 'I got my hands on a PC to use as a web server (thanks
Andrea!). Before I could get started on it though, I needed an operating
system to install' ... but the version installed was Ubuntu Desktop, rather
than Server ...?

~~~
sp332
The server version is not very "user-friendly" - it doesn't even have X
installed. They both have access to the same set of packages to install
afterwards. So it's a lot easier to start with the Desktop version and then
add some of the "server" packages, than it would be to start with the server
version and install X, Unity, etc. afterward.

~~~
keithpeter
Many people use servers without X and with a configuration that emphasises
server tasks and security. They tend to access the server using ssh or other
remote protocols. The choice of a graphical distribution did strike me as a
little odd, as did the choice of a distribution with a support life measured
in months.

But, linux is about choice!

~~~
SkyMarshal
Heh, author is brand new to Linux, may not even be aware there is a such thing
as GUI-less server OSes.

Give him a year and he'll be running a dev box with minimal Arch + Xmonad base
and multiple Ubuntu Servers in KVM.

~~~
starwed
You're wrong about that.

> _... these impressions come from someone who’s used mostly Windows at work
> and Mac at home. Sure, there’s a sprinkling of Solaris, IRIX, and Linux
> mixed in there, but I’ve never used Ubuntu, haven’t used any distribution of
> Linux in quite some time ..._

The author seems to be using it to prototype a research project as quickly as
possible.

------
capkutay
I'm also a long time mac user, running the new Ubuntu on my desktop. Couldn't
be happier with it, the UI is clean and user friendly. Feels like I'm using a
slightly modified version of OS X. Apt-get can be useful at times...always
sure to do my large-scale projects on Ubuntu.

------
EGreg
I just wanted to correct something about Fitts' Law.

The article talks about how big the angle is, but this is not very relevant.
In fact, if you throw the mouse in the upper right direction, it will hit the
top right corner no matter which edge it hits first. Thus you actually can hit
the corner spots without even aiming in a particular square.

Try this on a mac: throw your pointer into the top left or top right corners,
and press the button. You WILL open the menu, even though it may not have been
obvious that you would -- the highlighted region around the icon does not
extend to the edge. So in fact, it's ok to make them smaller.

~~~
randallsquared
_The article talks about how big the angle is, but this is not very relevant._

That's not what he means. The "angle of escape" referred to is the angle at
which you can move your mouse _out_ of the target icon to a menu item after
the menu is open. If you go too far horizontally first, the menu will close in
favor of a different menu.

~~~
EGreg
aha, got it.

------
macspoofing
I dunno. Windows 7 and Mac OSX kinda make Gnome look dated.

------
miles_matthias
Nice post. I'm surprised you didn't talk about it's new 7-like dock. What
programs did you use to do that highlighting?

~~~
cpeterso
What's a "7-like dock"?

~~~
lazugod
Similar to Windows 7, I assume.

------
vasco
"My greatest concern was that I’d have to do a lot of installing and
configuring before I could get anything meaningful done. All I wanted was a
standard setup, and to not derail focus from my work."

And yet he had the time to document the whole experience at the same time?

